-
Aug 22, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Brian Gillis |Phillip Ebsworth
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme
Court held that PAGA does not apply to public entity
employers.
The California Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal and
prior appellate court decisions to conclude that the PAGA statute, legislative history, and public
policy support the conclusion public entity employers are not
subject to PAGA actions for civil penalties.
-
Aug 20, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Phillip Ebsworth |Brian Gillis
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that PAGA does not apply to public entity employers. The California Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal and prior appellate court decisions to conclude that the PAGA statute, legislative history, and public policy support the conclusion public entity employers are not subject to PAGA actions for civil penalties.
-
Apr 30, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Phillip Ebsworth
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Second District, following Adolph and not Viking River, confirms that a PAGA plaintiff does not lose standing to pursue a PAGA claim if they "did not file an individual cause of action seeking individual relief." In Balderas, the employee alleged that she was "not suing in her individual capacity" but "solely under the PAGA, on behalf of the State of California for all aggrieved employees." The trial court, on its own motion, struck the complaint because the employee...
-
Apr 24, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Phillip Ebsworth
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Second District, following Adolph and not Viking River, confirms that a PAGA plaintiff does not lose standing to pursue a PAGA claim if they “did not file an individual cause of action seeking individual relief.” In Balderas, the employee alleged that she was “not suing in her individual capacity” but “solely under the PAGA, on behalf of the State of California for all aggrieved employees.” The trial court, on its own motion, struck the complaint because the employee...
-
Apr 23, 2024 | 
lexblog.com | Phillip Ebsworth
By: Phillip J.
-
Apr 23, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Phillip Ebsworth
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Second District, following Adolph and not Viking River, confirms that a PAGA plaintiff does not lose standing to pursue a PAGA claim if they “did not file an individual cause of action seeking individual relief.” In Balderas, the employee alleged that she was “not suing in her individual capacity” but “solely under the PAGA, on behalf of the State of California for all aggrieved employees.” The trial court, on its own motion, struck the complaint because the employee...
-
Jan 25, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Michael Afar |Jeffrey Berman |Phillip Ebsworth |Kerry Friedrichs
Seyfarth Synopsis: On January 18,
2024, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the
California Supreme Court addressed the split in appellate authority
as to whether trial courts have inherent authority to strike a PAGA
claim on the grounds that they were not manageable.
-
Jan 22, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Joshua Rodine |Michael Afar |Jeffrey Berman |Phillip Ebsworth
Seyfarth Synopsis: On January 18, 2024, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Supreme Court addressed the split in appellate authority as to whether trial courts have inherent authority to strike a PAGA claim on the grounds that they were not manageable.
-
Jan 17, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Phillip Ebsworth |Michael Afar
Seyfarth Synopsis: The first reported PAGA
case of 2024 serves as a reminder of the importance of precise
language for an enforceable PAGA waiver and the risks of including
a "poison pill" provision in a
class/representative/PAGA action waiver in arbitration
agreements.
-
Jan 12, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Michael Afar |Phillip Ebsworth
Seyfarth Synopsis: The first reported PAGA case of 2024 serves as a reminder of the importance of precise language for an enforceable PAGA waiver and the risks of including a “poison pill” provision in a class/representative/PAGA action waiver in arbitration agreements. In DeMarinis, the First District affirmed the trial court’s denial of the employer’s motion to compel arbitration finding that the agreement contained a wholesale PAGA waiver in violation of Iskanian and a “poison pill” provision.
