Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Representative Claim in PAGA Suit Improperly Stricken
‘Unmanageability’ Is No Such Ground an for Action, the Fourth District’s Div. Three Declares,
Rejecting Contrary View Expressed by Los Angeles-Based Panel Last September
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A trial court has no inherent power to strike representative claims under the Private Attorneys General Act on the ground of unmanageability, Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held, repudiating a contrary conclusion reached last year by a panel in this district.
Acting Presiding Justice Eileen C. Moore wrote Wednesday’s opinion. Among other things, it reverses Orange Superior Court Judge Randall J. Sherman’s order striking a claim under the 2004 act, commonly referred to by the acronym “PAGA.”
Moore acknowledged the Sept. 9 opinion in Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC by Presiding Justice Nora M. Manella of this district’s Div. Four which found that inherent authority to strike claims does exist, but said:
“While we understand the concerns expressed in Wesson, we reach the opposite conclusion.”
She cited two California Supreme Court cases—Arias v. Superior Court decided in 2009 and Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., filed in 2020—and declared:
“These cases have made clear that PAGA claims are unlike conventional civil suits and, in particular, are not class actions. Allowing dismissal of unmanageable PAGA claims would effectively graft a class action requirement onto PAGA claims, undermining a core principle of these authorities.”
‘Extra Hurdle’
Moore continued:
“It would also interfere with PAGA’s purpose as a law enforcement mechanism by placing an extra hurdle on PAGA plaintiffs that is not placed on the state.”
Under PAGA, an employee is authorized to seek, on behalf of the state, civil penalties against his or her employer for Labor Code violations, and keep 25 percent of the payments that are collected.
The jurist cited Kim for the proposition that “a representative action under PAGA is not a class action” and pointed out that in Arias, it was held that class action requirements are not applicable in PAGA cases.
“Accordingly, requiring that PAGA claims be manageable would graft a crucial element of class certification onto PAGA claims, undercutting our Supreme Court’s prior holdings,” she wrote.
Moore noted that “courts are not powerless when facing unwieldy PAGA claims,” remarking:
“Courts may still, where appropriate and within reason, limit the amount of evidence PAGA plaintiffs may introduce at trial to prove alleged violations to other unrepresented employees. If plaintiffs are unable to show widespread violations in an efficient and reasonable manner, that will just reduce the amount of penalties awarded rather than lead to dismissal.”
The case is Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 2022 S.O.S. 1260.
Manella’s Opinion
Manella’s opinion recognized that representative actions under PAGA are distinct from class actions. She said:
“California courts have exercised their inherent powers to preclude representative claims where a trial of those claims would be unmanageable. In the class action context, the courts have required class action proponents to demonstrate that ‘litigation of individual issues, including those arising from affirmative defenses, can be managed fairly and efficiently.’…The statutory provision that authorizes class actions, Code of Civil Procedure section 382, contains no such requirement.”
She observed that in South Bay Chevrolet v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., the Fourth District’s Div. One approved the exercise of inherent powers to bar a representative action under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) based on unmanageability.
The presiding justice went on to say:
“Indeed, PAGA claims may well present more significant manageability concerns than those involved in class actions. By its terms, PAGA includes no general requirement similar to the requirement in the class action context, that the plaintiff establish a well-defined community of interest, encompassing a showing that common questions predominate over individual ones….Thus, a PAGA claim can cover disparate groups of employees and involve different kinds of violations raising distinct questions.”
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company