New PAGA/Employment Case

I help California lawyers get excellent results several ways:

• I serve as a mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. 
• I publish California Case Summaries™ to help California lawyers always know the new case law in their practice areas to get a competitive advantage and win more cases. 
• In my Trial Alchemy™ podcast I interview outstanding plaintiff and defense civil trial lawyers and ABOTA members to help lawyers to learn from trial experts. 

New CA PAGA/Employment Case

Can PAGA plaintiffs in other PAGA actions intervene in a PAGA action
to object to a settlement and seek to vacate the judgment? 

Last month, the California Supreme Court addressed this issue. Below is my one-paragraph summary of this new decision:

Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) _ Cal.5th _ , 2024 WL 3611975: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision that had affirmed the trial court’s order denying motions, by other employees who had filed separate PAGA actions against defendant employer, to intervene in this PAGA action and submit objections to the settlement and to vacate the judgment. This case involved what has become a common scenario in PAGA litigation: multiple persons claiming to be an “aggrieved employee” within the meaning of PAGA file separate and independent lawsuits seeking recovery of civil penalties from the same employer for the same alleged Labor Code violations. The California Supreme Court observed that a PAGA plaintiff may use the ordinary tools of civil litigation that are consistent with the statutory authorization to commence an action such as taking discovery, filing motions, and attending trial. However, the California Supreme Court concluded that it would be inconsistent with the scheme the Legislature enacted for PAGA cases to allow other PAGA plaintiffs to intervene in an ongoing PAGA action of another plaintiff asserting overlapping claims, to require the trial court to consider objections to a proposed settlement in that overlapping action, and to allow other PAGA plaintiffs to move to vacate the judgment in that action. This conclusion best comports with the relevant provisions of PAGA as read in their statutory context, in light of PAGA’s legislative history, and in consideration of the consequences that would follow from adopting the interpretation requested by the other PAGA plaintiffs. (August 1, 2024.)    

Mediation, Arbitration and Referee Services

I help attorneys and their clients throughout California as a mediator, arbitrator and referee at ADR Services, Inc. I handle business, commercial, employment, insurance, probate, real property, and tort cases. I've represented plaintiffs and defendants in the above areas, I've been a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) since 1995, I've tried over 100 cases, and I'm a past president of the San Diego County Bar Association and the San Diego Chapter of ABOTA. To schedule a new matter, please contact one of my case manager at ADR services, Ins., Haward Cho, [email protected], (213) 683-1600, or Rachael Boughan, 
[email protected], (619) 233-1323,  

California Case Summaries™

Best regards,
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee
Trial Mentoring™
Podcaster: Trial Alchemy™
Publisher: California Case Summaries™
ABOTA Member Since 1995
Past President: San Diego County Bar Assn.
Past President: SD ABOTA Chapter
Phone: (619) 990-4312. Email: [email protected]