Until recently, California courts were split on whether Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claims could be dismissed for a lack of “manageability” – referring to the practicality of effectively conducting a trial on the issues. Like class actions, PAGA actions generally purport to represent a significant number of an employer’s current and former employees. However, there are important distinctions between class and PAGA actions, which caused California’s appellate courts to issue conflicting opinions on how PAGA cases should be adjudicated. The California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills has largely settled the issue. Unfortunately for California employers, the decision follows a trend that continues to go against businesses in California.
After reviewing the legal and factual issues in the case, and analyzing the governing law, the California Supreme Court concluded that trial courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds. In reaching this conclusion, the high court emphasized that trial courts do not generally possess a broad inherent authority to dismiss claims and noted that it is not appropriate for trial courts to strike PAGA claims by employing class action manageability requirements. Accordingly, it concluded that, while trial courts may use a vast variety of tools to efficiently manage PAGA claims, given the structure and purpose of PAGA, striking such claims due to manageability concerns — even if the claims are complex or time-intensive — is not among the tools they possess.
However, the Court’s holding was not absolute, leaving a slight opening for employers, and by extension, trial courts, to dismiss PAGA claims for other reasons. In relevant part the Court “express[ed] no opinion as to the hypothetical questions of whether and under what circumstances, a defendant’s right to due process might ever support striking a PAGA claim.” In defining the “tools” available to trial courts to ensure PAGA claims are effectively tried, the Court did not “foreclose on the possibility that a defendant could demonstrate that a trial court’s use of case management techniques so abridged the defendant’s right to present a defense that its right to due process was violated…”
The Court did not offer any further insight or guidance as to how or when a defendant’s right to due process might be violated through a trial court’s “management techniques” or specify the threshold at which a PAGA claim would be too burdensome for fair adjudication. While the opinion alludes to and concedes that constitutional due process protections are paramount, the takeaway from this decision is that employers have lost a major tool in defending themselves against claims that often serve to threaten the employer’s ability to do business in California.
This publication is published by the law firm of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. The publication is intended to present an overview of current legal trends; no article should be construed as representing advice on specific, individual legal matters. Articles may be reprinted with permission and acknowledgment. ECJ is a registered service mark of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. All rights reserved.
- Counsel
Jared W. Slater is a Counsel in ECJ's Litigation and Employment Departments.
Jared's practice focuses on defending labor and employment actions, including claims for wage and hour violations, harassment, and discrimination both ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
- LA Al Fresco Deadline Extended | By: Pooja S. Nair
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014