Federal courts lack Article III jurisdiction over portions of a PAGA suit that attack alleged wage and hour regulations which did not injure the named plaintiff.  A PAGA suit does not fall within the qui tam action exception to the ordinary Article III requirement that the plaintiff has sustained injury from the wrong he sues to redress.  Unlike a traditional qui tam action, a PAGA suit involves a complete assignment of the state’s right to sue.  The state loses all control over the suit once it elects not to issue a citation.  And the plaintiff can recover monetary compensation for other workers as well as the state.  Hence, the portions of this suit that attacked meal and rest break violations were remanded to state court since plaintiff did not claim he was affected by those alleged violations. However, the plaintiff had Article III standing to bring the PAGA suit with respect to claims that his own pay statements, as well as other workers’, did not correctly state the hours worked and current hourly rates of pay. Though the pay statement requirement is procedural, the statute (Lab. Code 226) protects the workers’ concrete interest in accurate information about their wages and inaccurate wage statements present a material risk of harm through undetectable underpayment of wages.