23 Cal. App. 5th 262
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Plaintiffs Andrew and David Castillo were employed and paid by temporary staffing company GCA and performed work on-site at Glenair; Glenair collected, reviewed, and transmitted plaintiffs' time records to GCA for payroll.
- Plaintiffs characterized GCA and Glenair as joint employers and brought a putative class action against Glenair asserting wage-and-hour claims (same claims/time period as a prior class action against GCA).
- Separately, a Gomez class action against GCA reached a court-approved settlement releasing GCA and its agents from the same wage-and-hour claims for the covered period; the Castillos were class members and did not opt out.
- Glenair moved for summary judgment arguing res judicata/claim preclusion barred the Castillos’ suit because Glenair was in privity with, and an agent of, GCA (a released party under Gomez).
- The trial court granted summary judgment; the court of appeal affirmed, holding (1) Glenair and GCA were in privity with respect to the wage/payment subject matter and (2) Glenair was GCA’s agent for timekeeping/payroll transmission, so the Gomez release barred the Castillos’ claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Gomez class settlement precludes the Castillos from suing Glenair (res judicata/claim preclusion) | Castillos: Gomez did not name Glenair or list it as a released party, so res judicata does not bar claims against Glenair | Glenair: Gomez settled identical claims against GCA and released GCA's agents; Glenair is in privity with and was an agent of GCA, so claims are barred | Held: Res judicata applies — Gomez was final, claims are the same, and Glenair is in privity with GCA; claims barred |
| Whether Glenair was an agent of GCA for payroll/timekeeping (making Glenair a released party) | Castillos: No agency — GCA did not control Glenair; relationship was joint employment, not agency | Glenair: Undisputed facts show GCA authorized Glenair to collect/review/transmit time records and Glenair acted on GCA's behalf | Held: Glenair was GCA's agent for collecting/reviewing/transmitting time records; no triable issue on agency; therefore released |
| Whether the trial court improperly considered evidence not in defendant's separate statement ("Golden Rule") | Castillos: Court erred in relying on evidence introduced in opposition rather than in defendant's separate statement | Glenair: Court may consider all admissible papers; trial court has discretion and gave parties opportunity to be heard | Held: No abuse of discretion; court properly considered evidence submitted with the summary judgment papers |
| Whether leave to amend should have been granted to add a section 226 actual-damages claim | Castillos: Statute of limitations bars penalty claim but not an actual-damages claim; should be allowed to amend | Glenair: Claims are precluded by Gomez settlement regardless of form of relief | Held: Court did not reach amendment merits because all claims are barred by Gomez; no reversal on amendment issue |
Key Cases Cited
- DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 61 Cal.4th 813 (Cal. 2015) (defines privity for preclusion: identity/community of interest, adequate representation, and reasonable expectation of being bound)
- Bernhard v. Bank of America, 19 Cal.2d 807 (Cal. 1942) (classic definition of privity but recognizes broader practical approach over time)
- Cal Sierra Development, Inc. v. George Reed, Inc., 14 Cal.App.5th 663 (Cal. Ct. App.) (privity depends on parties’ relationship to the subject matter; shared interest can support claim preclusion)
- Serrano v. Aerotek, Inc., 21 Cal.App.5th 773 (Cal. Ct. App.) (analyzes agency/joint employer issues in staffing-client context; fact- and procedure-specific)
- San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 102 Cal.App.4th 308 (Cal. Ct. App.) (trial court has discretion to consider evidence not in moving party's separate statement and may grant summary judgment if papers show no triable issue)