California Case Summaries™ by Monty McIntyre

Free New Sample Case Summary

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
 

How much detail about other aggrieved employees must a PAGA plaintiff include in the prelitigation notice? 

Employment

Ibarra v. Chuy & Sons Labor, Inc. (2024) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2024 WL 3037693: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings in plaintiff’s action alleging a Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) on behalf of herself and other and all current and former non-exempt aggrieved employees of defendants in the State of California. The trial court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that plaintiff’s prelitigation notice to her employers and the Labor Workforce and Development Agency was deficient under Labor Code section 2699.3 because it did not clearly define the aggrieved employees. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that nothing in the plain text of section 2699.3 expressly required a PAGA plaintiff to define aggrieved employees in the prelitigation notice, and it declined to read a requirement into the PAGA statute that did not appear therein. So long as the PAGA plaintiff provides facts and theories to support that alleged wage and hour violations were committed against them and includes nonfrivolous allegations that other employees were similarly subjected to such practices, the notice is sufficient. (C.A. 2nd, June 18, 2024.)