California Top Court Tightens Deputy Power Under State Labor Law

California workers — deputized under a unique state law to enforce labor code, known as PAGA — can’t intervene in separate cases even if the cases overlap, the state’s top court ruled Thursday.

Allowing a Private Attorneys General Act plaintiff to intervene in an overlapping case wouldn’t be in line with the state legislature’s vision for PAGA, Justice Martin J. Jenkins wrote in a California Supreme Court opinion.

Undermining the plaintiff’s assertion that intervention is needed to “sniff out bad deals,” PAGA’s legislative history shows the legislature deemed the oversight of the court and California’s Labor & Workforce Development Agency sufficient, the opinion said.

Permitting such intervention would invite a litany of questions, including over which plaintiff would control and direct the litigation, whether any of them can unilaterally settle, and who can receive attorneys’ fees, Jenkins wrote. These questions could leave courts to handle multiple motions to vacate and appeals from separate plaintiffs who all appear to represent the state.

“Of course, the Legislature, in its policymaking role, remains free to consider Olson’s arguments — including his claim that the funds the Legislature has allocated for LWDA oversight are insufficient — and to amend PAGA and the state budget in accordance with its conclusions,” Jenkins wrote.

Rare Dissent

The case tightens the bounds of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, which California’s legislature revised this summer.

Petitioner Brandon Olson sought to challenge what he saw as an unfair settlement in Tina Turrieta’s PAGA case against Lyft Inc., where Turrieta claimed that Lyft misclassified her as an independent contractor.

Olson and Turrieta each filed separate PAGA claims against Lyft, and Olson thought Turrieta’s settlement was unduly low.

On a bench known for its unity, Jenkins was met with a rare dissent, authored by Justice Goodwin H. Liu, and joined by Justice Kelli M. Evans.

Liu wrote in his dissent that the majority opinion fails to answer whether the state itself can intervene in a PAGA suit or move to vacate a judgment, breaking its ability to fully incorporate the legislature’s intent.

Basic civil procedure rules require handling the same claims in a single proceeding, Liu wrote, warning that the ruling prevents trial courts from hearing out knowledgeable and interested plaintiffs.

“Taken together, the court’s decision creates a substantial risk of auctioning the settlement of representative PAGA claims to the lowest bidder and insulating those settlements from appellate review,” Liu wrote.

Justice Leondra M. Kruger wrote the concurring opinion, joined by Justice Joshua P. Groban, saying it’s unclear that a plaintiff in an overlapping PAGA action has the same power as the state to enter an action as a party.

She also stressed that the trial court must ensure PAGA settlements are fair regardless of whether an aggrieved employee has the express right to intervene.

Olivier & Schreiber LLP and Outten & Golden LLP represent Olson. Horvitz & Levy LLP and Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP represent Lyft Inc. Allen Graves of Sierra Madre, Calif., represents Turrieta.

The case is Turrieta v. Lyft, Cal., No. S271721, 8/1/24.