|
P1494 All members of a class represented in an action to pursue public rights are sufficiently connected with the named plaintiff to be affected by res judicata (i.e., issue preclusion) regarding a judgment entered in the matter; a court-approved settlement acts as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes; injustice would not result from applying res judicata to a second action, based on a court-approved settlement in a prior action under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Health and Safety Code section 25249.5 et seq.), even though in the process of approving the settlement the court permitted the plaintiff in the prior action to amend the complaint to include locations not originally included in that complaint, but included in the second action.CitationCONSUMER ADVOCACY v EXXONMOBIL (Overlapping Contamination) 168 CA4 675 [See: H&SC 25249.5 etseq; Mycogen v Monsanto 28 C4 888, P/AT 9/02; Citizens v Seadrift 60 CA4 1053]
|
|
