Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

December 18, 2018, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California; May 2, 2019, Filed

No. 17-16096

Case Summary

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-In Dynamex, a decision postdating the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, the California Supreme Court adopted the so-called "ABC test" for determining whether workers were independent contractors or employees under California wage order laws; [2]-Given the strong presumption of retroactivity, the emphasis in Dynamex on its holding as a clarification rather than as a departure from established law, and the lack of any indication that California courts were likely to hold that Dynamex applied only prospectively, the court held that it applied retroactively and thus, vacated the judgment of the district court; [3]-Applying Dynamex retroactively was consistent with due process and neither arbitrary nor irrational; [4]-.Franchise context of this case did not alter the Dynamex analysis.

Outcome

The judgment of the district court granting summary judgment for the defendant was vacated and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

LexisNexis® Headnotes

 

 

Civil Procedure > ... > Preclusion of Judgments > Estoppel > Collateral Estoppel

Civil Procedure > Judgments > Preclusion of Judgments > Res Judicata

HN1  Collateral Estoppel

The term "res judicata" traditionally referred to claim preclusion while issue preclusion was called "collateral estoppel." However, modern opinions have used "res judicata" to refer to both forms of preclusion.

 

Civil Procedure > ... > Federal & State Interrelationships > Federal Common Law > Applicability

Civil Procedure > Judgments > Preclusion of Judgments > Res Judicata

Civil Procedure > ... > Preclusion of Judgments > Estoppel > Collateral Estoppel

Civil Procedure > Preliminary Considerations > Jurisdiction > Diversity Jurisdiction

HN2  Applicability

The preclusive effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law. Where the allegedly preclusive decision was a diversity action, federal common law requires a court to apply the law that would be applied by state courts in the state in which the federal diversity court sits.

 

Evidence > Burdens of Proof > Allocation

Civil Procedure > ... > Preclusion of Judgments > Estoppel > Collateral Estoppel

Civil Procedure > Judgments > Preclusion of Judgments > Res Judicata

HN3  Allocation

For an earlier adjudication to have preclusive effect, whether on a claim preclusion or issue preclusion theory, Massachusetts requires, among other criteria, that the adjudication be a final judgment on the merits, and that the precluded party was either a party in the first action or in privity with a party. Because res judicata is an affirmative defense, the burden is on the party asserting it to demonstrate that it applies.

Access the full text caseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

923 F.3d 575 ; 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13237 

GERARDO VAZQUEZ, GLORIA ROMAN, and JUAN AGUILAR, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Subsequent History: Rehearing granted by, Opinion withdrawn by Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21687 (9th Cir., July 22, 2019)

Rehearing, en banc, denied by, As moot, Without prejudice Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23257 (9th Cir. Cal., Aug. 2, 2019)

Prior History:  [1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05961-WHA. William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding.

Roman v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79967 (N.D. Cal., May 24, 2017)