Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Brown worked as an hourly, nonexempt security guard for Ralphs (Kroger) from Oct 2005 to Dec 2009 and filed a PAGA representative action alleging wage-and-hour violations.
- On Oct 12, 2009 Brown sent letters (the 2009 Notice) to the LWDA and employer alleging violations of Labor Code §§204, 226(a), 226.7, and 512; LWDA declined to investigate.
- Brown sued and later omitted individual claims to proceed solely under PAGA; she amended pleadings over time to add claims under §§201–203, 1174(d), 1198, and sought penalties under §558.
- Defendants challenged the adequacy of the 2009 Notice in 2016; Brown sent expanded letters (the 2016 Notice) and filed a third amended complaint, but the trial court sustained a demurrer and entered judgment for defendants as time-barred.
- The Court of Appeal held the 2009 Notice adequately alleged only a §226(a) wage-statement violation (specifically citing failure to include employer legal name/address), but failed to state facts/theories supporting §§204, 226.7, 512 violations and did not notify for §§201–203, 1174(d), 1198; the later 2016 Notice was untimely under PAGA's one-year limitations scheme.
- The court ruled equitable tolling, relation back, judicial estoppel, and waiver do not generally rescue the late or deficient claims, but remanded to allow the §226(a) claim to proceed and to consider on remand whether any later claims can relate back to the adequate §226(a) notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of 2009 PAGA notice under §2699.3(a) | Brown: 2009 Notice satisfied §2699.3(a) (identified sections and parties) | Ralphs: Notice lacked facts/theories; was legal conclusions paraphrasing statutes | 2009 Notice adequate only as to §226(a) (identified failure to include legal entity name/address); otherwise deficient for §§204, 226.7, 512 and did not notify for §§201–203, 1174(d), 1198 |
| Timeliness (one-year statute of limitations for PAGA) | Brown: 2016 Notice and amendments should be permitted; tolling or relation back should save claims | Ralphs: 2016 Notice filed long after one-year bar; claims time‑barred | Claims based on statutes not timely noticed (2016 Notice) are time-barred; one-year rule and §2699.3 timetable control |
| Equitable tolling and relation back to salvage late/deficient claims | Brown: Litigation history and earlier notices justify tolling or relation back | Ralphs: Allowing tolling/late notice defeats PAGA's purpose and statutory scheme | Equitable tolling is inappropriate given PAGA's text/purpose and the long delay; relation back only potentially available to claims that truly arise from the adequately noticed §226(a) claim and must be evaluated on remand |
| Judicial estoppel / waiver of defenses | Brown: Defendants’ prior silence or failure to object earlier waived their defenses or estops them | Ralphs: They preserved defenses in later motions and demurrers; silence is not affirmative position | Judicial estoppel and waiver do not bar Ralphs from asserting notice and statute-of-limitations defenses here; defenses preserved by later pleadings |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (Cal. 2017) (explains PAGA's purposes and interprets §2699.3 notice as requiring facts/theories to allow LWDA to triage claims)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009) (PAGA notice to LWDA is a condition precedent to bringing a PAGA action)
- Alcantar v. Hobart Service, 800 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2015) (rejects PAGA notice that is only legal conclusions without supporting facts/theories)
- Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court, 134 Cal.App.4th 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (discusses §2699.3 notice requirement and practice of allowing amendment after compliance)
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999) (lays out relation-back doctrine factors for amended pleadings)