©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2025 Cal-Peculiarities | 127 PAGA claim only as the state’s designated proxy[.]”467 The Ninth Circuit further rejected the argument that an aggrieved employee could appeal a PAGA settlement on the grounds that he was entitled to some portion of the PAGA award: an aggrieved employee “does not receive a portion of the PAGA settlement because of any injury, but instead because the California legislature made a policy choice that the bounty that normally serves as the incentive for the plaintiff to bring the suit should instead be shared with all aggrieved employees.”468 In 2023, the Court of Appeal in LaCour v. Marshalls of California, LLC reversed dismissal of a PAGA action.469 The trial court had dismissed PAGA claims in an action alleging unreimbursed business expenses on grounds they had been released in settlement of a prior PAGA action. Though the PAGA notice in the prior action listed a variety of alleged violations, including Labor Code section 2802, the state court complaint factually alleged only off-the-clock claims. Nevertheless, the trial court found that the first-filed plaintiff had authority to settle the second-filed plaintiff’s expense reimbursement claims. The Court of Appeal reversed, noting that the dearth of factual allegations in the PAGA notice in the prior PAGA action could not support the conclusion that the prior settlement agreement released expense reimbursement claims alleged in the second action. The court further noted that res judicata did not bar the second action because the two actions did not assert the same primary rights and there was no privity between the two named plaintiffs despite a judicially accepted and broadly worded release in the first matter. Employees have no right to intervene in settlement of overlapping PAGA claims. In 2023, the Court of Appeal in Accurso v. In-N-Out Burgers overturned a trial court’s denial of an initial PAGA plaintiff’s intervention as a matter of right in a later-filed overlapping PAGA case.470 The first plaintiff sought to join imminent settlement and to stay a later-filed case under the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the lower court had not considered whether permissive intervention was appropriate, reasoning there was no reason not to give an overlapping PAGA plaintiff a “seat at the table,” and “permissive intervention even before the settlement approval process begins may be a way to ensure” overlapping plaintiffs “are meaningfully involved in the settlement approval process.”471 The Accurso decision cast doubt on the finality of PAGA settlements until the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. . In Turrieta, the Supreme Court held that a PAGA plaintiff does not have a right to intervene, object to a proposed settlement, or move to vacate a judgment in an ongoing PAGA action of another employee action asserting overlapping claims.472 The manner in which PAGA actions are settled confirms their peculiar nature. This chart compares a PAGA settlement with a class action settlement involving the same underlying alleged Labor Code violations (in which a class is conditionally certified for purposes of settlement). PAGA Settlements Class Settlements One-step approval process Preliminary and final approval steps required Individuals cannot opt out All class members have a chance to opt out Only the LWDA can object Any class member can object PAGA judgments preclude duplicative PAGA claims Class members can bring PAGA claims No effect on individual Labor Code claims Class members are bound by the settlement 65% of net fund goes to LWDA, 35% to individuals All of net fund goes to class members 100% of settlement consists of civil penalties Settlement proceeds can be both wages and penalties
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4