In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeal held that the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction applies to a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) representative action in Shaw v. The Superior Court of Contra Costa County. The decision is good news for employers facing overlapping PAGA complaints.

Underlying Facts

On July 21, 2022,

In December 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana (Viking). The question presented in Viking is whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including representative claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)

Under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), an “aggrieved employee” may bring a representative action on behalf of him or herself and other “aggrieved employees” for civil penalties for various violations of the California Labor Code. (Labor Code §§2698, et seq.)  PAGA cases have become increasingly more frequent for various reasons, including the fact

While California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) is often compared to class actions, many of the rules and regulations governing class actions are not present. And applying considerations like manageability to PAGA claims has caused California trial courts much consternation.

However, recently the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District has provided some

2020 presented a myriad of challenges for California employers, including the constant march of California court opinions regarding the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims.

The California courts focused on two issues involving PAGA this year:

  • Can a Plaintiff proceed with their PAGA claim (standing)?
  • Can a Defendant compel arbitration when there is a PAGA

The California Supreme Court has weighed in on who is an aggrieved employee under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. The issue before the court was, does an employee bringing an action under PAGA lose standing to pursue representative claims as an “aggrieved employee” by settling and