In Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, the appellate court determined that courts have inherent authority to strike unmanageable PAGA claims. (Id. at pp. 766-767.) A contrary opinion has just been issued by the California Fourth Appellate District in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. The Estrada court recognized the concerns expressed in Wesson but reached an opposite conclusion. The Estrada court referenced what it found to be pertinent Supreme Court authority and determined that a court cannot strike a PAGA claim based on manageability. A Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claim is a claim of an employee against an employer for employer wage and hour violations brought on behalf of all employees similarly affected that splits the recovery between the plaintiffs and State and permits recovery of statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and other damages for all affected employees.

The Estrada court determined California Supreme Court cases made clear that PAGA claims are unlike conventional civil suits and, in particular, are not class actions. It reasoned that allowing dismissal of unmanageable PAGA claims would effectively graft a class action requirement onto PAGA claims, undermining a core principle of these authorities. It also decided it would interfere with PAGA’s purpose as a law enforcement mechanism by placing an extra hurdle on PAGA plaintiffs that is not placed on the state.

The Estrada court asserted that courts are not powerless when facing unwieldy PAGA claims. It opined courts may still, where appropriate and within reason, limit the amount of evidence PAGA plaintiffs may introduce at trial to prove alleged violations to other unrepresented employees. If plaintiffs are unable to show widespread violations in an efficient and reasonable manner, according to the Estrada court, it just reduces the amount of penalties awarded and should not lead to dismissal.

Employers faced with PAGA claims should immediately retain counsel to defend such actions. These cases are becoming the preferred choice of employee counsel as they are very expensive to defend.

The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.