©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 2024 Cal-Peculiarities | 151 467 Id. at 542. 468 Id. at 544. 469 Id. at 548 (“overlapping policy considerations support extending PAGA discovery as broadly as class action discovery has been extended”). 470 Id. at 546-47. 471 Id. at 546. 472 Id. at 550 n.6. 473 Id. at 554–55. 474 Id. 475 Id. at 555–56. 476 Id. at 550-51. 477 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) (concluding that “a court cannot strike a PAGA claim based on manageability”). 478 Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 15 Cal. 5th 582, 619 (2024) (trial courts lack inherent authority to dismiss or strike a PAGA claim on manageability grounds, but may “limit[ ] the types of evidence a plaintiff may present or us[e] other tools to assure that a PAGA claim can be effectively tried”). 479 Bright v. 99 Cents Only Stores, Inc., 189 Cal. App. 4th 1472, 1481 (2010); Home Depot USA v. Superior Ct., 191 Cal. App. 4th 210, 218 (2010). 480 Arias v. Superior Ct., 46 Cal. 4th 969, 986 (2009). 481 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. 482 See Viking River, 142 S. Ct. 1906. 483 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.”). 484 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). 485 ZB, 8 Cal. 5th at 181. 486 Id. at 181-82. 487 Raines v. Coastal Pac. Food Distribs., Inc., 23 Cal. App. 5th 667, 680 (2018). 488 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.”). 489 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”). 490 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). 491 LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 75 Cal. App. 5th 388 (2022). 492 Health & Safety Code § 1799.102 (2008). 493 Van Horn v. Watson, 45 Cal. 4th 322, 325 (2008), abrogated in part by statute, Health & Safety Code § 1799.102(a). 494 Id. 495 Id. at 335. 496 Id. 497 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.) 498 Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal. 3d 65, 74 (1990). 499 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
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4