Page 1
Pro Per May Not Maintain PAGA Action—Court of Appeal
Justice Wiley Says Such Actions Are Brought on Behalf of State; Non-Attorney May Not Represent Another Party
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A nonattorney may not bring an action, in pro per, under the Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act, Div. Eight of the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday.
“A party bringing claims under the Act represents a state agency and nonattorneys cannot represent other entities in court,” Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. explained in his unpublished opinion.
The opinion affirms a judgment of dismissal by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Barbara Ann Meiers, who sustained a demurrer, without leave to amend, to a complaint filed by Christopher Stone against his former employer, Charles Kim.
Can’t Represent Others
Wiley elaborated:
“Stone, a nonattorney, cannot represent the state agency. Litigants may represent their own interests in civil proceedings….Although no California statute codifies this right, California courts have consistently acknowledged it….Nonattorneys may not practice law for others, however, without being active members of the bar….By bringing claims under the Act, Stone attempts to represent the state agency. He cannot do this, for he is not an attorney.”
He noted that two decisions of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California previously came to this conclusion.
Stone contested the cost award against him in the amount of $1,043.17. The award was required, Wiley said, pointing to Code of Civil Procedure §1032(b) which he termed the “default rule” as to costs.
It provides:
“Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.”
2009 Opinion Cited
Stone argued that because he is indigent and brought his action in good faith, he should be relieved of the judgment as it relates to costs, citing the May 28, 2009 decision by Div. Seven of this district’s Court of Appeal in Garcia v. Santana. The losing party in that case was Sharon Green, who sued a low-income housing complex where she was a tenant.
The prevailing defendant sought $48,328 in attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code §1354(c) which says that in actions arising under bylaws of a common interest development, “the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mary Ann Murphy determined that an award of $0 was reasonable in light of Green’s indigency.
Then-Justice Laurie D. Zelon (now retired) wrote what was referred to as the “majority” opinion. Her view was that an award of $0 might meet the statute’s requirement of reasonableness, but that it wasn’t clear if Murphy reached her decision after weighing all relevant factors and that a remand was therefore necessary.
Two colleagues agreed only that a remand was required, each, in a separate opinion, maintaining that awarding no fees was an abuse of discretion.
Case Is Inapposite
Wiley, without getting into the details of the case before Div. Seven, said of Garcia:
“That case was about the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act…which expressly granted ‘reasonable’ attorney fees and costs to prevailing parties….That express provision applied to costs for prevailing parties and meant the default rule did not apply. Here, the default rule applies. Kim is entitled to costs as of right as the prevailing party.”
The case is Stone v. Kim, B324466.
Stone and Kim were both in pro per on appeal.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company