Santos v. El Guapos Tacos, LLC
H046470
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 1, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs Lourdes Santos and Carolina Chavez-Cortez sued their former employer alleging ongoing wage-and-hour violations, including failure to provide lawful meal and rest breaks, deficient wage statements, unpaid wages/waiting-time penalties, and overtime violations, and sought PAGA civil penalties.
- Chavez-Cortez’s counsel served the LWDA prefiling notices (July 2015), describing: two named employees denied meal/rest breaks over several years, inaccurate wage statements, delayed payroll records, employer timecard machine evidence, and an amended notice adding overtime theories.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the LWDA notice was deficient because it failed to identify other aggrieved employees or state the representative nature of the claim; the trial court granted the motion, relying on Khan v. Dunn-Edwards Corp.
- Santos’s separate PAGA cause of action was earlier dismissed and she did not appeal that order; the appeal was prosecuted only by Chavez-Cortez.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment as to Chavez-Cortez, holding the notice provided fair notice of representative PAGA claims (meal/rest/overtime) and distinguishing Khan; the appeal was dismissed as to Santos and Chavez-Cortez awarded appellate costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of LWDA prefiling notice under Lab. Code §2699.3 | Chavez-Cortez: notice described systemic meal/rest and wage-statement problems (two employees, punch-card records, amended overtime allegations), giving LWDA and employer fair notice | Defendants: notice did not identify other aggrieved employees or state it was a representative PAGA claim, so LWDA/employer could treat it as individual | Held: Notice was adequate — need not expressly say “other aggrieved employees” where notice’s facts reasonably alerted LWDA to non‑isolated, representative violations; judgment reversed. |
| Applicability of Khan precedent | Chavez-Cortez: Khan is distinguishable and not controlling because Khan’s notice expressly limited claims to the individual | Defendants: Khan requires notice to indicate representative scope or identify other aggrieved workers | Held: Khan distinguished — that case involved a notice explicitly limited to the plaintiff; here notice referenced multiple employees, systemic facts, and thus Khan does not control. |
| Standing/appeal by Santos | Plaintiffs filed appeal jointly | Defendants: Santos is not aggrieved by the order dismissing Chavez‑Cortez’s PAGA claim and thus lacks standing | Held: Appeal dismissed as to Santos for lack of standing; Chavez‑Cortez is the sole appellant; Chavez‑Cortez recovers costs on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Khan v. Dunn-Edwards Corp., 19 Cal.App.5th 804 (appellant’s notice limited to himself was deficient for PAGA prefiling notice)
- Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 28 Cal.App.5th 824 (notice must include facts/theories supporting each alleged Labor Code violation)
- Alcantar v. Hobart Service, 800 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2015) (notice stating only legal conclusions without supporting facts is deficient)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (PAGA’s prefiling requirements construed with remedial purpose in mind)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (PAGA judgments bind unnamed aggrieved employees)
- Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., 23 Cal.App.5th 745 (overview of PAGA’s function as qui tam–style representative enforcement)
- Mays v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 354 F.Supp.3d 1136 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (PAGA claims are representative by nature)