Seyfarth Synopsis: The Fifth District Court of Appeal reaffirmed its earlier holding in CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court that plaintiffs can bring “headless” PAGA actions—claims seeking civil penalties solely for Labor Code violations suffered by other employees.
In Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC, the Fifth District revisited the permissive language in the pre-reform version of PAGA. Specifically
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLCBy: Phillip J. Ebsworth and Paul J. Leaf
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that under pre-reform PAGA, headless PAGA actions in which plaintiffs seek civil penalties only on behalf of other employees and not for violations they personally experienced are permitted.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal considered the meaning of pre-reform PAGA language stating
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Super. Ct.By: Phillip J. Ebsworth and Jeff A. Nordlander
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Second District Court of Appeal held that, under the pre-reform PAGA statute, an individual employee need not have been employed or experienced a Labor Code violation during the one-year PAGA limitations period to have standing to assert a PAGA claim.
In Osuna, the plaintiff submitted a PAGA notice
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – Osuna v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.By Phillip J. Ebsworth and Clara L. Rademacher
Seyfarth Synopsis: The First District held that a prevailing defendant in a PAGA action may not recover litigation costs from the California Labor Workforce Development Agency when the LWDA did not participate in the litigation.
In Rose v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a former employee at Hobby Lobby, filed a lawsuit
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – Rose v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Seyfarth Synopsis: PAGA claims brought under pre-reform PAGA must be brought within one year of a Labor Code violation experienced by the plaintiff and because a PAGA claim necessarily has both an individual and a non-individual component, failure to do so warrants dismissal.
The Second District affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of a PAGA claim where the PAGA notice and
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, Inc.Seyfarth Synopsis: The Fourth District held that a motion to compel arbitration is not the correct vehicle to challenge a plaintiff’s failure to plead the individual component of a PAGA claim affirming the Superior Court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration as there was no individual component alleged to compel to arbitration.
The Fourth District reviewed a Superior Court
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – Parra Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation, Inc.
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Second District again held that issue preclusion barred plaintiff’s PAGA claim because he failed to establish any violation of the Labor Code and arbitral findings have a preclusive effect on a plaintiff’s standing in a stayed PAGA claim.
The Second District again grappled with the issue of whether an arbitrator’s previous adjudication of Labor Code violations
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased — Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equip., Inc.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