Bridgeford v. Pac. Health Corp.
| Decision Date | 18 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. B227486.,B227486. |
| Citation | 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 905,202 Cal.App.4th 1034,2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 684,12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 721 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Dan BRIDGEFORD et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PACIFIC HEALTH CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich, Mark Yablonovich, Los Angeles, Neda Roshanian and Michael D. Coats for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Silver & Freedman, Los Angeles, Andrew B. Kaplan and Jeffrey W. Mayes for Defendants and Respondents.
Dan Bridgeford and Lucianna Tarin appeal the dismissal of their complaint after the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. They contend the trial court misapplied the doctrine of collateral estoppel in holding that their class claims are precluded, and there is no basis to dismiss their individual claims or their representative claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab.Code, § 2698 et seq.).1 With respect to their class claims, we agree with plaintiffs' argument; defendants concede that there is no basis to dismiss the individual and PAGA claims. We follow Smith v. Bayer Corporation (2011) ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2368, 180 L.Ed.2d 341, in holding that the unnamed putative members of a class that was never certified cannot be bound by collateral estoppel. We therefore will reverse the judgment.
Bridgeford and Tarin filed a class action complaint in May 2010 against Pacific Health Corporation; Anaheim General Hospital; Jupiter Bellflower Doctors Hospital; Los Angeles Doctors Hospital Associates, LP; Los Angeles Doctors Partnership, LP; Los Angeles Doctors Corporation; Los Angeles Doctors Hospital; and Tustin Hospital and Medical Center. Plaintiffs allege that Pacific Health Corporation owns and operates hospitals and exercises control over the daily operations and working conditions of health care facilities operated by the other defendants. They allege that defendants jointly or as an integrated enterprise employed plaintiffs at a worksite known as Anaheim General Hospital. They allege that Los Angeles Doctors Hospital Associates, LP, and Los Angeles Doctors Corporation both operate under the fictitious business name Los Angeles Metropolitan Medical Center and that Pacific Health Corporation also holds itself out as the owner and operator of the same medical center.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants committed numerous wage and hour violations. They allege counts for (1) failure to pay wages due upon discharge or resignation (§§ 201, 202); (2) failure to pay regular and overtime wages due semimonthly (§ 204); (3) failure to provide meal breaks (§§ 226.7, 512); (4) failure to provide rest breaks (§ 226.7); (5) failure to provide itemized wage statements (§ 226); (6) failure to pay minimum wages for time worked off-the-clock (§ 1194, 1197); (7) failure to pay overtime wages (§§ 510, 1194, 1198); and (8) unfair competition (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.).
Plaintiffs seek certification as a class action for each count. They also seek statutory penalties under the first through seventh counts and allege those counts as a representative enforcement action under PAGA.
Josephine Larner filed a class action complaint against Pacific Health Corporation in September 2004 ( Larner v. Pacific Health Foundation (Super.Ct. L.A.County, No. BC322049) ( Larner )). The trial court dismissed Pacific Health Corporation as a defendant in March 2005 and substituted Los Angeles Doctors Hospital Associates, LP, in its place, pursuant to the parties' stipulation.2 Larner filed a second amended class action complaint in May 2006 alleging counts for (1) failure to pay overtime wages (§§ 510, 1194, 1198); (2) failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked (§ 226); (3) failure to pay wages due upon discharge or resignation (§§ 201, 202); and (4) unfair competition ( Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.).
Larner moved for certification of a class of all nonexempt employees of Los Angeles Metropolitan Medical Center from September 24, 2000, to the present and a subclass of all nonexempt employees of the same defendant from September 24, 2003, to the present.3 The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that the motion was untimely, Larner's claims were atypical of those of other putative class members, and the class definition was overbroad and the class unascertainable. Larner and Los Angeles Doctors Hospital Associates, LP, then settled her individual claims and stipulated to the entry of a defense judgment. The court entered judgment accordingly in July 2007. Larner appealed the judgment, challenging the denial of class certification. The Court of Appeal concluded that the settlement of Larner's individual claims deprived her of any personal interest in the litigation and rendered the appeal moot, and therefore dismissed the appeal. ( Larner v. Los Angeles Doctors Hospital Associates, LP (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1304–1305, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 324.)
