94 Cal.App.5th 1128
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Multiple overlapping PAGA actions (six total) were filed against In‑N‑Out across four counties; Piplack (Orange) and Taylor (Los Angeles) were earlier-filed PAGA claimants and Accurso filed a later action in Sonoma.
- Accurso negotiated a settlement in his Sonoma action that, according to movants, would resolve all PAGA claims against In‑N‑Out; Piplack and Taylor learned of mediation and moved to intervene and for a stay in Accurso to protect their LWDA‑deputized enforcement interests.
- The trial court denied intervention and a stay, finding Piplack and Taylor lacked a “personal” interest and relying on Turrieta v. Lyft.
- On appeal the court reviewed mandatory intervention de novo and permissive intervention for abuse of discretion, held the trial court correctly denied intervention as‑of‑right (for failure of proof), but found the denial of permissive intervention was an abuse of discretion and vacated/ remanded for reconsideration of permissive intervention and any stay.
- The appellate court emphasized that PAGA claimants are deputized proxies of the LWDA with potentially “significantly protectable interests,” but the movants failed to produce LWDA notices or other evidence to meet their burden for mandatory intervention and filed prematurely before any settlement approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Piplack/Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (Accurso / In‑N‑Out) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) May non‑party PAGA claimants intervene as‑of‑right under §387? | They are deputized LWDA proxies with a protectable interest that could be impaired by an ultra vires settlement. | PAGA suits vindicate the State’s interest; non‑parties lack a personal right to intervene (Turrieta). | Mandatory intervention denied: movants have a protectable interest but failed to show inadequate representation or likely impairment; motion was premature and unsupported by LWDA notices. |
| 2) May non‑party PAGA claimants obtain permissive intervention under §387(d)(2)? | Permissive intervention should be allowed so overlapping claimants can guard against overbroad settlements and raise exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. | Permissive intervention is unnecessary and would disrupt litigation; timeliness concerns. | Denial of permissive intervention was an abuse of discretion because the trial court relied on erroneous legal premise (Turrieta); remand for proper discretionary balancing (including stay request). |
| 3) Standard of review for intervention rulings? | De novo review for mandatory intervention; permissive intervention reviewed for abuse of discretion. | Defendants argued for deference/abuse standard generally. | Court applies de novo to mandatory intervention issues and abuse of discretion to permissive intervention. |
| 4) Should the Sonoma action be stayed under exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine? | A stay is appropriate to prevent inefficient or preclusive resolution across overlapping PAGA actions. | No showing of prejudice or timing to warrant stay; defendant had no obligation to raise it. | Remanded: trial court should consider stay in conjunction with permissive intervention; stay and scope may be tailored. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., 69 Cal.App.5th 955 (Cal. Ct. App.) (PAGA parallel‑suit appellant lacked "personal" interest; court denied intervention)
- Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc., 72 Cal.App.5th 56 (Cal. Ct. App.) (permitting nonparty PAGA claimant involvement in settlement approval analysis)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal.) (PAGA claimant acts as agency‑proxy for LWDA; judgment can bind nonparty aggrieved employees)
- Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 142 S. Ct. 2191 (U.S.) (presumption of adequate representation does not apply where multiple state agents may represent different institutional interests)
- Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528 (U.S.) (minimal showing of inadequacy of representation suffices for intervention as‑of‑right)
- United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915 (9th Cir.) (elements and liberal standard for intervention under Rule 24 mirrored in §387)
- Uribe v. Crown Building Maintenance Co., 70 Cal.App.5th 986 (Cal. Ct. App.) (importance of LWDA notice scope to define a PAGA claimant’s authority and limits)
- Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., 42 F.4th 1013 (9th Cir.) (standard of review: de novo for motions to intervene as‑of‑right, timeliness reviewed for abuse of discretion)