No Right for PAGA Plaintiffs to Intervene or Object to Settlements in Separately Filed PAGA Actions

09.16.2024

California’s Supreme Court recently confirmed there is no right for a separately-filing plaintiff to intervene in another pending Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) action where a settlement is reached and approved. (Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 661). This is a positive development, especially given the proliferation of duplicative, follow-on PAGA actions being filed against employers throughout California.

Background – The Rise of Duplicative PAGA Actions Against Employers

With the continual rise of PAGA actions in California over the past decade, employers will often face wholly duplicative or overlapping PAGA actions brought by two or more separately-filing plaintiffs. Multiple employees claiming to be aggrieved will provide notice to the State via the Labor & Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”), then file separate and independent lawsuits seeking recovery of civil penalties (and fees) from the same employers for the same alleged Labor Code violations. These “piggy-back” lawsuits have increased in frequency over time, especially with the advent of immediately available filing information made public via the LWDA’s website.

The Turrieta, Olson, and Seifu Actions & Result Achieved

In Turrieta, three former Lyft drivers, Tina Turrieta, Brandon Olson, and Million Seifu, each filed separate actions against Lyft seeking PAGA penalties for similar wage and hour violations. While the three cases were pending, Lyft settled with Turrieta. The settlement included an agreement that Turrieta’s complaint would be amended to include all PAGA claims that could have been brought against Lyft, encompassing all claims (including all claims pleaded in the three actions). Turrieta provided notice of the settlement to the LWDA, and the LWDA did not object.

Olson and Seifu in turn filed separate motions to intervene in Turrieta’s case and object to the settlement. The trial court rejected their objection on the grounds that they lacked standing. They next attempted to vacate the judgment, which request was denied. Both parties appealed, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Olson appealed to the California Supreme Court. In a 5-2 decision, the Court found that, based on the express statutory language of PAGA, an aggrieved employee’s status as the State’s proxy in a PAGA action does not give the employee the right to intervene in another employee’s PAGA action, move to vacate a judgment in the other employee’s PAGA action, or require a court to receive and consider objections to a proposed settlement of another employee’s PAGA action.

Takeaways for Employers

While there are many ways to evaluate, address, and defend a PAGA action, this case provides much needed support for employers defending duplicative or overlapping PAGA actions, allowing them to better evaluate and determine: (1) whether and how to resolve one or more actions (or defend them); and (2) which PAGA action may be in their best interest to focus on in terms of achieving an informal resolution, so as to in turn extinguish any other pending actions–and do so with more confidence.

Please contact the authors or your counsel at Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo to help determine how these strategies may apply to and best help you.