claims and to narrow them as appropriate. As to whether such authority could include outright dismissal of an entire PAGA case, employers will have to wait and see. Either way, the Estrada decision will have lasting implications for PAGA actions. In Turrieta, et al. v. Lyft, Inc ., Case No. S271721, the California Supreme Court will also weigh in on whether a PAGA plaintiff has a right to intervene or object to, or move to vacate, a judgment in a related action that purports to settle the claims that the plaintiff has brought on behalf of the state, an issue also raised in Accurso , summarized previously. In rapid succession between May to July 2018, Olson, Seifu, and Turrieta, all Lyft drivers, each filed separate PAGA actions alleging improper classification as independent contractors. Turrieta reached a $15 million settlement with Lyft, which included a $5 million payment to her counsel. As part of the settlement, Turrieta amended her complaint to allege all PAGA claims that could have been brought against Lyft. When Olson and Seifu got wind of the settlement, they moved to intervene and to object. The trial court denied the intervention requests, approved the settlement, and then denied motions by Olson and Seifu to vacate the judgment in the Turrieta PAGA action. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The Court of Appeal held that as non-parties, Olson and Seifu lacked standing to move to vacate the judgment as only an “aggrieved party” can appeal from a judgment. On the intervention issue, the Court of Appeal explained that the real party in interest in a PAGA action is the State and thus neither Olson nor Seifu had a direct interest in the case. On deck in 2024 is a proposed measure, to be voted on in November 2024, to repeal PAGA and to replace it with a new law, known as The Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act. Under the new proposed law, employees could no longer sue for civil penalties in court on behalf of the state and would instead have to file a complaint directly with the Labor Commissioner who would have to be a party to any lawsuit that is filed; all recovery of civil penalties would go to affected employees; increased funding would go to the state to enforce the Labor Code; and civil penalties would be doubled for “willful” violations. The measure is intended to eliminate the windfall profiteering that the plaintiffs’ bar has enjoyed from the PAGA. Although preliminary polling suggest voter support for the measure, the plaintiffs’ bar will surely mount vociferous opposition.
17
© Duane Morris LLP 2024
Duane Morris Private Attorneys General Act Review – 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online