Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC, 115 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2025)
This case involves the (much-litigated) issue currently pending before the California Supreme Court in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., 107 Cal. App. 5th 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
Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers, Inc., 2025 WL 2351203 (9th Cir. 2025)
Annamarie Renteria-Hinojosa filed two putative class actions against her employer (Sunsweet Growers), alleging various wage and hour violations under California law, including PAGA. Renteria-Hinojosa’s employment was governed by two successive collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between her union and Sunsweet. In response to the lawsuits, Sunsweet removed both actions to federal court, asserting federal
Hirdman v. Charter Commc’ns, LLC, 113 Cal. App. 5th 376 (2025)
Bradley Hirdman filed a lawsuit against his former employer (Charter Communications, LLC) alleging a violation of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) based on Charter’s alleged misclassification of Hirdman as an exempt outside salesperson for purposes of calculating his paid sick leave pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code § 246(l)(3). The trial court
Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., 2025 WL 2629868 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
Sylvia Noland asserted 25 causes of action against her former employer, including claims for wrongful termination, PAGA and other Labor Code violations, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. The employer filed a successful motion for summary judgment, which resulted in dismissal of the case. In the appellate
CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2025 WL 1874891 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
Espiridion Sanchez filed this PAGA action against his former employer on behalf of himself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees.” The employer filed a motion to compel arbitration of Sanchez’s individual PAGA claims, relying on the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639
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