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,

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

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