The future of PAGA continues to look a bit brighter for employers as new favorable case law emerges. We previously reported on Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. wherein the California Supreme Court ruled that PAGA plaintiffs have no standing to intervene in parallel PAGA lawsuits. We are now happy to report that another “win” for employers has come out of Second Appellate District of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

In Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equipment, Inc., the Court of Appeal held that an employee who loses an individual PAGA arbitration is precluded from continuing to litigate a PAGA representative action in court. After prevailing on all the plaintiff’s individual Labor Code claims in arbitration, the defendant, Lawrence Equipment, Inc., brought a motion for judgment on the pleadings arguing that the representative PAGA action was barred by issue preclusion. Lawrence Equipment, Inc. reasoned that Rodriguez’s standing as an aggrieved employee was predicated on the disproved wage and hour violations. The trial court agreed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal adopted the approach taken in Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of California (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 65. In Rocha, the Court of Appeal held that issue preclusion applied after the plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims were compelled to arbitration where the plaintiff subsequently lost on all causes of action. In addition, the Court of Appeal found that Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 1104,which was decided after Rocha, supported this conclusion asthe clear implication of Adolph’s analysis is that arbitral findings have a preclusive effect on standing in a stayed PAGA claim.” Further, the Rodriguez Court specifically rejected the plaintiff’s argument that issue preclusion did not apply because, as a PAGA plaintiff, he was serving in a different “capacity” (i.e., as a representative of the State) than when he prosecuted his individual claims in arbitration. This decision provides further assurance that employers with arbitration agreements can leverage those agreements to potentially limit PAGA lawsuits. However, it bears noting that California courts are continuing to whittle away an employer’s ability to compel claims to arbitration.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Gregory Knopp Gregory Knopp

Gregory (Greg) Knopp is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department in the Los Angeles office.

Greg defends companies in class and collective actions and other complex disputes. He has argued successfully before state and federal courts across the country and…

Gregory (Greg) Knopp is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department in the Los Angeles office.

Greg defends companies in class and collective actions and other complex disputes. He has argued successfully before state and federal courts across the country and has obtained dismissals of class actions in dozens of high-profile, highly consequential matters.

Greg’s clients range from entertainment companies to prominent retailers to professional sports leagues. He has also worked with financial services and other professional services firms, along with clients in the technology, transportation and healthcare spaces. All look to Greg for his ability to quickly spot legal issues and to determine strategies to maximize advantage.

With more than 20 years of experience in employment litigation, Greg has represented clients in a wide range of employment disputes involving wage and hour issues, issues specific to California employment law, sexual harassment, and arbitration compulsion.

Photo of Ariel Brotman Ariel Brotman

Ariel Brotman is an associate in the Labor & Employment Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group. She represents employers in all aspects of employment litigation, including wage and hour, wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, whistleblower, trade secrets, and…

Ariel Brotman is an associate in the Labor & Employment Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group. She represents employers in all aspects of employment litigation, including wage and hour, wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, whistleblower, trade secrets, and breach of contract litigation, in both the single-plaintiff and class-action context. She also counsels employers on a diverse range of workplace issues.

Ariel earned her J.D. from USC Gould School of Law, where she was a member of the Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal. During law school, she was also a clinical student in the University of Southern California Immigration Clinic. In addition, she served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Robert N. Kwan in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California.