The plaintiff in a parallel PAGA suit against the same employer does not have standing to move to vacate or appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court approved settlement of a different plaintiff’s similar PAGA suit against the employer. To have standing to appeal one must be both a party to the action and be aggrieved by the judgment. (CCP 902.) A nonparty aggrieved by a judgment may become a party and then appeal by first moving to vacate the judgment. A PAGA suit is like a qui tam action in allowing a private plaintiff to sue on the state’s behalf. The state is the party aggrieved by a too-low settlement of its claims against the employer; a plaintiff in a parallel PAGA suit does not own the claim and so is not aggrieved by the judgment approving the settlement. Even without parallel plaintiffs’ challenges, there are controls on PAGA settlements. The trial court must approve the settlement and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency may submit comments on the settlement to the trial court during the settlement approval process. The trial court did not err in denying the parallel plaintiff leave to intervene since, for the same reasons he lacked standing to appeal, the plaintiff could not show the direct and immediate interest in the litigation which CCP 387 requires for intervention.