Structuring California Attorney General Settlements to Maximize Preclusive Effect on Private Litigants

September 7, 2022

Click on for PDF

Following the settlement of an Legal professional Normal enforcement motion, defendants usually face new and costly personal lawsuits for a similar conduct. These subsequent personal lawsuits usually end in years of extra litigation, authorized charges, and additional financial penalties and damages.  Because of the probability of follow-on fits, we advise purchasers think about taking a number of proactive and strategic steps when structuring a settlement with the California Legal professional Normal with the intention to mitigate the chance of subsequent civil lawsuits and related penalties.

The next strategic issues present a common framework to contemplate in maximizing the potential for barring subsequent lawsuits: (1) taking steps to barter which statute might be used within the criticism accompanying the consent judgment;  (2) together with a broad assertion of details within the settlement settlement and criticism; and (3) structuring and characterizing any settlement cost with a preclusion technique in thoughts.  Although courts in California finally have interaction in a case-specific inquiry as as to if personal litigants’ claims are barred by prior settlement of a authorities motion, all of those components affect the probability of a profitable declare preclusion protection, and have vital underlying strategic benefits.[1]

Statutes Underlying the Authorities Enforcement Motion

The statutes underlying the California Legal professional Normal’s enforcement motion, and recognized within the settlement settlement, impression the probability of success of a future res judicata protection in subsequent personal litigation.  If the statute underlying the Legal professional Normal’s motion supplies a personal proper of motion, subsequent personal litigation redressing particular person harms is unlikely to be barred.  For instance, in CS Wang & Assoc. v. Wells Fargo Financial institution, N.A., the California Legal professional Normal introduced an enforcement motion beneath the California Unfair Competitors Legal guidelines (“UCL”) asserting claims by way of the California Invasion of Privateness Act (“CIPA”).  The federal government motion sought to guard the general public from unfair and dangerous enterprise practices ensuing from Wells Fargo’s alleged failure to reveal the recording of communications with California residents.[2]  Even supposing the enforcement motion sought to redress public hurt, CIPA created a personal proper of motion which allowed a subsequent class motion to maneuver ahead.  The lack to bar the personal litigation hinged on CIPA’s twin enforcement mechanism – the express personal proper of motion inside the statute, and the UCL’s authorization to implement CIPA on behalf of the Folks.[3]

To the extent potential, settling events seeking to maximize the success of precluding subsequent personal fits ought to try to barter with the Legal professional Normal relating to the underlying statutory foundation for the enforcement motion.  As a result of sure statutes permit each personal and public enforcement for a similar conduct, it’s advantageous to specify statutes that don’t include personal rights of motion within the settlement settlement with the intention to embody potential personal plaintiffs’ claims.  Though the personal plaintiff should still try to get well beneath completely different statutes to keep away from a res judicata protection, if the prior authorities motion was primarily based on the identical main proper asserted by the personal celebration, the following swimsuit is extra prone to be precluded.[4]

Broadening the Assertion of Details  

Events also needs to think about together with a broad and complete assertion of details inside the settlement paperwork with the intention to cowl most or all claims underlying the state’s investigation. The extra claims and factual allegations which can be encompassed within the settlement with the federal government, the much less seemingly {that a} personal plaintiff will be capable of justify how their claims are sufficiently distinct from the federal government’s case to resist dismissal.

Illustratively, in Villalobos, the defendant settled everything of an Legal professional Normal enforcement motion that alleged poor office situations and wage violations, agreeing to pay an undisclosed quantity in restitution to cowl all claims associated to the illegal employment practices.  In precluding the following personal litigation, the courtroom famous that the federal government motion and settlement broadly addressed the phrases of employment and work situations that gave rise to the plaintiffs’ new claims, regardless of the dearth of factual specificity within the settlement and authorities criticism.  The expansive protection of the settlement precluded the personal litigants’ lawsuit as a result of the prior motion finally encompassed the plaintiffs’ claims.[5]

This method will not be risk-free even within the context of no-admit settlements.  For instance, a broader statements of details makes public, and places potential follow-on plaintiffs on discover of, extra factual allegations than essential to effectuate the settlement.  These dangers must be weighed towards the price of potential follow-on personal litigation attributable to slender admissions that don’t cowl the personal litigant’s claims.

