Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Private Attorney General Act

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) 139 S.Ct. 1407 only held that ambiguity could not be construed against drafter for purposes of determining whether the parties had agreed to classwide arbitration.  It did not hold that the construction against drafter principle is inapplicable to other types of ambiguities in the arbitration agreement.  In any event, there was no ambiguity in… Read More

Following Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 639 and Piplack v. In-N-Out Burgers (2023) 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 166, this decision holds that plaintiff's individual PAGA claims (i.e., those which are based on Lab. Code violations affecting the plaintiff) must be arbitrated.  However, representative PAGA claims based on Lab. Code violations affecting only employees other than the plaintiff… Read More

Reaching the same result as Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC (2023) 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 129, this decision holds that plaintiff's individual PAGA claims (i.e., those which are based on Lab. Code violations affecting the plaintiff) must be arbitrated.  However, representative PAGA claims based on Lab. Code violations affecting only employees other than the plaintiff are not subject to arbitration,… Read More

Part of the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, Lab. Code 248.5(e) provides that  “any person or entity enforcing this article on behalf of the public as provided for under applicable state law shall, upon prevailing, be entitled only to equitable, injunctive, or restitutionary relief ."  This decision holds that "enforcing this article on behalf of the public" refers… Read More

Post-Morgan v. Sundance, prejudice to the plaintiff is no longer a factor to be considered in determining whether a defendant waived arbitration by litigating a dispute in court.  The burden of proving waiver is no longer heavy either.  The plaintiff need only show (1) the defendant's knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration and (2) intentional acts inconsistent with… Read More

Under special legislation, Alameda County established a separate county-wide health district.  This decision holds that the district is subject to suit under some provisions of the Labor Code and IWC wage orders (meal and rest breaks and accurate wage statements) because nothing in the enabling legislation expressly exempts the district; there are no other positive indicia of legislative intent to… Read More

Disagreeing with Gavriiloglou v. Prime Healthcare Management, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 595, this decision holds that an arbitrator's award finding that the employer did not violate the Labor Code as the employee alleged in his individual wage and hour claims operates as collateral estoppel, barring the employee's PAGA claims based on the same alleged violations, for lack of standing. )… Read More

This decision holds that Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906 overrules the cases that followed Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 in holding that pre-dispute arbitration clauses were unenforceable to compel arbitration of the individual PAGA claim(s) of the plaintiff employee.  Viking River held that the individual plaintiff acts in part… Read More

This decision holds that an arbitration agreement in an employment contract was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable because (1) it did not explain and separately provide for waiver of the employee's right to sue in court to enforce his individual PAGA claim (as opposed to the non-waivable right to sue under PAGA for the benefit of other employees), and (2) in… Read More

Usually, any agreement to waive the employee's right to sue under PAGA is unenforceable.  But there is an exception for collective bargaining agreements that cover construction workers, provide for wages, hours and working conditions, set forth a grievance and arbitration remedy for Labor Code violations, allow the arbitrator to award all remedies authorized by the Labor Code and clearly waive… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying private attorney general fees to Malibu homeowners who successfully challenged a proposed special assessment to protect a beach and nearby homes from erosion.  The trial court correctly estimated the homeowners' potential benefit from the suit as the amount of assessments they sought to avoid over the 20-year period of the… Read More

Under IWC Wage Order no. 7, an employer must "provide" a seat to covered clerical employees, unless work requirements preclude work while seated.  This decision holds that except for the most obvious cases (such as where the employer has a seat at work station) whether the employer has "provided" a seat raises a question of fact that precludes summary judgment… Read More

A PAGA suit is not a class action and need not satisfy Rule 23 requirements, including the requirement of manageability.  In light of PAGA's structure and purpose, imposing a manageability requirement in PAGA cases akin to that imposed under Rule 23(b)(3) would not constitute a reasonable response to a specific problem and would contradict California law by running afoul of… Read More

1 2