Facts

A coordinated action against Milgard Manufacturing Inc. (Milgard) included two wage and hour cases. The first case, Stewart v. Milgard Manufacturing (Stewart) set forth a single cause of action for civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The other case, Norma Canez v. Milgard Manufacturing, et al. (Canez), alleged causes of action for failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to pay all wages due within the required time and upon separation of employment, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and violation of the Business and Professions Code. Canez's First Amended Complaint included a single cause of action for Violation of California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The court denied plaintiff Norma Canez's motion to leave to intervene and plaintiff Sydney T. Stewart's motion to approve a settlement by Stewart and Milgard. In January 2021, the court approved a PAGA settlement in Stewart. Defendants Milgard and Masco Corporation moved for summary judgment against Canez's PAGA claim.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended defendants' argument that plaintiff's PAGA claim is barred by res judicata does not apply because the time period in the Stewart settlement is not the same as that in Canez, and that Canez included Labor Code Sections 1174 and 1174.5 claims that were not in Stewart. Plaintiff contended that its claims are not part of the same primary right as the claims in Stewart because Stewart involved issues regarding payment of overtime and meal and rest breaks whereas plaintiff's Labor Code claims related to defendants' failure to maintain accurate records. Plaintiff contended that its Labor Code claims could not have been brought in Stewart because they were not included in the PAGA notice in that case, which was required to deputize Stewart to pursue those claims. Plaintiff contended that the court should refuse to apply res judicata for public policy reasons.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that plaintiff's PAGA claim is barred by res judicata because of the settlement in Stewart. Defendants contended plaintiff's claims prior to the Stewart settlement are time-barred and claims after the settlement are barred by the settlement in Story v. Milgard Manufacturing. Defendants contended that the PAGA claims in the two actions concern the same primary right, thus, the Stewart settlement encompassed all of the claims in Canez. Defendants contended that a PAGA notice is a litigation requirement and had no bearing on what claims could have been asserted based on the facts of Stewart. Defendants contended plaintiff's entire employment is encompassed by the settlement period in Stewart. Defendants contended that plaintiff does not have standing as an aggrieved employee to pursue a PAGA cause of action for the time periods before and after the Stewart settlement because she was not employed by Milgard then.

Result

Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

Other Information

Included Actions: Sydney T. Stewart v. Milgard Manufacturing Inc., et al., Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 18CV339693. Canez v. Milgard Manufacturing, et al., Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC1814387