Paying Restitution quite than Civil Penalties  

In structuring a settlement with the California Legal professional Normal, and in circumstances the place a settlement contains financial cost, it’s typically preferable that the cost be within the type of restitution, quite than civil penalties.  In assessing the preclusive impact of a settlement reached by the state, the courtroom pays explicit consideration to the particular phrases of the settlement and the varieties of aid obtained on behalf of shoppers.  Courts in California take a look at whether or not or not the federal government correctly represented a personal litigant’s pursuits in a previous motion, and in that evaluation courts think about the kind of aid sought by the federal government.[6]  Courts have discovered that in cases the place the Legal professional Normal seeks predominantly injunctive aid and civil penalties, the federal government motion serves a legislation enforcement perform to guard the general public, quite than to vindicate the rights of personal plaintiffs.[7]  In such cases, a res judicata protection fails as a result of the pursuits of the federal government and personal plaintiff differ.[8]

Then again, when a settlement entails paying restitution and the restitution constitutes all or a lot of the financial aid specified within the settlement settlement, courts usually tend to discover an identification of pursuits between the federal government and personal plaintiffs.  Nonetheless, the personal plaintiffs within the subsequent litigation should fall inside the class of restitution recipients as outlined by the federal government motion and settlement.  The settling defendant ought to outline the category of restitution recipients as broadly as potential to embody future personal plaintiffs, risking a larger cost to the federal government however probably precluding future personal lawsuits.  For instance, in Villalobos, the courtroom barred a personal lawsuit following an enforcement motion partly as a result of the Legal professional Normal devoted financial aid solely to restitution and the plaintiffs fell inside the class of recipients.[9]  The federal government recovered restitution on behalf of all Calandri Sonrise Farm staff, and the personal plaintiffs had been eligible for such aid due to their employment at Calandri.  As a result of the federal government completely sought restitution, the courtroom discovered that authorities represented the personal plaintiffs’ pursuits because the Legal professional Normal enforcement motion compensated the plaintiffs for his or her alleged harms.

To the extent potential, a settling defendant ought to negotiate restitution that encompasses potential plaintiffs over different varieties of aid when settling with the Legal professional Normal to optimize the success of a future declare preclusion protection.  The place restitution constitutes a small portion of the general financial settlement, courts are much less prone to discover that the federal government represented the personal litigants’ pursuits, whereas paying out extra in restitution strengthens such a discovering.[10]  Thus, there’s a pressure between the intuition to restrict the settlement quantity and paying out extra to the federal government to bar future claims.  That stated, if civil penalties can’t be averted, a settling defendant ought to be certain that restitution aid is clearly delineated and stays a big a part of the settlement to tip the size towards the federal government representing the personal plaintiff’s pursuits.

Conclusion

With a view to mitigate the potential danger of expensive follow-on litigation after the settlement of an Legal professional Normal enforcement motion, it will be significant for a celebration to contemplate structuring a authorities settlement with an eye fixed towards strategic components that may impression future preclusion arguments.  Participating in negotiations with the Legal professional Normal relating to the statute underlying the federal government’s criticism, structuring the settlement to embody potential personal claims by way of a broad assertion of details, and pushing to pay restitution quite than injunctive aid or civil penalties, all bolster the efficacy of a future res judicata protection.  Although such methods might probably improve the diploma of factual disclosure and supreme payout in settling authorities claims, the power to preclude personal litigation might very will result in total value financial savings in the long run.

