32 Cal. App. 5th 736
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Moorer, a former Noble L.A. Events, Inc. employee, sued individually and as a representative under PAGA alleging Labor Code and wage order violations; Noble defaulted after its counsel withdrew and it failed to obtain new counsel.
- Moorer sought a default judgment including $594,550 in PAGA civil penalties calculated for 23 aggrieved employees.
- Labor Code § 2699(i) directs PAGA penalties be split 75% to the LWDA and 25% to aggrieved employees.
- Moorer’s proposed judgments consistently allocated the entire 25% share to himself rather than distributing it pro rata to all 23 aggrieved employees.
- The trial court repeatedly rejected Moorer’s default-judgment packages and ultimately dismissed the case after Moorer refused further opportunity to amend; Moorer appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper allocation of PAGA 25% share | Moorer: PAGA is qui tam-like so the 25% non-state share should go to the named plaintiff bringing the action | Court/defendant: Statute and precedent allocate the 25% to all aggrieved employees pro rata, not only the named plaintiff | 25% must be distributed among all aggrieved employees; Moorer erred in assigning it solely to himself |
| Whether dismissal was improper because Moorer lacked contact information for aggrieved employees | Moorer: Could not distribute pro rata because Noble never provided employee contact list | Court: Moorer could obtain contacts post-judgment via discovery/judgment creditor remedies or protective order; his discovery rights wouldn’t end at default | Dismissal not erroneous — court afforded multiple chances and Moorer declined to comply; dismissal resulted from Moorer’s refusal to amend |
| Whether awarding large penalties to Moorer aligns with PAGA’s purpose | Moorer: Policy favors incentivizing plaintiff enforcement | Court: PAGA is law-enforcement–oriented; awarding disproportionate penalties to a private plaintiff undermines statutory purpose | Court rejected Moorer’s policy argument; awarding all 25% to him would contravene PAGA’s public-enforcement focus |
| Whether Moorer’s procedural choice preserves issues for appeal | Moorer: Preserved allocation issue by refusing to amend | Court: Dismissal affirmed; refusal to comply caused dismissal and did not change statutory allocation requirement | Moorer’s tactical choice does not override statutory allocation or the court’s authority to dismiss after repeated noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014) (PAGA functions like qui tam except the private share of penalties is distributed to all affected employees)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (2009) (explains PAGA’s representative enforcement role and public law-enforcement purpose)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (2017) (PAGA deputizes harmed employees to sue on behalf of the state; penalties are shared with state and other affected employees)
- United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., 4 Cal.5th 1082 (2018) (standard of de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court, 243 Cal.App.4th 741 (2015) (judgment-creditor discovery methods and protective-order usage to obtain third-party contact information)