Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 15 Cal. 5th 582 (2024)
The California Supreme Court affirmed an appellate court judgment that “trial courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds”—that is, trial courts may not “dismiss [them] with prejudice.” In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 68 Cal. App. 5th 746 (2021).
The
DeMarinis v. Heritage Bank of Commerce, 2023 WL 9113099 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
Former bank employees filed a lawsuit against their former employer for various wage-and-hour violations. The lawsuit included a Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claim, under which plaintiffs sued on behalf of all other “aggrieved employees” of the company. In response, the bank filed an unsuccessful motion to compel plaintiffs’ “individual” claims
Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, if a worker is injured because of the employer’s serious and willful misconduct, the “compensation” the worker is entitled to receive increases by one half. The statute defining “compensation” limits the term to benefits or payments provided by Division 4 of the Labor Code.
Plaintiffs Tom Piplack and Brianna Marie Taylor filed PAGA actions in Orange and Los Angeles Counties, respectively, against respondent In-N-Out Burgers (In-N-Out). When they learned about settlement negotiations in a later, overlapping PAGA action brought by Ryan Accurso against In-N-Out in Sonoma County, Piplack and Taylor filed a proposed complaint to intervene in
After months of anticipation, the California Supreme Court answered “yes” to the critical question of whether “aggrieved” PAGA plaintiffs retain their standing to pursue representative claims in court after their individual claims have been compelled to arbitration.
Erik Adolph worked as a driver for Uber, delivering food to customers through Uber’s online platform. As