By: 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 Justin T. Curley
Seyfarth’s Wage Hour Litigation practice group is excited to share this inaugural post in our new series, PAGA Paraphrased. The everchanging world of PAGA is full of verbose opinions, unwieldy statutory language, and a unique and sometimes perplexing vocabulary that even an exasperated United States Supreme Court expressed confusion over. Whether you
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC, 88 Cal.App.5th 639 (2023)By: Paul J. Leaf and Kyle Winnick
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of Cal., the California Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff asserting a PAGA claim does not have standing to pursue a PAGA claim on behalf of others, if an arbitrator denies the plaintiff’s individual claims on the merits and finds no underlying Labor Code
Continue Reading Adverse Adjudication on the Merits Deprives Plaintiffs of PAGA Standing
Co-authored by Kristen Peters and Simon L. Yang
Seyfarth Synopsis: Last month in Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc., the California Supreme Court addressed three questions about California’s “day of rest” statutes that prohibit employers from causing employees “to work more than six days in seven.” California employers can now rest assured that (1) employees are entitled to one day
Continue Reading And on the Seventh Day, Let Them Rest… or Work—If They Want!
Co-authored by Julie Yap and Billie Pierce
Seyfarth Synopsis: A federal court in California recently held that a franchisor cannot be held liable for labor code claims where it did not exercise control directly, or through an actual agency relationship with the employer, over the terms and conditions of the workers’ employment. The decision limits claims against independent businesses based
Continue Reading Federal Court Serves Up Satisfying Seconds For California Franchisors: No Ostensible Agency Liability For Franchisees’ Alleged Labor Code Violations
Authored by Kiran A. Seldon
Seyfarth Synopsis: Three decisions issued earlier this month reveal an increasing tension between the Ninth Circuit and California appellate courts on whether representative PAGA actions can be arbitrated. As a result, employers wishing to compel arbitration of representative PAGA claims are likely to be better off in federal court than in state court.
Authored by Simon L. Yang
Seyfarth Synopsis: Sometimes, plaintiffs’ attorneys have circumvented a key aspect of the California Legislature’s intent in enacting PAGA: limiting standing to pursue penalties for Labor Code violations to those employees who were actually harmed. Though a new California bill could halt those attempts, PAGA plaintiffs’ wiliness warrants a cautionary comment to the Legislature to ensure
Continue Reading A Cautionary Comment on PAGA (or Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Getting Around) Legislative Intent
Authored by Rachel M. Hoffer
It’s a common business model in the fast-food industry: a massive restaurant company provides the menu, the marketing—including catchy slogans and a universally recognized logo—and the basic operational standards for the restaurant,
and a franchisee provides the rest—including hiring, training, and firing restaurant employees. Unfortunately for the fast-food giants (the notorious FFGs, if you will)
Authored by Simon L. Yang
Seyfarth Synopsis: When the California Supreme Court said no to PAGA waivers in its 2014 Iskanian ruling, we asked whether employers would boldly go where few have gone before and implement arbitration agreements requiring arbitration of PAGA claims. A recent California Court of Appeal decision issued in Perez v. U-Haul Company of California warrants revisiting
Continue Reading Agree to Arbitrate Representative Issues Much?