California Case Summaries™ by Monty McIntyre

Free New Sample Case Summary

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT

Can PAGA plaintiffs in other PAGA actions intervene in a PAGA action to object to a settlement and seek to vacate the judgment? 

PAGA/Employment

Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) _ Cal.5th _ , 2024 WL 3611975: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision that had affirmed the trial court’s order denying motions, by other employees who had filed separate PAGA actions against defendant employer, to intervene in this PAGA action and submit objections to the settlement and to vacate the judgment. This case involved what has become a common scenario in PAGA litigation: multiple persons claiming to be an “aggrieved employee” within the meaning of PAGA file separate and independent lawsuits seeking recovery of civil penalties from the same employer for the same alleged Labor Code violations. The California Supreme Court observed that a PAGA plaintiff may use the ordinary tools of civil litigation that are consistent with the statutory authorization to commence an action such as taking discovery, filing motions, and attending trial. However, the California Supreme Court concluded that it would be inconsistent with the scheme the Legislature enacted for PAGA cases to allow other PAGA plaintiffs to intervene in an ongoing PAGA action of another plaintiff asserting overlapping claims, to require the trial court to consider objections to a proposed settlement in that overlapping action, and to allow other PAGA plaintiffs to move to vacate the judgment in that action. This conclusion best comports with the relevant provisions of PAGA as read in their statutory context, in light of PAGA’s legislative history, and in consideration of the consequences that would follow from adopting the interpretation requested by the other PAGA plaintiffs. (August 1, 2024.)