Quinonez v. Payless 4 Plumbing CA4/2
E074467
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 7, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Robert Quinonez worked for Payless 4 Plumbing and alleged multiple wage-and-hour violations affecting himself and other nonexempt employees (meal/rest breaks, overtime, wage statements, reimbursement, unpaid final wages).
- Quinonez sent the required PAGA/LWDA notice on December 21, 2018 and later filed a representative PAGA complaint on April 26, 2019.
- Payless filed a "notice of cure" with the LWDA on January 22, 2019, asserting it had corrected the alleged violations and invoked the 33-day safe-harbor and dispute-response procedures of Labor Code § 2699.3(c).
- Quinonez did not file a dispute to the cure notice under § 2699.3(c)(3); instead he proceeded under the administrative timetable in § 2699.3(a) for violations listed in § 2699.5.
- The trial court sustained Payless’s general demurrer for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the alleged violations fall within the provisions listed in § 2699.5 and are governed by § 2699.3(a) (which does not permit the § 2699.3(c) cure/safe-harbor procedure), so Quinonez had exhausted the required administrative remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which § 2699.3 administrative process governs claims here (subd. (a) vs. subd. (c) safe‑harbor)? | Quinonez: violations alleged are listed in § 2699.5, so § 2699.3(a) applies and he exhausted LWDA notice before suing. | Payless: employer invoked § 2699.3(c) cure; plaintiff had to dispute the cure and await LWDA decision before suing. | Court: Claims are for statutes listed in § 2699.5; § 2699.3(a) governs, not the § 2699.3(c) safe harbor; plaintiff exhausted remedies and may proceed. |
| Do citations to other statutes (e.g., § 558, § 200, § 500) convert the claim into one governed by the § 2699.3(c) cure? | Quinonez: those references do not change the governing PAGA process for the listed violations. | Payless: argued other statutory references support application of the safe-harbor process. | Court: References to definitional or non-PAGA private‑action statutes (e.g., § 200, § 500, § 558) do not bring the claim under § 2699.3(c); § 2699.3(a) still controls for the listed violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Dinuba v. County of Tulare, 41 Cal.4th 859 (2007) (standard of review on demurrer; interpret complaint as whole and treat pleaded facts as true)
- People ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc., 59 Cal.4th 772 (2014) (de novo review for sustaining a demurrer)
- ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.5th 175 (2019) (§ 558 does not create a PAGA civil‑penalty private right; remedy discussion for deficient pleadings)
- Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services Dist., 33 Cal.App.5th 502 (2019) (general demurrer cannot dismiss only a portion of a cause of action)
- Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.App.4th 1547 (1996) (general demurrer challenges sufficiency of entire cause of action)