Fierro v. Landry's Restaurant Inc.

Summary

Jorge Fierro and others similarly situated sued Landry’s Restaurant Inc. in a class action alleging that Landry’s violated state labor laws and wage orders. Fierro also brought claims on behalf of himself. Landry’s demurred successfully against the class claims arguing that the claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. In sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, the trial court found that a prior class action against Landry’s with identical class claims, Martinez v. Joe’s Crab Shack, was dismissed as untimely under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 583.310 and 583.360. Martinez was on appeal when the trial court entered its judgment. Fierro appeals.
Reversed and remanded. Sections 583.310 and 583.360 together provide that an action that is not brought to trial within five years of the commencement of the action is subject to dismissal. Here, the lower court held that the class claims in Fierro’s action were barred by the sections based on the dismissal of the Martinez action, which the lower court understood as dismissed as untimely under the sections for failure to prosecute. However, the record lacked substantial evidence showing that Martinez was dismissed on those grounds. Further, even in the presence of such evidence, relevant law supports this court’s reversal for two reasons. First, “a judgment dismissing the prior action for want of prosecution is not one upon the merits… and does not bar a subsequent action upon the same cause.” Lord v. Garland. And, “’a judgment that is on appeal is not final for purposes of applying the doctrines of [res judicata and collateral estoppel].’’” Boblitt v.Boblitt. Hence, this court reversed and remanded finding that the lower court erred.
Opinion by Justice Irion.

— Karen Figueroa