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 by the facts set forth in the pre-suit notice which that plaintiff served on the LWDA. The plaintiff may represent the state on claims for violation of Labor Code sections not mentioned in the pre-suit notice only if the claims arise from the same facts disclosed in that notice. So, in this case, a prior plaintiff’s suit (and broad release in settling the suit) brought (and pre-suit notice concerning) non-payment for time spent in after work anti-theft screening did not preclude a later suit about a host of other alleged Labor Code violations).