By: Phillip J. Ebsworth and Brian B. Gillis
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that PAGA does not apply to public entity employers.
The California Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal and prior appellate court decisions to conclude that the PAGA statute, legislative history, and public policy support the conclusion public entity employers are not subject to
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – Stone v. Alameda Health SystemBy: Phillip J. Ebsworth and Andrew Paley
Seyfarth Synopsis: AB 2288 and SB 92 collectively amount to the most substantive changes ever to be seen to PAGA. The changes include numerous pro-employer provisions which seek to address longstanding concerns such as standing, penalties, and manageability.
On June 21, 2024, AB 2288 and SB 92 were introduced proposing significant reforms to
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – AB 2288 and SB 92
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Second District, following Adolph and not Viking River, confirms that a PAGA plaintiff does not lose standing to pursue a PAGA claim if they “did not file an individual cause of action seeking individual relief.”
In Balderas, the employee alleged that she was “not suing in her individual capacity” but “solely under
By: Phillip J. Ebsworth, Andrew Paley, and Michael Afar
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court addressed the split in appellate authority and held that trial courts do not have the inherent authority to strike a PAGA claim on manageability grounds.
In Estrada, the trial court had dismissed the plaintiff’s PAGA claim following a bench trial, on the
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc.By: Phillip J. Ebsworth and Michael Afar
Seyfarth Synopsis: The first reported PAGA case of 2024 serves as a reminder of the importance of precise language for an enforceable PAGA waiver and the risks of including a “poison pill” provision in a class/representative/PAGA action waiver in arbitration agreements.
In DeMarinis, the First District affirmed the trial court’s denial of
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – DeMarinis v. Heritage Bank of CommerceBy: Bailey K. Bifoss, Andrew M. Paley, and Michael Afar
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff whose individual PAGA claims are compelled to arbitration retains standing to pursue representative PAGA claims in court in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., meaning that their claims may live on way past the first volley.
Wimbledon may be
Continue Reading California Takes the Match with Adolph RulingBy: Phillip J. Ebsworth and Justin T. Curley
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Fourth District joined the Second District in issuing another published decision holding that plaintiffs do not lose representative standing once their individual PAGA claims are compelled to arbitration.
The Court did not provide any guidance on whether the representative claims should be stayed, stating only that, “We leave
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – Nickson v. Shemran, Inc., 90 Cal.App.5th 121 (2023)By: Phillip J. Ebsworth and Justin T. Curley
Seyfarth Synopsis: Another panel from the Second Appellate District issued an opinion, following Galarsa, Piplack, and Gregg, holding that a PAGA plaintiff compelled to individual arbitration retains standing to bring a representative PAGA claim in state court.
The Court did not consider whether the representative claims remaining
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – Seifu v. Lyft, Inc., 89 Cal.App.5th 1129 (2023)By: Phillip J. Ebsworth and Michael Afar
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Second Appellate District entered the fray and, like the Fourth and Fifth Districts in Galarsa and Piplack, held that an individual PAGA representative still maintains standing to pursue non-individual representative PAGA claims in court, even if the individual claims are compelled to arbitration.
In concluding that plaintiffs compelled to
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – Gregg v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 89 Cal.App.5th 786 (2023)By: Phillip J. Ebsworth and Justin T. Curley
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Fourth Appellate District provides further support that plaintiffs do not lose representative standing once their individual PAGA claims are compelled to arbitration. In doing so, it rejected the argument that the language of PAGA requires a plaintiff to be able to maintain both individual and representative PAGA claims in
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – Piplack v. In-N-Out Burgers, 88 Cal.App.5th 1281 (2023)