As we reported here, a split in authority has developed in the California Court of Appeal regarding what to do when an employer moves to compel arbitration of a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that is “headless”—that is, a claim seeking penalties on behalf of all allegedly aggrieved employees except the named plaintiff. (This is the latest trick the plaintiff’s bar has come up
On February 26, 2025, in Parra Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation, Inc., the California Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District) issued the latest published decision addressing the practice of filing so-called “headless” Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims. In such cases, the plaintiff seeks civil penalties for all allegedly aggrieved employees except themself. In the wake of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596
Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., 2024 WL 5251619 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)
Christina Leeper entered into an independent contractor agreement with Shipt, Inc. (“Shipt”), a subsidiary of Target Corporation (“Target”), as well as an arbitration agreement that required her to arbitrate any personal/individual claims. She subsequently filed a purported “representative” lawsuit against Shipt and Target, alleging a “representative” PAGA claim – i.e., exclusively seeking penalties incurred
Rodriguez v. Lawrence Eqpt., Inc., 2024 WL 4719479 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)
Julian Rodriguez sued his former employer, Lawrence Equipment, Inc., for various wage and hour violations under the Labor Code and sought civil penalties and wages pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Enforcing the arbitration agreement Rodriguez had signed, the trial court ordered arbitration of the wage and hour claims and
Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., 16 Cal. 5th 664 (2024)
This case involved “what has become a common scenario in PAGA litigation” in which multiple persons claiming to be an “aggrieved employee” within the meaning of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) file separate and independent lawsuits seeking recovery of civil penalties from the same employer for the same alleged Labor Code
Ibarra v. Chuy & Sons Labor, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 5th 874 (2024)
The trial court dismissed Edelmira Ibarra’s action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) on the ground that Ibarra failed to comply with PAGA’s prefiling notice requirements. Ibarra’s notice identified four named defendants who employed Ibarra from January 2021 to July 2021 and alleged that all four defendants committed
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
On June 27, 2024, the California Legislature passed AB 2288 and SB 92, compromise legislation that reformed the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and averted a ballot measure that threatened to repeal the law entirely this November. We previously reported on the compromise here when the deal was announced, and published a primer on the substantive changes to the law here.
Arguably the
On June 27, 2024, by near-unanimous vote, the California Legislature passed two bills enacting much-needed reform to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). We previously reported on the legislative compromise last week, when the deal was first announced.
The most profound changes are contained in AB 2288, which amended Labor Code § 2699—the beating heart of PAGA. AB 2288 makes several significant changes to the