Office of Administrative Law Judges 50 Fremont Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-6577 (415) 744-6569 (FAX)
Issue Date: 12 March 2003
CASE NO: 2002-STA-28
In the Matter of:
ROBERT E. GERMANN,
Complainant
v.
CALMAT COMPANY,
Respondent
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 11, 2002, I entered an order Granting Motion to Suspend Proceedings in this case. That order held that Respondent was entitled to summary judgment on the ground of collateral estoppel. However, the order found that the summary judgment could not be entered at that time because the California Superior Court judgment, upon which it was based, had not become final. The order held that:
At this point, a summary decision in favor of Respondent cannot be issued, as the California Superior Court judgment must be final before it may be given collateral estoppel effect. However, an administrative proceeding may be suspended pending the outcome of another proceeding initiated by the complainant. The other proceeding must have been "fair, regular, and free of procedural infirmities," it must have "dealt adequately with all factual issues," and its outcome must comport with the purpose and policy of the STAA. 29 C.F.R. § 1978.112(c); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Brock, 830 F.2d 179, 182 (11th Cir. 1987); Brame v. Consolidated Freightways, ALJ No. 1990-STA-00020, HTML at 4 n.3 (Sec'y June 17, 1992).
As discussed, the state trial provided Complainant a more than ample opportunity to litigate the reason for his termination. Accordingly, should the California appellate courts uphold the verdict returned in the superior court, Document: Germann Recon.wpd Created by: DJARVIS on 3/12/03 8:55:38 AM
[Page 2]
Respondent is entitled to judgment of [sic] as a matter of law in the STAA complaint, as no material issue of fact will remain for adjudication. See 29 C.F.R. § 18.40; Stauffer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ARB No. 99-107, ALJ No. 1999-STA-00021, HTML at 6 (ARB Nov. 30, 1999). If the judgment is reversed, this case will be set for hearing.
(Slip Decision at p. 6).
The Order provided that:
1. Further proceedings in the matter of Germann v. CalMat Co., 2002-STA-00028, are suspended until such time as the California appellate courts render a decision in Germann v. Vulcan Materials Co., Appeal No. D039265, California Superior Court No. GIC 73880.
2. Counsel shall inform this Court, within 10 days after the following:
a. The California Court of Appeals or the California Supreme Court issues a decision reversing the judgment of the California Superior Court; or
b. The California Court of Appeals or the California Supreme Court issues a final decision, affirming the judgment of the California Superior Court.
Id.
Thereafter, Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration to which Respondent filed a timely reply.
The Motion for Reconsideration seeks to relitigate all of the issues which were considered and fully discussed in the order. I find and conclude that the Order Granting Motion to Suspend Proceedings is correct and the Motion for Reconsideration should be denied.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Complainant's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
