Khan v. Dunn-Edwards Corp.
19 Cal. App. 5th 804
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Khan worked for Dunn-Edwards from 1994 until termination on September 2, 2011; his final paycheck arrived by mail 11 days later and its wage statement omitted the pay-period start date.
- Khan had previously sued in January 2012 alleging late final pay in violation of Labor Code §§201–203; he later dismissed his individual claim after arbitration compelled arbitration of that claim.
- On February 28, 2012, while the case was pending, Khan sent a PAGA notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and Dunn-Edwards that expressly referenced only his individual claims under Labor Code §226(a) (itemized wage statement omissions) and §§201–203 (late final wages).
- The LWDA notified Khan it did not intend to investigate; Khan then filed a First Amended Complaint asserting a PAGA cause of action alleging company-wide practices affecting other employees.
- Dunn-Edwards moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds; the trial court granted summary judgment, finding Khan’s PAGA notice insufficient for failing to identify aggrieved employees beyond himself.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Khan failed to comply with PAGA’s pre-filing notice requirements because his notice limited claims to himself and therefore did not give LWDA or the employer fair notice of representative claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Khan's PAGA notice satisfied §2699.3 by fairly notifying LWDA and employer of representative claims | Khan argued his notice need not specify representative scope because he acts as a proxy of the state and the notice should be assumed to seek representative relief | Dunn-Edwards argued the notice only referenced Khan individually and therefore failed to give LWDA or employer fair notice of claims on behalf of other employees | Held: Notice was insufficient. Because it expressly limited claims to Khan, it failed to afford LWDA or employer adequate opportunity to evaluate or respond to representative claims, so summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Friant & Associates, LLC, 15 Cal.App.5th 773 (explaining PAGA’s purpose and statutory framework)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (clarifying PAGA notice must include specific provisions, facts, and theories alleged)
- Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Pyle, 13 Cal.App.5th 513 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Tanguilig v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., 5 Cal.App.5th 665 (noting PAGA is a representative action and individual-only penalties are inconsistent with PAGA’s objectives)