©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2025 Cal-Peculiarities | 157 488 Id. at 551 (internal citations and quotations omitted). 489 Id. at 542. 490 Id. at 544. 491 Id. at 548 (“overlapping policy considerations support extending PAGA discovery as broadly as class action discovery has been extended”). 492 Id. at 546-47. 493 Id. at 546. 494 Id. at 550 n.6. 495 Id. at 554–55. 496 Id. 497 Id. at 555–56. 498 Id. at 550-51. 499 Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 68 Cal. App. 5th 746, 857 (2021) (holding that, in PAGA cases, “courts have inherent authority to … strike the [PAGA] claim,” and “this authority is not inconsistent with PAGA’s procedures and objectives”); cf. Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 76 Cal. App. 5th 685, 697 (2022), review granted, 511 P.3d 191 (2022) (concluding that “a court cannot strike a PAGA claim based on manageability”). 500 Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 15 Cal. 5th 582, 619 (2024) (trial courts lack inherent authority to dismiss or strike a PAGA claim on manageability grounds, but may “limit[ ] the types of evidence a plaintiff may present or us[e] other tools to assure that a PAGA claim can be effectively tried”). 501 Lab. Code § 2699(p). 502 Bright v. 99 Cents Only Stores, Inc., 189 Cal. App. 4th 1472, 1481 (2010); Home Depot USA v. Superior Ct., 191 Cal. App. 4th 210, 218 (2010). 503 Arias v. Superior Ct., 46 Cal. 4th 969, 986 (2009). 504 Ramirez v. Ghilotti Bros. Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1210 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (permitting recovery of Labor Code section 558 penalties under PAGA); Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Mgmt., Inc., 203 Cal. App. 4th 1112, 1132-33 (2012) (considering whether plaintiffs could recover meal and rest premium pay as “underpaid wages” under Labor Code section 558). Although the Supreme Court’s later decision in Kirby v. Immoos, 53 Cal. 4th 1255 (2012), created uncertainty as to whether meal and rest pay constitutes “underpaid wages,” Thurman opened the door for aggrieved employees to seek other wages as civil penalties under section 558. 505 See Viking River, 142 S. Ct. 1906. 506 ZB, N.A. v. Superior Ct., 8 Cal. 5th 175, 182 (2019) (“What we conclude is that the civil penalties a plaintiff may seek under section 558 through the PAGA do not include the ‘amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.’ Although section 558 authorizes the Labor Commissioner to recover such an amount, this amount––understood in context––is not a civil penalty that a private citizen has authority to collect through the PAGA.”). 507 Lawson v. ZB, N.A., 18 Cal. App. 5th 705, 722 (2017), as modified (Dec. 21, 2017), aff'd but criticized sub nom. ZB, 8 Cal. 5th 175 (2019). 508 ZB, 8 Cal. 5th at 181. 509 Id. at 181-82. 510 Raines v. Coastal Pac. Food Distribs., Inc., 23 Cal. App. 5th 667, 680 (2018). 511 Lab. Code § 2699(f)(2)(A)(i), 512 Huff v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 23 Cal. App. 5th 745, 751 (2018) (“PAGA allows an ‘aggrieved employee’—a person affected by at least one Labor Code violation committed by an employer—to pursue penalties for all the Labor Code violations committed by that employer.”). 513 Lab. Code § 2699(c)(1). 514 AB 673, 2019 bill amending Lab. Code § 210(c) (“An employee is only entitled to either recover the statutory penalty provided for in this section or to enforce a civil penalty as set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 2699, but not both, for the same violation”). 515 Moorer v. Noble L.A. Events, Inc., 32 Cal. App. 5th 736, 743–44 (2019) (affirming dismissal of case, as allocation of 25 percent of the penalties to all aggrieved employees is consistent with the statutory scheme under which the judgment binds all aggrieved employees, including nonparties). 516 LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 75 Cal. App. 5th 388 (2022). 517 Health & Safety Code § 1799.102 (2008). 518 Van Horn v. Watson, 45 Cal. 4th 322, 325 (2008), abrogated in part by statute, Health & Safety Code § 1799.102(a). 519 Id. 520 Id. at 335. 521 Id.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4