The California Supreme Court recently held that a plaintiff in one Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action does not have the right to intervene or object to a judgment in a similar action even if a settlement or other resolution in that similar case results in their PAGA action being entirely extinguished. The Aug. 1 decision in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. is a solid win for employers, limiting the exposure they face when targeted with two or more overlapping PAGA actions and providing clarity when making strategic litigation decisions during PAGA settlement negotiations. What are some key takeaways from this ruling, and what should employers do as a result?
California employers are no stranger to the state’s recently overhauled PAGA. The legislative scheme allows an individual alleging Labor Code violations to bring a lawsuit against an employer and seek penalties “on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees.”
Because of the massive amounts that could be at stake, employers are frequently faced with two or more PAGA actions at the same time. At times, the plaintiffs bringing the separate actions might find themselves at conflict and may want different outcomes from their own pieces of litigation. But employers have felt uncertain as to how to proceed in such instances, because the law was unclear about what rights an individual pursuing one PAGA action might have to intervene in the lawsuit, object to a settlement, or move to...
Judge found FBI affidavit flawed but not enough to return ballots Probe part of Trump administration effort to reexamine 2020 loss Fulton County argued FBI relied on discredited evidence WASHING...