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

As California proceeds through the stages of reopening businesses in the wake of the COVID19 pandemic, the California state legislature is considering various bills to lighten the load for employers as they attempt to recover from the various degrees of business closures. One such bill is Assembly Bill 2457. Though the bill was introduced in

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

In Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. 18 Cal.App.5th 1052 (2017), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held an employee-plaintiff that settled and dismissed his individual claims was no longer an “aggrieved employee” for purposes of standing to bring a claim for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act

Putting an end to employees’ backdoor attempts to recover unpaid wages in Private Attorneys General Act-only actions under California Labor Code Section 558, the California Supreme Court has ruled against allowing such claims. ZB, N.A., et al. v. Superior Court, No. S246711 (Sept. 12, 2019).

This is surprising, as the Court provided this much-needed guidance