Michael C. Ellis and Angela McCrary filed a class action complaint against Pacific Health Corporation in November 2007 ( Ellis v. Pacific Health Corporation (Super.Ct.L.A.County, No. BC380230) ( Ellis )) alleging counts for (1) failure to pay overtime wages (§§ 510, 1194, 1198); (2) failure to pay wages due upon discharge or resignation (§§ 201, 202); (3) failure to pay regular and overtime wages due semimonthly (§ 204); (4) failure to provide meal breaks (§§ 226.7, 512); (5) failure to provide rest breaks (§ 226.7); (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements (§ 226); and (7) unfair competition (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.). The trial court dismissed Pacific Health Corporation as a defendant in January 2008 and substituted Los Angeles Doctors Hospital Associates, LP, in its place, pursuant to the parties' stipulation.4 The court concluded that each count was barred by collateral estoppel and sustained a demurrer without leave to amend.
Susie Brock filed a class action complaint against Anaheim General Hospital and Pacific Health Corporation in November 2007 ( Brock v. Anaheim General Hospital (Super. Ct. Orange County, No. 07CC11994) ( Brock )) alleging counts for (1) failure to pay wages due upon discharge or resignation (§§ 201, 202); (2) failure to pay regular and overtime wages due semimonthly (§ 204); (3) failure to provide meal breaks (§§ 226.7, 512); (4) failure to provide rest breaks (§ 226.7); (5) failure to provide itemized wage statements (§ 226); and (6) unfair competition (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.). The case apparently was settled and dismissed in November 2010.
Defendants demurred to the complaint in the present action, arguing as to each count that plaintiffs were collaterally estopped from seeking class certification because the issue of class certification was decided against plaintiffs by the trial court in Larner, supra, No. BC322049. Defendants also argued that each count failed to state a cause of action against any defendant other than Anaheim General Hospital as plaintiffs' alleged employer. Defendantsalso demurred to all counts other than the sixth count on the grounds of another action pending (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (c)), arguing that Brock, supra, No. 07CC11994, involved the same primary right as this case. Defendants requested judicial notice of several documents, including class action complaints filed in the prior actions. Plaintiffs opposed the demurrer.
The trial court stated in its order sustaining the demurrer that the subclasses alleged here were substantially similar to those for which certification was sought in Larner, supra, No. BC322049, and that the causes of action alleged in this action were the same as those previously alleged in Larner. The court also stated that the trial court in Larner court had rendered a final decision on the merits of “the issue of class certification” and that plaintiffs should not be allowed to litigate as a class action in this case the same causes of action alleged in Larner and additional causes of action against the same defendant and additional defendants. The court stated further that plaintiffs had failed to explain why the additional causes of action could not have been asserted in Larner or how the additional defendants could be potentially liable. The court therefore concluded that collateral estoppel applied and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend to all causes of action as to all defendants. The court entered a signed order of dismissal on September 8, 2010.5 Plaintiffs timely appealed.
Plaintiffs contend the trial court misapplied the doctrine of collateral estoppel in holding that their class claims were precluded, and there was no basis to dismiss their individual claims or their representative claims under PAGA.
A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint. We independently review the sustaining of a demurrer and determine de novo whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense. ( McCall v. PacifiCare of Cal., Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 412, 415, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 271, 21 P.3d 1189.) We assume the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded, and matters of which judicial notice has been taken. ( Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 457, 79 P.3d 569.) We construe the pleading in a reasonable manner and read the allegations in context. ( Ibid.) We must affirm the judgment if the sustaining of a general demurrer was proper on any of the grounds stated in the demurrer, regardless of the trial court's stated reasons. ( Aubry v. Tri–City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 92, 831 P.2d 317.)
Defendants generally...
To continue reading
Request your trial