Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Castillo v. Glenair, Inc.

Castillo v. Glenair, Inc.

Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two

April 16, 2018, Opinion Filed

B278239

Opinion

 [**848]  LUI, P. J.—In a joint employer arrangement, can a class of workers bring a lawsuit against a staffing company, settle [***8]  that lawsuit, and then bring identical claims against the company where they had been placed to work. We answer no.

This wage and hour putative class action involves the relationship between a temporary staffing company (GCA Services Group, Inc. (GCA)), its employees (appellants Andrew and David Castillo), and its client company (respondent Glenair, Inc.). The Castillos were employed and paid by GCA to perform work onsite at Glenair. Glenair was authorized to and did record, review, and report the Castillos' time records to GCA so that the Castillos could be paid. The Castillos characterize GCA and Glenair as joint employers. As explained below, the undisputed facts of this case demonstrate both that Glenair and GCA are in privity with one another for purposes of the Castillos' wage and hour claims, and that Glenair is an agent of GCA with respect to GCA's payment of wages to its employees who performed services at Glenair.

These findings of privity and agency are significant. While this case was pending, a separate class action brought against, among others, GCA resulted in a final, court-approved settlement agreement. (Gomez v. GCA Production Services, Inc. (Super. Ct. San Bernardino [***9]  County, 2014, No. CIVRS1205657 (Gomez).) The Gomez settlement agreement contains a broad release barring settlement class members from asserting wage and hour claims such as those [*267]  alleged here against GCA and its agents. The Castillos are members of the Gomez settlement class and did not opt out of that settlement.

The Castillos' present claims against Glenair involve the same wage and hour claims, for the same work done, covering the same time period as the claims asserted in Gomez. Thus, because Glenair is in privity with GCA (a defendant in Gomez) and is an agent of GCA, the Gomez settlement bars the Castillos' claims against Glenair as a matter of law.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

23 Cal. App. 5th 262 *; 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 844 **; 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 459 ***

ANDREW CASTILLO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GLENAIR, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

Subsequent History: Time for Granting or Denying Review Extended Castillo v. Glenair Inc., 2018 Cal. LEXIS 5602 (Cal., July 25, 2018)

Review denied by, Request denied by, Request granted Castillo v. Glenair Inc., 2018 Cal. LEXIS 5924 (Cal., Aug. 8, 2018)

Prior History: APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC505602, John Shepard Wiley, Jr. [***1] , Judge.

Castillo v. Glenair, Inc., 22 Cal. App. 5th 348, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 338 (Apr. 16, 2018)

Disposition: Affirmed.

CORE TERMS

privity, trial court, summary judgment, settlement, parties, res judicata, cause of action, undisputed, employees, settlement agreement, wages, meal, time records, joint employer, subject matter, purposes, separate statement, class member, staffing, summary judgment motion, grant summary judgment, briefing, dealings, lawsuit, papers, material fact, preclusion, collected, notice, class action