View Opinion

Horvitz & Levy persuaded the California Supreme Court to uphold a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) settlement against objections insisting that the settlement was insufficient. The opinion created new precedent as the first California Supreme Court case to hold that PAGA plaintiffs cannot intervene in overlapping PAGA cases or otherwise object to settlements based solely on their status as the State’s deputized private attorneys general.

PAGA permits an “aggrieved employee” to bring a representative action on behalf of current or former employees to recover civil penalties for wage-related violations of California’s Labor Code. These are law enforcement actions brought by deputized private attorney general plaintiffs acting as proxies for the State. PAGA claims cannot be settled without the trial court’s approval.

Multiple plaintiffs often bring separate PAGA actions asserting overlapping claims. However, any judgment on a PAGA claim is binding not only on the State but also on both the named PAGA plaintiff and nonparty aggrieved workers who would be bound in an action brought by the government.

Consequently, where more than one plaintiff brings separate, overlapping PAGA actions, a settlement approved in one of these lawsuits could foreclose or curtail the other overlapping lawsuits. PAGA plaintiffs therefore often object to settlements in overlapping PAGA actions, or seek to intervene—or vacate the judgment—to challenge the proposed settlement.

In Turrieta, the parties sought court approval for their PAGA settlement. However, a plaintiff from an overlapping PAGA action submitted objections and moved to intervene. The trial court denied the motion and approved the settlement. The court also denied the objector’s motion to vacate the judgment. The objector appealed, and respondent Lyft retained Horvitz & Levy to defend the judgment on appeal.

Horvitz & Levy convinced the Court of Appeal to affirm the judgment in favor of its client Lyft, but Courts of Appeal in other cases disagreed over whether objectors had a right to intervene or seek vacatur to oppose settlements in overlapping PAGA cases. Faced with this split of authority, the California Supreme Court granted review in Turrieta.

Horvitz & Levy persuaded the California Supreme Court to affirm. The Supreme Court held that a deputized private attorney general plaintiff has no right to intervene or move to vacate in overlapping PAGA cases based solely on his or status as the State’s proxy. The Supreme Court also held that trial courts are not required to consider objections to a proposed PAGA settlement from such plaintiffs based on this status.