________________________

   [1]   The California Legal professional Normal usually carves-out personal litigation and personal rights of motion from the discharge of legal responsibility provision in a settlement.  For instance, in a latest settlement between the California Legal professional Normal and Dermatology Business Inc., the discharge of legal responsibility provision particularly excluded “any legal responsibility which any … Launched Half[y] has or might should particular person shoppers.”  Stipulation for Entry of Last J. and Everlasting Inj., Ex. 1, at 10-11, Folks v. Dermatology Indus., Inc., No. 37-2022-00009826-CU-MC-CTL (Cal. Tremendous. Ct. 2022).  Although this language might go away open the chance for personal follow-on litigation, it isn’t dispositive.  Courts finally assess the declare preclusive impact of a authorities motion by way of a three-part take a look at: whether or not there may be (1) the identical reason for motion; (2) ultimate judgment on the deserves; and (3) privity between the events. Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 48 Cal. 4th 788, 797 (2010).

   [2]   No. 16-C-11223, 2020 WL 5297045, at *6, *9 (N.D. In poor health. Sept. 4, 2020).

   [3]   See id. at *9.

   [4]   See Villalobos v. Calandri Sonrise Farms LP, No. CV 12-2615, 2012 WL 12886832, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2012) (barring a plaintiffs’ lawsuit for asserting accidents already redressed in a previous Legal professional Normal enforcement motion regardless of elevating claims beneath completely different statutes).

   [5]   See id. at *5.

   [6] It could even be useful to incorporate a provision within the settlement to show that the Legal professional Normal offered enough illustration to the residents it presupposed to characterize.  See Taylor v. Sturgell, 128 S. Ct. 2161, 2176 (2008) (“[a] celebration’s illustration of a nonparty is ‘enough’ for preclusion functions provided that, at a minimal: (1) the pursuits of the nonparty and her consultant are aligned, and (2) both the celebration understood herself to be appearing in a consultant capability or the unique courtroom took care to guard the nonparty’s pursuits”).  This may be demonstrated by noting that the Legal professional Normal acquired some preliminary discovery ample to evaluate the adequacy of any proposed aid.

   [7]   See Payne v. Nat’l Assortment Sys. Inc., 91 Cal. App. 4th 1037, 1045 (2001).

   [8]   See Folks v. Pac. Land Rsch. Co., 20 Cal. 3d 10, 17 (1977).

   [9]   2012 WL 12886832, at *2, *7.

  [10]   See id.; cf. CS Wang & Assoc. v. Wells Fargo Financial institution, N.A., No. 16-C-11223, 2020 WL 5297045, at *6 (N.D. In poor health. Sept. 4, 2020) (rejecting cy pres restitution as a sign of privity as a result of it “constituted a small portion” of the general settlement).

The next Gibson Dunn attorneys assisted in getting ready this consumer replace: Winston Chan, Charles Stevens, and Justine Kentla.

Gibson Dunn’s attorneys can be found to help in addressing any questions you could have relating to these developments. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you normally work, the authors, or any of the next members of the agency’s White Collar Protection and Investigations apply group in California:

Los Angeles
Nicola T. Hanna (+1 213-229-7269, nhanna@gibsondunn.com)
Debra Wong Yang (+1 213-229-7472, dwongyang@gibsondunn.com)
Marcellus McRae (+1 213-229-7675, mmcrae@gibsondunn.com)
Michael M. Farhang (+1 213-229-7005, mfarhang@gibsondunn.com)
Douglas Fuchs (+1 213-229-7605, dfuchs@gibsondunn.com)
Eric D. Vandevelde (+1 213-229-7186, evandevelde@gibsondunn.com)

Palo Alto
Benjamin B. Wagner (+1 650-849-5395, bwagner@gibsondunn.com)

San Francisco
Winston Y. Chan (+1 415-393-8362, wchan@gibsondunn.com)
Thad A. Davis (+1 415-393-8251, tadavis@gibsondunn.com)
Charles J. Stevens (+1 415-393-8391, cstevens@gibsondunn.com)
Michael Li-Ming Wong (+1 415-393-8234, mwong@gibsondunn.com)

© 2022 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Legal professional Promoting:  The enclosed supplies have been ready for common informational functions solely and should not meant as authorized recommendation.