Plaintiff was a nurse, employed by a staffing company, on temporary assignment to a hospital run by defendant.  Plaintiff brought separate class actions against the staffing company and the hospital for wage and hour violations.  This decision holds that the settlement and dismissal of plaintiff’s suit against the staffing company did not end or preclude her suit against the defendant.  The staffing company’s settlement agreement did not release claims against the company’s clients, like defendant.  Defendant was not an agent of the staffing company or a related or affiliated corporation.  As a joint employer, defendant was independently liable for wage and hour violations, not vicariously liable for the staffing company’s violations.  Defendant was not in privity with the staffing company and so could not assert the judgment in plaintiff’s suit against the staffing company as res judicata (claim preclusion).  That defendant employer had agreed to indemnify the staffing agency (or vice versa) did not create the required privity, nor was the staffing agency an agent of the employer.  The employer was independently, not vicariously, liable for its own wage and hour violations.  Castillo v. Glenair, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 262, which held to the contrary, is disapproved.