1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Good News For California Employers - PAGA Does Not Provide A Second Bite At The Apple

Good News For California Employers - PAGA Does Not Provide A Second Bite At The Apple

Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.29.09

Shutting down a fledgling cottage industry before it could pick up much steam, the recent California Court of Appeal decision in Deleon v. Verizon Wireless held that a separate Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) action may not be brought seeking penalties under the Labor Code when the underlying wage-and-hour claims have already been dismissed with prejudice via a class action settlement.

Under PAGA, the so-called "Bounty Hunter Law" which is codified at Labor Code section 2698, et seq., employees can recover, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees, civil penalties for a variety of Labor Code violations that were once only recoverable by the State of California and its regulating governmental agencies, including the Labor Commissioner. In recent years, some plaintiffs' attorneys have carefully scrutinized class action settlements to determine whether they released PAGA claims and, if not, have filed piggy-back actions seeking only PAGA penalties for the otherwise previously settled claims. Employers, believing they had previously settled the Labor Code claims at issue, have been left to grapple with these follow-on lawsuits which have, in essence, forced them to litigate the underlying claims a second time.

The Deleon court held that this second bite at the apple is not appropriate. After settlement of a class action lawsuit that did not allege PAGA claims, Deleon, an opt-out plaintiff, brought a new putative class action suit alleging the same facts over much of the same time period solely based on PAGA and the relief available thereunder. The Court of Appeal held that, because both the settled claims and the PAGA claims arose from the invasion of the same primary right, the doctrine of res judicata barred the later PAGA suit as to any putative class members who did not opt out of the prior settlement.

While the California Supreme Court has not expressly addressed the res judicata bar of PAGA claims, at least for now employers can breathe a collective sigh of relief that enterprising plaintiffs' counsel have less incentive to troll the docket looking for previously settled cases to find opportunities to bring additional lawsuits based on the absence of PAGA claims and releases in the initial litigation.

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 03.26.24

California Office of Health Care Affordability Notice Requirement for Material Change Transactions Closing on or After April 1, 2024

Starting next week, on April 1st, health care entities in California closing “material change transactions” will be required to notify California’s new Office of Health Care Affordability (“OHCA”) and potentially undergo an extensive review process prior to closing. The new review process will impact a broad range of providers, payers, delivery systems, and pharmacy benefit managers with either a current California footprint or a plan to expand into the California market. While health care service plans in California are already subject to an extensive transaction approval process by the Department of Managed Health Care, other health care entities in California have not been required to file notices of transactions historically, and so the notice requirement will have a significant impact on how health care entities need to structure and close deals in California, and the timing on which closing is permitted to occur....