February 21, 2025|Publications
February 21, 2025 | California Court of Appeal, Fifth District | Unpublished Opinion
Executive Summary
In an unpublished opinion, Justice Snauffer of the California Court of Appeal, Fifth District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of Sensient Natural Ingredients LLC. Plaintiff Monique Kelley brought a class action alleging wage and hour violations during her brief assignment at Sensient through staffing agency Express Services, Inc. Sensient argued that Kelley’s claims were barred by a federal class settlement involving Express, which covered Express, its “client employers,” and “joint employers.” Kelley had not opted out of that settlement. The Court of Appeal agreed that Sensient qualified as both a joint employer and a client employer and that Kelley’s claims were precluded. The judgment dismissing Kelley’s complaint was therefore affirmed.
Relevant Background
Kelley worked at Sensient for five days in 2017 after being placed there by staffing agency Express Services. She alleged Sensient failed to pay overtime, provide meal and rest breaks, issue accurate wage statements, reimburse expenses (such as boots), and timely pay wages. In March 2020, she filed a class action against Sensient asserting these wage and hour violations and unfair competition under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200).
Meanwhile, Express had already settled a separate class action, Stoddart v. Express Services, in federal court. The Express settlement released claims against Express and “any entity deemed a statutory employer or joint employer (under any legal theory of joint employment)” as well as “entities deemed client employers.” It covered “all wage and hour claims…of any nature or description,” including overtime, meal and rest period violations, inaccurate records, improper wage statements, late wages, unfair competition, and PAGA penalties. The settlement also applied to “all claims alleged or which could have been alleged,” whether “known or unknown.” Kelley was a member of that settlement class and did not opt out.
Sensient moved for summary judgment, arguing Kelley’s claims were barred by the Express settlement because it was both a client employer and a joint employer under the settlement’s definitions. Sensient’s evidence included a declaration that it was a client of Express and a citation to Kelley’s own complaint, which alleged Sensient was her joint employer. The trial court agreed and entered judgment for Sensient.
Decision
On appeal, Kelley argued the Express settlement did not extend to Sensient and, alternatively, that some of her claims—such as unreimbursed expenses—were not released. The Court rejected both arguments.
First, the Court emphasized that Kelley had alleged in her complaint that Sensient was her joint employer. Those allegations constituted judicial admissions: “A defendant moving for summary judgment may rely on the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s complaint, which constitute judicial admissions. As such they are conclusive concessions of the truth of a matter and have the effect of removing it from the issues.” Castillo v. Barrera, 146 Cal. App. 4th 1317, 1324 (2007).
Because the Express settlement released all claims against “joint employers,” Kelley’s allegation was fatal. As the Court explained, “Kelley is bound by her allegation Sensient was a joint employer”.
Second, the Court concluded that all of Kelley’s claims involved the same “primary right”—the right to proper compensation—and therefore fell within the scope of the Express settlement. Applying California’s “primary rights” doctrine, the Court noted that “one injury gives rise to only one claim for relief,” even if multiple theories of liability are asserted. Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 48 Cal. 4th 788, 798 (2010). The Express settlement covered “all wage and hour claims…including all claims…alleged or which could have been alleged.” Thus, Kelley’s claims for overtime, meal breaks, rest breaks, expense reimbursement, and inaccurate wage statements were all barred.
The Court rejected Kelley’s argument that unreimbursed business expenses were outside the scope of the release, noting that “payment to employees for work uniforms is a part of the employees’ compensation.” In re Work Uniform Cases, 133 Cal. App. 4th 328, 338 (2005). Expense reimbursement therefore fell within the settlement’s coverage of “unpaid costs.”
The Court also observed that “it is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct” and that Kelley had not met her burden to show otherwise. Jameson v. Desta, 5 Cal. 5th 594, 608–09 (2018).
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment and awarded Sensient its costs on appeal.
Looking Forward
The Kelley decision underscores the critical importance of settlement agreement language in class actions. The Express settlement’s expansive release — covering Express, joint employers, and client employers, and extending to all wage-and-hour claims “alleged or which could have been alleged” — was decisive in shutting down Kelley’s lawsuit.
Without this breadth, Sensient could have faced repetitive litigation over the same alleged wage violations already resolved in the Express case. Instead, the settlement language provided finality, preventing what might otherwise have been a serial number of overlapping claims.
For franchisors and employers who rely on staffing agencies, Kelley demonstrates that settlement releases should be drafted to capture related entities and all potential claims arising from the operative facts. Doing so not only resolves the immediate case but also protects against future litigation attempts by class members who do not opt out.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com
