Legal Opinion

Bridgeford v. Pacific Health Corp.

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 18, 2012No. B227486PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CROSKEY, J.

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…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Lucido v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Vasquez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Smith v. Bayer Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2011
  5. City of San Jose v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile ServicesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  2. Sanowicz v. BacalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
  3. Van de Kamps Coalition v. Board of Trustees of Los Angeles Community College DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  4. In re Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. Merger LitigationCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 2021
  5. Kalicki v. JPMorgan Chanse Bank CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2015

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API