Rose v. Hobby Lobby Stores, A169640

Kelly Rose, a former cashier at Hobby Lobby, sued Hobby Lobby under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) alleging violations of suitable seating requirements.
The Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) is the real party in interest in all PAGA cases, though here it did not participate in litigation until post-trial intervention.
After Hobby Lobby prevailed at a bench trial, it sought to recover $125,000 in litigation costs from the LWDA as a prevailing defendant.
The trial court granted Hobby Lobby’s request for costs against LWDA, which then appealed the order.
The core legal question: Whether the LWDA, as a non-participating real party in interest in a PAGA suit, can be held liable for the prevailing defendant’s costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is a prevailing defendant in PAGA entitled to costs under general rules?	Only prevailing employees may recover costs under PAGA; statute is silent on employers.	Silence in PAGA on employers does not bar cost recovery; general cost recovery statute applies.	Court did not decide this; instead focused on who costs may be recovered from.
Can the LWDA be held liable for litigation costs as a non-participant?	LWDA is not liable as it did not participate or become a party before judgment.	LWDA is principal and real party in interest, thus should be liable under agency theory.	LWDA cannot be held liable for costs if it did not participate or intervene before judgment.
Does a PAGA plaintiff act as the LWDA's agent for purposes of cost-shifting?	No true agency relationship under PAGA; LWDA does not control the plaintiff.	PAGA creates agency relationship; principal is liable for agent’s acts.	No; PAGA does not create a traditional agency relationship making LWDA liable for costs.
Can costs be imposed on a real party in interest who did not participate?	No liability for non-participating real parties in interest.	Real party in interest is liable regardless of participation.	Costs cannot be imposed on non-participating real parties in interest like LWDA.

Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (Cal. 2014) (PAGA actions are qui tam actions with the state as real party in interest).
Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 17 Cal.4th 985 (Cal. 1998) (Cost recovery rules and statutory silence on fee/cost shifting).
DeSaulles v. Cmty. Hosp. of Monterey Peninsula, 62 Cal.4th 1140 (Cal. 2016) (Theory and tradition of litigation cost-shifting).
Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (Cal. 2017) (PAGA plaintiffs have no express fiduciary obligations to LWDA or other employees).
Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., 16 Cal.5th 664 (Cal. 2024) (PAGA's structure and state’s involvement in litigation).