Aggrieved employees with their own Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuits are not automatically entitled to intervene in another employee’s PAGA action, according to the California Supreme Court.
In May 2018, Lyft driver Tina Turrieta sent notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) of representative claims she wanted to bring under PAGA based on Lyft’s alleged violation of several provisions of the Labor Code. She filed suit in July 2018.
Turrieta and Lyft signed an agreement settling her lawsuit in early December 2019 and scheduled an approval hearing for January 2020.
Brandon Olson and Million Seifu—also drivers for Lyft who had each filed their own PAGA actions seeking civil penalties—filed separate motions to intervene in Turrieta’s action and submitted objections to the settlement.
The trial court denied the motions, approved the settlement, and later denied the motions of Olson and Seifu to vacate the judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Olson appealed, arguing that, as a deputized agent of the state under PAGA, he had the right, on behalf of the state, to intervene in Turrieta’s action, to move to vacate the judgment in that action, and to have the court consider his objections to the proposed settlement.
The state’s highest court disagreed.
“PAGA provides that an aggrieved employee, after complying with specified procedural prerequisites, may ‘commence a civil action’ to recover civil penalties that the LWDA may assess and collect,” the court wrote. “Although a PAGA plaintiff may use the ordinary tools of civil litigation that are consistent with the statutory authorization to commence an action, such as taking discovery, filing motions, and attending trial, we conclude … that the authority Olson seeks in this case – to intervene in the ongoing PAGA action of another plaintiff asserting overlapping claims, to require a court to consider objections to a proposed settlement in that overlapping action, and to move to vacate the judgment in that action – would be inconsistent with the scheme the Legislature enacted. This conclusion best comports with the relevant provisions of PAGA as read in their statutory context, in light of PAGA’s legislative history, and in consideration of the consequences that would follow from adopting Olson’s contrary interpretation.”
The power to commence a PAGA action necessarily implies the power to prosecute the action and the power to use the ordinary tools of civil litigation incident to the power to prosecute, the court acknowledged.
Recognition of the intervention power asserted by Olson, however, would not further the legislative objectives in authorizing an aggrieved employee to commence and prosecute a PAGA action.
Turrieta’s PAGA action served the statutory purposes, but Olson based his simultaneous representation of the very same state interests already represented by Turrieta, the court said.
The court rejected Olson’s argument that additional oversight of PAGA settlements was necessary to help the overworked LWDA, noting the legislative history that was an effort to improve the review and oversight of PAGA cases.
“[W]hen the Legislature expressly addressed oversight, it looked only to the courts and to the LWDA, and it provided the funds it deemed necessary for the LWDA to effectively perform its statutorily assigned oversight functions,” the court explained.
The court declined to take sides on the policy debate over the potential benefits, disadvantages and dangers of allowing or disallowing such intervention, which it said were more properly addressed to the legislature.
In addition, the court noted that its opinion did not foreclose other ways in which deputized PAGA plaintiffs could weigh in on other settlements, such as informing the LWDA of their concerns about proposed settlements.
To read the opinion in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., click here.
Why it matters
The decision—declining to mandate that courts allow PAGA plaintiffs to intervene in other PAGA suits—adds to the recent changes in the state as found in reform legislation enacted this summer, from tweaks in penalties to expanded cure provisions to reduce litigation and an increase in employee share.