Private Attorneys General Act Review – 2025

dismiss the plaintiff’s PAGA claim, arguing that it was unmanageable due to the complexity of individual issues and that she lacked standing for the non-individual part of the claim. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the claim based on manageability concerns and lack of standing. However, recent California Supreme Court decisions affected the case. In Adolph, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc ., the Supreme Court clarified that the plaintiff had standing to pursue the non-individual PAGA claim. Additionally, in Estrada v. Royal Carpet Mills, Inc. , 15 Cal.5th 582 (2024), the Supreme Court held that trial courts cannot dismiss PAGA claims solely on manageability grounds. The plaintiff appealed the decision, and the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling. The Court of Appeal agreed with the plaintiff that he had standing to bring the non-individual PAGA claim. The Court of Appeal also ruled that the trial court lacked the authority to dismiss the PAGA claim based on manageability concerns. In another PAGA action, Taylor, et al. v. Tesla, Inc., 104 Cal. App. 5th 75 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2024), the plaintiffs filed an action alleging that the defendant failed to provide them with requested personnel files. The plaintiffs each requested their personnel records from the defendant under California’s Labor Code. Their attorney, Bryan Schwarz Law (BSL), represented them in a broader class action against Tesla entitled Vaughn, et al. v. Tesla , 87 Cal. App. 5th 208 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2023), which alleged racial discrimination and harassment. Discovery in the Vaughn case led to several motions and orders, including a June 2020 court suggestion for an opt-in privacy waiver for reviewing files. By October 2020, BSL began submitting personnel records requests on behalf of hundreds of Tesla employees, including the plaintiffs in the instant action. The defendant failed to respond to the records requests arguing that due to a stay in the Vaughn action, it did not need to respond. Subsequently, in January 2023, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling denying the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in the Vaughn action. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s PAGA case should be dismissed pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the motion and ruled that the plaintiffs were exercising their statutory rights under the Labor Code, not engaging in protected petitioning activity. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the defendant’s classification as a member of a class in a related lawsuit did not grant it protection under the anti- SLAPP statute. The Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant’s refusal to provide the requested personnel records did not qualify as petitioning activity protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. Finally, the effect of a prior PAGA settlement was at issue in Young, et al. v. CEP America, LLC , 2024 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2561 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Apr. 24, 2024), where the plaintiffs, a group of physician assistants, filed a lawsuit against their employer alleging wage & hour violations and seeking penalties under the PAGA. Initially, the plaintiffs’ claims, except for the PAGA claims, were sent to arbitration. The PAGA claims were stayed pending arbitration of the other claims. Years of litigation and mediation followed. By 2020, the parties had settled all claims, including the PAGA claims, and sought court approval for their PAGA settlement. The trial court, however, raised concerns and denied approval several times, prompting the parties to amend their settlement agreement multiple times. In June 2022, after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639 (2022) which impacted the arbitration of PAGA claim, the defendant reversed its position. The defendant argued that the PAGA claims should be subject to arbitration and sought to compel arbitration of the claims. Despite this, the trial court approved the settlement and denied the motion to compel arbitration as moot. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The defendant argued that the trial court should have granted the motion to compel arbitration before approving the settlement. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision. It held that the trial court had the authority to approve the settlement despite the changes in arbitration law.

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online