152 | 2023 Cal-Peculiarities ©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 483 Id. at 548 (“overlapping policy considerations support extending PAGA discovery as broadly as class action discovery has been extended”). 484 Id. at 546-47. 485 Id. at 546. 486 Id. at 550 n.6. 487 Id. at 554–55. 488 Id. 489 Id. at 555–56. 490 Id. at 550-51. 491 Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 68 Cal. App. 5th 746, 857 (2021) (holding that, in PAGA cases, “courts have inherent authority to … strike the [PAGA] claim,” and “this authority is not inconsistent with PAGA’s procedures and objectives”); cf. Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 76 Cal. App. 5th 685, 697 (2022), review granted, 511 P.3d 191 (2022) (“[F]ind[ing a court cannot strike a PAGA claim based on manageability.”). 492 Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, 294 Cal. Rptr. 3d 460, 511 P.3d 191 (2022). 493 Bright v. 99 Cents Only Stores, Inc., 189 Cal. App. 4th 1472, 1481 (2010); Home Depot USA v. Superior Court, 191 Cal. App. 4th 210, 218 (2010). 494 Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969, 986 (2009). 495 Ramirez v. Ghilotti Bros. Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1210 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (permitting recovery of Labor Code section 558 penalties under PAGA); Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Mgmt., Inc., 203 Cal. App. 4th 1112, 1132–33 (2012) (considering whether plaintiffs could recover meal and rest premium pay as “underpaid wages” under Labor Code section 558). Although the Supreme Court’s later decision in Kirby v. Immoos, 53 Cal. 4th 1255 (2012), created uncertainty as to whether meal and rest pay constitutes “underpaid wages,” Thurman opened the door for aggrieved employees to seek other wages as civil penalties under section 558. 496 SeeViking River, 142 S. Ct. 1906. 497 ZB, N.A. v. Superior Ct., 8 Cal. 5th 175, 182 (2019) (“What we conclude is that the civil penalties a plaintiff may seek under section 558 through the PAGA do not include the ‘amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.’ Although section 558 authorizes the Labor Commissioner to recover such an amount, this amount––understood in context––is not a civil penalty that a private citizen has authority to collect through the PAGA.”). 498 Lawson v. ZB, N.A., 18 Cal. App. 5th 705, 722 (2017), as modified (Dec. 21, 2017), aff'd but criticized sub nom. ZB, 8 Cal. 5th 175 (2019). 499 ZB, 8 Cal. 5th at 181. 500 Id. at 181–82. 501 Raines v. Coastal Pac. Food Distribs., Inc., 23 Cal. App. 5th 667, 680 (2018). 502 Huff v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 23 Cal. App. 5th 745, 751 (2018) (“PAGA allows an ‘aggrieved employee’—a person affected by at least one Labor Code violation committed by an employer—to pursue penalties for all the Labor Code violations committed by that employer.”). 503 AB 673, 2019 bill amending Lab. Code § 210(c) (“An employee is only entitled to either recover the statutory penalty provided for in this section or to enforce a civil penalty as set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 2699, but not both, for the same violation”). 504 Moorer v. Noble L.A. Events, Inc., 32 Cal. App. 5th 736, 743–44 (2019) (affirming dismissal of case, as allocation of 25 percent of the penalties to all aggrieved employees is consistent with the statutory scheme under which the judgment binds all aggrieved employees, including nonparties). 505 LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 75 Cal. App. 5th 388 (2022). 506 Health & Safety Code § 1799.102 (2008). 507 Van Horn v. Watson, 45 Cal. 4th 322, 325 (2008), abrogated in part by statute, Health & Safety Code § 1799.102(a). 508 Id. 509 Id. at 335. 510 Id. 511 Health & Safety Code section 1799.102(a), as amended, now reads: “No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission.” (Emphasis added.) 512 Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal. 3d 65, 74 (1990). 513 Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, 119 Cal. App. 4th 930, 934 (2004) (“While we may share the attorneys’ dismay that their efforts have been rewarded with this lawsuit rather than with the kudos they no doubt expected, and perhaps deserve, we are nonetheless constrained to hold that plaintiff’s claim cannot be rejected out of hand. While it may well be that the attorneys did not breach their duty of care in failing to proceed under an alternative theory that would have produced a greater recovery, we cannot say, as did the trial court, that there simply was no duty for the attorneys to breach.”). 514 See, e.g., Williams v. Chino Valley Indep. Fire Dist., 61 Cal. 4th 97, 115 (2015) (prevailing FEHA defendant should not be awarded costs unless “action was objectively without foundation when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so”); Seever v. Copley Press, Inc., 141 Cal. App. 4th 1550, 1560 (2006) (defendant’s statutory offer of compromise for sum certain, plus costs and
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4