116 Litigating CA Wage & Hour Class and PAGA Actions (23rd Edition) Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com result of its unfair practices.577 Further, claims under the UCL are tried by the court, not to a jury.578 There were three primary advantages a plaintiff would gain by joining a UCL claim to a wage and hour suit. First, because the restitutionary remedy under the UCL was similar to a damages remedy for a wage law violation, a companion UCL claim effectively expanded the statute of limitations on a Labor Code wage claim579 from three years to four years, the length of the UCL’s statute of limitations.580 Second, a UCL claim provided a potential vehicle for plaintiffs to secure class relief without satisfying the procedural burdens of class certification.581 Third, a plaintiff who lacked traditional standing to sue because he or she was never affected by an alleged wage and hour or Labor Code violation could nonetheless sue as a “private attorneys general” on behalf of those employees who were affected by the violation.582 B. Reform of the Law—Passage of Proposition 64 In 2004, California voters passed Proposition 64 (“Prop 64”), which amended two of the three broadest aspects of the UCL—i.e., the near-universal standing requirement and the ability to bring a collective action without obtaining class certification. Prop 64 had no impact on the governing statute of limitations for UCL claims, however. With respect to standing, Prop 64 revised Business & Professions Code Section 17203 and 17204 to impose real standing requirements on individuals seeking to bring UCL claims. The statute previously gave standing to sue to any person suing on behalf of the “general public.” Individual standing under the UCL is now limited to a person “who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of ... unfair competition.”583 The proponents of the law argued that this change was intended to stop “shakedown lawyers” who “appoint themselves to act like the Attorney General and file lawsuits on behalf of the people of the State of California.”584 The proponents also argued that voters should support Prop 64 because it “[p]rotects your right to file a lawsuit [if 577 Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1152 (2003); see also Feitelberg v. Credit Suisse First Boston, LLC, 134 Cal. App. 4th 997 (2005) (non-restitutionary disgorgement of profits unavailable under UCL even where case has been certified as a class action). 578 Nationwide Biweekly Administration v. Superior Court, 9 Cal. 5th 279, 334 (2020). 579 Labor Code penalties, however, are not recoverable under the UCL, because they do not constitute restitution. See, e.g., Pineda v. Bank of America, 50 Cal. 4th 1389, 1401-02 (2010) (Labor Code section 203 waiting time penalties are not recoverable under the UCL). 580 Cortez, 23 Cal. 4th at 179. 581 Kraus v. Trinity Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 23 Cal. 4th 116 (2000). 582 Stop Youth Addiction v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 17 Cal. 4th 553 (1998) (purported anti-smoking public interest advocacy organization had standing under UCL to sue Lucky Stores for allegedly selling cigarettes to minors). 583 Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. 584 Official Voter Information Guide, Arguments and Rebuttals, Proposition 64, http://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2004/general/propositions/prop64-arguments.htm (accessed Oct. 12, 2023).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4