Good News For California Employers - PAGA Does Not Provide A Second Bite At The Apple
Client Alert | 1 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 | 3 min read | 05.28.26
Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a February 2024 Biden administration proposed rule, “Definition of Hazardous Waste Applicable to Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management Units,” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).[1] The withdrawn proposal would have revised RCRA corrective action regulations to expressly apply the broader statutory definition of “hazardous waste,” rather than only the narrower regulatory definition. Now, EPA is maintaining the status quo for corrective action under RCRA. However, EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed RCRA hazardous waste definition makes no mention of its corresponding proposal from 2024 to list nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as RCRA hazardous constituents.[2] This disjointed withdrawal, while providing some certainty for regulated entities, does not resolve how EPA plans to address PFAS under the RCRA program.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 05.28.26
Texas Targets Big Tech With Wave of Suits and Investigations, Part of Nationwide Trend
Client Alert | 7 min read | 05.27.26
Colorado Hits Reset on AI Regulation: SB 26-189 Repeals and Reenacts the Colorado AI Act
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.27.26
Don’t Get Left in the Doghouse: The Federal Circuit’s Global K9 Case and the Duty to Intervene
