This decision holds that Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 did not undermine McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945 or Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. (9th Cir. 2019) 928 F.3d 819 which held that Rent-A-Center's arbitration clause was unenforceable under McGill. Viking River Cruises dealt with PAGA suits which are different from public injunctions. Read More
Employment, , 1, 1 Trial courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds. Trial courts do not generally possess a broad inherent authority to dismiss claims. Nor is it appropriate for trial courts to strike PAGA claims by employing class action manageability requirements. Trial courts may use a vast variety of tools to efficiently manage PAGA claims,… Read More
The trial court correctly denied enforcement of the employer's arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable both because it was an adhesion contract in the employment context and because the way it was presented to the prospective employee for electronic signature made it difficult for her to read before signing. The agreement was substantively unconscionable in containing a confidentiality… Read More
To obtain a private attorney general fee award, the applicant must show, among other things, that "the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement ... are such as to make the award appropriate." Private enforcement is a "necessity" unless a public prosecutor or other government agency stands ready to enforce the right. Here, the trial court abused its discretion in… Read More
Disagreeing with several 2d District opinions, this decision holds that the standard of review of an order granting or denying a private attorney general fee award under CCP 1021.5 is abuse of discretion even when the fee award order follows the Court of Appeal's prior opinion (published or not) in favor of the fee applicant. Though the Court of Appeal… Read More
This decision affirms an order denying an employer's motion to compel arbitration. The arbitration provision purported to require arbitration of all disputes, but prohibit any form of representative action. Following Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, such a clause is unenforceable as to PAGA claims involving Labor Code violations not suffered by the individual plaintiff. Because the… Read More
This decision reverses a summary judgment in favor of the defendant employer against the plaintiff employee nurse who sued individually and under PAGA for violation of Labor Code sections on rest and meal breaks and payment of all wages due on termination. The employer failed to meet its burden of proving plaintiff's claims were time barred. While she may not… Read More
Following both Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906 and Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, this decision holds that the plaintiff must arbitrate PAGA claims that arise from Labor Code violations that affected him, but may pursue in court PAGA claims that arise from Labor Code violations affecting only other employees, not himself. Read More
Following its prior decision in Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56 and disagreeing with Turrietta v. Lyft, Inc. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 955. this decision explains that a PAGA plaintiff need not show a personal pecuniary interest to have a substantial interest at stake that suffices to support a motion for leave to intervene in an overlapping PAGA… Read More
A prior PAGA suit against the same employer did not have claim preclusive effect as to all potential PAGA suits against the employer, nor could the release in the judicially approved agreement settling the prior suit enforceably release all potential PAGA claims against the employer. Instead, the prior plaintiff's authority to represent the state in suing under PAGA was governed… Read More
When a plaintiff has brought a PAGA action comprising individual (i.e., violations affecting the plaintiffs) and non-individual (violations affecting only other employees) claims, an order compelling arbitration of the individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing as an aggrieved employee to litigate the non-individual claims on behalf of other employees under PAGA. Read More
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that a plaintiff homeowners association was not entitled to private attorney general fees under the catalyst theory. To prevail on that theory, the court must find that the plaintiff's lawsuit was a material factor that contributed in a significant way to the defendant's adopting a changed plan or conduct that… Read More
An employer's arbitration agreement contained a carve-out provision stating that claims under PAGA are not arbitrable under this agreement. This decision holds that the plain language of the carve-out excludes from arbitration all PAGA claims--including those individual PAGA claims that Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906 are arbitrable (absent the parties' contrary agreement). Hence, the trial… Read More
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiff's suit was the catalyst that at least in part caused the city to increase its land use plan's allocation of areas for low cost housing to satisfy its regional allocable share of the county's affordable housing needs. That was true even though it took the Legislature enacting a… Read More
In response to Smith v. Superior Court (L'Oreal USA, Inc.) (2006) 39 Cal.4th 77, the Legislature enacted Lab. Code 201.3(b), which provides that a temporary worker hired by a staffing company and working on assignment for another employer is not terminated for purposes or receiving a final pay check when the temporary assignment ends, but only when the staffing agency… Read More
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
This decision tries to make sense of arbitration of PAGA claims in light of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906. It holds that an arbitration clause's waiver of the right to bring PAGA claims is still unenforceable as against public policy, but that waiver can be severed from the rest of the arbitration clause, leaving the… Read More
