By: Phillip J. Ebsworth and Sofya Perelshteyn
Seyfarth Synopsis: Second Appellate District affirmed the ruling in a PAGA bench trial finding that the employer’s pay plan was lawful and that the PAGA notice did not include the facts and theories that plaintiffs pursued at trial.
The bench trial focused on the pay plan by which the employer car dealership paid
Continue Reading PAGA Paraphrased – Mora v. C.E. Enterprises, 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
By: 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 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!