The Second District Court of Appeal held that, under the pre-reform PAGA statute, an individual employee need not have been employed or experienced a Labor Code violation during the one-year PAGA limitations period to have...more
5/30/2025
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
California ,
Employee Rights ,
Employees ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Litigation ,
Labor Code ,
Labor Law Violations ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) ,
Standing ,
State Labor Laws ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Statutory Interpretation
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.”...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Second Appellate District entered the fray and, like the Fourth and Fifth Districts in Galarsa and Piplack, held that an individual PAGA representative still maintains standing to pursue non-individual...more