Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com Litigating CA Wage & Hour Class and PAGA Actions (23rd Edition) 107 Recently, a split has emerged among California appellate courts regarding whether courts may strike PAGA claims on grounds of manageability. On one hand is the September 2021 decision in Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC.517 In Wesson, the Second District Court of Appeal—which covers the counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo—held that “courts have inherent authority to ensure that PAGA claims can be fairly and efficiently tried and, if necessary, may strike a claim that cannot be rendered manageable.”518 This is because PAGA actions cannot abridge a defendant’s due process right for a “fair and efficient trial of representative claims.” Several federal district courts have adopted or applied Wesson.519 As Wesson cautions, “PAGA claims may well present more significant manageability concerns than those involved in class actions.”520 Generally, a PAGA action may “cover a vast number of employees, each of whom may have markedly different experiences relevant to the alleged violations.”521 In fact, even a single “PAGA claim can cover disparate groups of employees and involve different kinds of violations raising distinct questions.”522 “Under those circumstances, determining whether the employer committed Labor Code violations with respect to each employee may raise practical difficulties and may prove to be unmanageable.”523 In light of these considerations, Wesson concluded that a court is not “powerless to address the challenges presented by large and complex PAGA actions.”524 Nor is the court “bound to hold dozens, hundreds, or thousands of minitrials involving diverse questions, depending on the breadth of the plaintiff's claims.” “Equipped with this tool, courts dealing with representative [PAGA] claims pay close attention to manageability issues and intervene to ensure that the claims can be managed fairly and efficiently at trial.” As Wesson stressed, these inquiries are imperative to “manage litigation with the aim of protecting the parties’ rights and the courts’ ability to function.” Yet, on the other hand is the March 2022 decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc.525 In Estrada, the Fourth District Court of Appeal—which covers the counties of Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Inyo, and Imperial—held that “a court cannot strike a PAGA claim on manageability” and thus “reach[es] the opposition 260, 264–265 (1940). These inherent powers are derived from the state Constitution and are not confined by or dependent on statute. Walker v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 3d 257, 267 (1991). However, the Legislature has enacted statutes recognizing the authority of courts to manage their proceedings and to adopt suitable methods of practice. See, e.g., CCP §§ 128, 187. 517 Wesson v. Staples the Off. Superstore, LLC, 68 Cal. App. 5th 746 (2021). 518 Id. at 859. 519 E.g., Feltzs v. Cox Commc'ns Cal., LLC, 2021 WL 4947306, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2021) (Selna, J.); Chavez v. Charter Commc'ns, LLC, 2021 WL 6496864, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2021) (Staton, J.); Goro v. Flowers Foods, Inc., 2021 WL 5761694, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2021) (Robinson, J.). 520 Wesson, 68 Cal. App. 5th at 859-860. 521 Id. at 859. 522 Id. at 860. 523 Id. at 859. 524 Id. at 860. 525 Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 76 Cal. App. 5th 685 (2022).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4