The “Summer of PAGA” continued last week when the California Supreme Court ruled in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. S271721, that a plaintiff in a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action does not have standing to intervene or object to a settlement in a parallel action involving overlapping PAGA claims.
The structure of PAGA tends to invite the scenario facing the parties and
The California Supreme Court handed employers a consolation prize this week, holding that an employer does not incur monetary penalties if there is a reasonable, good faith dispute over whether the employer violated the wage statement statute. Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 2024 WL 1979980 (Cal. May 6, 2024).
One of the employer’s workers in this case filed a putative class action, alleging
On March 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors, Case No. S275431, providing additional guidance on compensable “hours worked” under California law. In a class action asserting wage claims on behalf of contractors at a construction site, the Supreme Court answered three questions certified by the Ninth Circuit as follows:
First, the Court held
Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, 93 F.4th 459 (9th Cir. 2024)
The Ninth Circuit vacated a district court’s dismissal of a former employee’s “non-individual” Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims in the wake of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 1104 (2023). Plaintiff in this case signed a contract with her employer (Lowe’s)
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
The California Supreme Court has issued its much-anticipated decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., determining whether Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims can be dismissed as unmanageable. The Court affirmed a lower court’s decision, holding that “trial courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds”—that is, trial courts may not “dismiss [them] with prejudice.” Slip op. at 1-2. In
Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc., 14 Cal. 5th 993 (2023); 74 F.4th 1039 (9th Cir. 2023)
The California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that employers are not liable to nonemployees who contract COVID-19 from employee household members who bring the virus home from their workplace, because “[a]n employer does not owe a duty of care under California law to prevent the spread of COVID-19 to