Eduardo P. TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding 18 that under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5(e
• finding that state appellate court had found, in 3 connection with a FEHA claim, that the reason for plaintiff’s termination was nondiscriminatory 4 and that plaintiff was therefore “collaterally estopped from relitigating th[e] issue” in connection 5 with a federal discrimination claim
• finding former county employee’s interests to be in privity with Fair 2 Employment and Housing Commission where Commission authorized to proceed against 3 county on former employee’s behalf
• listing elements of res judicata under California law and explaining that “[p]rivity . . . exists when a person [is] so identified in interest with another that he represents the same legal right” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims seeking reinstatement and back pay were precluded by a state agency’s previous efforts to obtain such relief on his behalf
• “Trujillo’s sections 1981 and 1983 claims both 21 relate to the same ‘primary right’ – the right to be free from employment discrimination based on 22 race or national origin – as his state-adjudicated claim under the FEHA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).