Monday, June 18, 2018

Is This Charles Guy Privy With Everyone?




This is a Prop. 65 case about whether there needs to be a disclosure about trace amounts of arsenic that appears in some wine. There’s already a disclosure about alcohol. But plaintiffs want a more general disclosure about other bad chemical stuff too. 

The issue is that most of the defendants in the case settled very similar claims in a prior litigation that resulted in a consent decree. The court holds that, for these defendants, the prior case is claim preclusive to this one.

Which seems mostly fine, except that the plaintiffs in this case aren’t the same plaintiffs who brought the the first case. As good should 1Ls know—and the Supreme Court made super duper clear a few years ago—claim preclusion (i.e., res judicata) only works when the same parties, or those in privity with those parties, are in both cases. Now, maybe there’s something about Prop. 65 litigation that makes every plaintiff privy with every other. Perhaps they are all bringing some quitamish thing on behalf of the public? I’m not a Prop. 65 guy, so I don’t know. But one would at least expect some discussion of the point, and there’s not any in the opinion here. So I’m confused.

Affirmed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

That's Not a Debate

Taylor v. Tesla , No. A168333 (D1d4 Aug. 8, 2024) Plaintiffs in this case are also members of a class in a race discrimination class action ...