Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC, 115 Cal. App. 5^th 1 (2025)

This case involves the (much-litigated) issue currently pending before the California Supreme Court in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., 107 Cal. App. 5^th 1001, rev. granted (2025): Does the version of PAGA in effect from 2016 to mid-2024 authorize an aggrieved employee to bring a PAGA action that seeks recovery of civil penalties imposed for Labor Code violations suffered only by other employees? This is a so-called “headless” PAGA action, which is typically pursued in an effort to avoid the obligation to arbitrate an individual claim. The Court answered the question in the affirmative. The second question is whether the aggrieved employee has standing to pursue a PAGA action as the representative of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and whether that issue must be resolved in arbitration. The Court held that the parties’ agreement to arbitrate does not encompass the issue of the employee’s status as an aggrieved employee because that dispute exists (if at all) between the LWDA and the employee and does not involve the employer. See also Alvarado v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 2025 WL 2775774 (9^th Cir. 2025) (district court abused its discretion by failing to provide a “concise but clear” explanation for its fee award to a plaintiff in a PAGA action who experienced limited success before accepting a settlement offer pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 998).