16 Cal.5th 664
Cal.2024Background
- Three Lyft drivers (Turrieta, Olson, Seifu) filed separate overlapping PAGA suits alleging Lyft violated multiple Labor Code provisions; Turrieta settled her case with court approval.
- Olson and Seifu moved to intervene in Turrieta’s action and objected to the proposed settlement; the trial court denied intervention and later denied motions to vacate the settlement judgment.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Olson and Seifu lacked standing to challenge the settlement or vacate the judgment and failed to show the required interest for intervention.
- Olson petitioned to the California Supreme Court, arguing a deputized PAGA plaintiff may intervene, object to settlement, or move to vacate in a related PAGA action on the state’s behalf.
- The Supreme Court granted review on that limited question and affirmed the Court of Appeal: a PAGA plaintiff’s deputization does not, by itself, authorize intervention in another plaintiff’s overlapping PAGA action, require courts to consider a nonparty’s objections, or permit moving to vacate that judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Olson) | Defendant's Argument (Turrieta/Lyft) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a deputized PAGA plaintiff may intervene in another plaintiff’s overlapping PAGA action to protect the State’s interest | Olson: as the State’s proxy he has the right under CCP §387 to intervene to protect the State’s interest in overlapping claims | Turrieta/Lyft: PAGA authorizes commencement/prosecution of a PAGA action but does not confer a separate right to intervene in another plaintiff’s action; oversight is assigned to the court and LWDA | Held: No — the scope of authority deputized by PAGA does not include a right to intervene in another plaintiff’s overlapping PAGA suit |
| Whether a deputized PAGA plaintiff can move to vacate a judgment entered on settlement in a related PAGA action to obtain appellate standing | Olson: as the State’s representative he may move to vacate because the State is aggrieved by an inadequate settlement | Turrieta/Lyft: PAGA does not authorize deputized plaintiffs to move to vacate another plaintiff’s judgment; the LWDA and courts handle oversight and approval | Held: No — PAGA does not imply authority to move to vacate another plaintiff’s PAGA judgment; movant lacks the necessary individual ‘‘aggrieved’’ interest |
| Whether a deputized PAGA plaintiff has a right to require courts to consider objections to a proposed settlement in another plaintiff’s PAGA action | Olson: deputized plaintiffs may and should object to guard against reverse auctions and inadequate settlements; LWDA is overburdened | Turrieta/Lyft: allowing objections/intervention by competing deputies would invite delay, fee-driven opportunism, and procedural complexity; LWDA + court review suffice | Held: No — PAGA’s scheme contemplates review by the court and LWDA; formal objection/intervention by separate deputized plaintiffs is not implied |
| Whether PAGA’s notice/settlement-review provisions (submission to LWDA and judicial approval) imply a broader right for other deputized plaintiffs to participate | Olson: mandatory LWDA notice plus limited LWDA resources imply deputized plaintiffs must be able to intervene/objec t | Turrieta/Lyft: the statutory scheme (and 2016 amendments) assigns oversight to LWDA and courts and provides resources; Legislature did not provide for other deputies to intervene | Held: The Court interprets the statutory scheme as allocating settlement oversight to LWDA and courts and finds no legislative intent to authorize intervention by other PAGA plaintiffs |
Key Cases Cited
- Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2003) (PAGA enacted to augment state enforcement and deputizes employees to recover civil penalties on state’s behalf)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (2009) (PAGA plaintiff acts as proxy/agent of the state; PAGA is a representative/qui tam–like action)
- Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756 v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 993 (2009) (limitations on powers of PAGA plaintiffs; not all state powers transferred)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (2017) (judicial duty to ensure PAGA settlements are fair to those affected)
- Kim v. Reins Int’l Cal., Inc., 9 Cal.5th 73 (2020) (PAGA actions function as substitute for government enforcement)
- ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.5th 175 (2019) (characteristics of PAGA and limits on recovery scope)
- County of Alameda v. Carleson, 5 Cal.3d 730 (1971) (only parties of record ordinarily may appeal; one aggrieved may move to vacate to obtain standing)
- Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc., 72 Cal.App.5th 56 (2021) (Court of Appeal holding allowing appellate challenge by a deputized plaintiff; discussed by majority but disapproved to extent inconsistent)
- Uribe v. Crown Bldg. Maint. Co., 70 Cal.App.5th 986 (2021) (intervenor who became party had standing to appeal settlement’s PAGA component)
- Accurso v. In-N-Out Burgers, 94 Cal.App.5th 1128 (2023) (Court of Appeal addressing intervention in overlapping PAGA actions; discussed in opinion)
- Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., 42 F.4th 1013 (9th Cir. 2022) (applying federal intervention standards to PAGA intervenor request)
- Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., 4 Cal.5th 260 (2018) (class action intervention/appeal rules and screening opportunistic objectors)