Latest Posts › Employment Litigation

Share:

PAGA Paraphrased – Osuna v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

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

PAGA Paraphrased – Rose v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

The First District held that a prevailing defendant in a PAGA action may not recover litigation costs from the California Labor Workforce Development Agency when the LWDA did not participate in the litigation....more

PAGA Paraphrased – Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, Inc.

PAGA claims brought under pre-reform PAGA must be brought within one year of a Labor Code violation experienced by the plaintiff and because a PAGA claim necessarily has both an individual and a non-individual component,...more

PAGA Paraphrased – Parra Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation, Inc.

The Fourth District held that a motion to compel arbitration is not the correct vehicle to challenge a plaintiff’s failure to plead the individual component of a PAGA claim affirming the Superior Court’s denial of a motion to...more

PAGA Paraphrased — Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equip., Inc.

The Second District again held that issue preclusion barred plaintiff’s PAGA claim because he failed to establish any violation of the Labor Code and arbitral findings have a preclusive effect on a plaintiff’s standing in a...more

PAGA Paraphrased – Stone v. Alameda Health System

Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that PAGA does not apply to public entity employers....more

PAGA Reform: AB 2288 and SB 92 Passed

PAGA reform was officially introduced in the state Assembly and Senate! The language of the bills were released detailing the most substantive changes to PAGA in its 20-year history, and Governor Newsom signed them into law...more

PAGA Paraphrased – AB 2288 and SB 92

AB 2288 and SB 92 collectively amount to the most substantive changes ever to be seen to PAGA. The changes include numerous pro-employer provisions which seek to address longstanding concerns such as standing, penalties, and...more

PAGA Reform: AB 2288 and SB 92 Introduced

Seyfarth Synopsis: PAGA reform has officially been introduced in the state Assembly and Senate! The language of the bills were released detailing the most substantive changes to PAGA in its 20-year history. The bills have...more

PAGA Paraphrased – Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc.

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

The California Supreme Court Pulls The Carpet Out From Underneath Employers

Seyfarth Synopsis: On January 18, 2024, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Supreme Court addressed the split in appellate authority as to whether trial courts have inherent authority to strike a PAGA...more

PAGA Paraphrased – Gregg v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 89 Cal.App.5th 786 (2023)

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

PAGA Paraphrased – Piplack v. In-N-Out Burgers, 88 Cal.App.5th 1281 (2023)

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Fourth Appellate District provides further support that plaintiffs do not lose representative standing once their individual PAGA claims are compelled to arbitration. In doing so, it rejected the...more

PAGA Paraphrased – Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC, 88 Cal.App.5th 639 (2023)

Seyfarth’s Wage Hour Litigation practice group is excited to share this inaugural post in our new series, PAGA Paraphrased. The everchanging world of PAGA is full of verbose opinions, unwieldy statutory language, and a unique...more

A Unique Approach to Class-wide Settlement?

Seyfarth Synopsis: On January 18, 2019, in Porath v. Logitech, Case No. 18-CV-3091 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2019), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected, for the second...more

15 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide