Filed 1/18/12

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIASECOND APPELLATE DISTRICTDIVISION THREEDAN BRIDGEFORD et al.,Plaintiffs and Appellants,v.PACIFIC HEALTH CORPORATIONet al.,Defendants and Respondents.B227486(Los Angeles CountySuper. Ct. No. BC437024)APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,Zaven V. Sinanian, Judge. Reversed with directions.Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich, Mark Yablonovich, Neda Roshanian andMichael D. Coats for Plaintiffs and Appellants.Silver & Freedman, Andrew B. Kaplan and Jeffrey W. Mayes for Defendantsand Respondents.

_______________________________________

2Dan Bridgeford and Lucianna Tarin appeal the dismissal of their complaint afterthe sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. They contend the trial courtmisapplied the doctrine of collateral estoppel in holding that their class claims areprecluded, and there is no basis to dismiss their individual claims or their representativeclaims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab.Code, § 2698 et seq.).

With respect to their class claims, we agree with plaintiffs‟

argument; defendants concede that there is no basis to dismiss the individual and PAGAclaims. We follow

Smith v. Bayer Corporation

(2011) __ U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 2368, inholding that the unnamed putative members of a class that was never certified cannot bebound by collateral estoppel. We therefore will reverse the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Present Complaint

Bridgeford and Tarin filed a class action complaint in May 2010 against PacificHealth Corporation; Anaheim General Hospital; Jupiter Bellflower Doctors Hospital;Los Angeles Doctors Hospital Associates, LP; Los Angeles Doctors Partnership, LP;Los Angeles Doctors Corporation; Los Angeles Doctors Hospital; and Tustin Hospitaland Medical Center. Plaintiffs allege that Pacific Health Corporation owns and operateshospitals and exercises control over the daily operations and working conditions of health care facilities operated by the other defendants. They allege that defendants jointly or as an integrated enterprise employed plaintiffs at a worksite known as

All statutory references are to the Labor Code unless stated otherwise.

3Anaheim General Hospital. They allege that Los Angeles Doctors Hospital Associates,LP, and Los Angeles Doctors Corporation both operate under the fictitious businessname Los Angeles Metropolitan Medical Center and that Pacific Health Corporationalso holds itself out as the owner and operator of the same medical center.Plaintiffs allege that defendants committed numerous wage and hour violations.They allege counts for (1) failure to pay wages due upon discharge or resignation(§§ 201, 202); (2) failure to pay regular and overtime wages due semimonthly (§ 204);(3) failure to provide meal breaks (§§ 226.7, 512); (4) failure to provide rest breaks(§ 226.7); (5) failure to provide itemized wage statements (§ 226); (6) failure to payminimum wages for time worked off-the-clock (§ 1194, 1197); (7) failure to payovertime wages (§§ 510, 1194, 1198); and (8) unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code,§ 17200 et seq.).Plaintiffs seek certification as a class action for each count. They also seek statutory penalties under the first through seventh counts and allege those counts asa representative enforcement action under PAGA.2.

Prior Actions

Josephine Larner filed a class action complaint against Pacific HealthCorporation in September 2004 (

Larner v. Pacific Health Foundation

(Super. Ct.L.A. County, No. BC322049) (

Larner

)). The trial court dismissed Pacific HealthCorporation as a defendant in March 2005 and substituted Los Angeles Doctors