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 suit by a different plaintiff.  However, absent a showing that the other plaintiff is an inadequate representative of the state’s interest, the moving plaintiff is not entitled to intervention as of right.  The moving plaintiff might still be accorded permissive intervention in the trial court’s discretion, however.  Discretion intervention turns on weighing whether the would-be intervenor will add anything of value to the suit against the disruption caused by the presence of an additional party in the suit.