Yet, the plaintiff's lawyer was undeterred and filed yet another class action in Alvarez v. May Department Stores Co., this one venued in L.A. As with the prior cases, Alvarez challenged the exempt status of assistant managers.
The L.A. Superior Court sustained a demurrer to the complaint. The court held that the class action allegations were barred by the doctrines of "collateral estoppel" aka "issue preclusion." Huh?
Collateral estoppel is a doctrine which prevents relitigation of issues
previously argued and resolved in a prior proceeding. . . . In order to apply this principle: (1) the issue must be identical to that decided in the prior proceeding; (2) the issue must have been actually litigated in the prior proceeding; (3) the issue
must have been necessarily decided in the prior proceeding; (4) the decision must have been final and on the merits; and (5) preclusion must be sought against a person who was a party or in privity with a party to the prior
proceeding.
Ohh.
So, Alvarez's lawyer appealed, arguing that collateral estoppel cannot preclude a later class action. Rather, Alvarez said at oral argument that he could continue to litigation class certification in new lawsuits until it was no longer "economically feasible" to do so.
Well, the Court of Appeal in Alvarez v. May Department Stores decided enough was enough and affirmed the trial court, barring re-litigation of the certification question. So, employers who defeat motions for class certification likely will not have to face endless "me-too" lawsuits on the same issue. It is unclear from this opinion whether collateral estoppel would apply no matter how much time has passed between the old lawsuit and the new one. Stay tuned.
DGV
