69 Cal.App.5th 955
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Olson, Seifu, and Turrieta were Lyft drivers who filed separate PAGA actions alleging Lyft misclassified drivers as independent contractors and violated multiple Labor Code provisions.
- Turrieta settled her PAGA action after mediation for $15 million (covering up to ~565,000 drivers), allocating funds to state penalties, attorney fees, and payments to PAGA group members; the LWDA received notice but did not object below.
- Olson and Seifu moved to intervene and objected to the settlement (alleging a reverse auction, inadequate penalties, improper releases, and excessive fees); the trial court held they lacked standing and approved the settlement as fair and adequate.
- Olson and Seifu moved to vacate the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure § 663; the trial court denied those motions and the appellants appealed.
- The Court of Appeal held appellants (nonparty PAGA plaintiffs in separate suits) lacked standing to move to vacate or to appeal the judgment because the state, not them, is the real party in interest for PAGA penalties; the court also held the trial court did not err in denying intervention and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonparty PAGA plaintiffs have standing to move to vacate the judgment or appeal a PAGA settlement approval | Olson/Seifu: as deputized private attorneys general they are "aggrieved" because the settlement extinguishes state PAGA claims for little value | Lyft/Turrieta: PAGA suits are actions by the state; nonparty PAGA plaintiffs lack a personal, pecuniary interest and thus lack standing | Held: No standing. PAGA plaintiffs in separate cases are not the real parties in interest; the state is, so appellants cannot vacate or appeal the judgment |
| Whether appellants could intervene in Turrieta to oppose the settlement | Appellants: mandatory or permissive intervention justified because settlement impairs their interest prosecuting PAGA claims and deterring violations | Respondents: appellants lack a direct, immediate interest; PAGA deputization does not create an individual interest in another plaintiff’s case | Held: Appellants could appeal the implicit denial of intervention, but the trial court did not err — intervention properly denied |
| Timeliness of intervention | Appellants: timeliness measured from when they learned settlement terms; they acted promptly once informed | Respondents: motions were filed on the eve of approval after knowing of the action for months | Held: Court did not need to resolve timeliness; even if timely, appellants lacked the required direct, personal interest to intervene |
| Whether court properly reviewed and approved the PAGA settlement | Appellants: settlement was the product of reverse auction and was unfair/unreasonable; releases and allocations unlawful | Respondents: court complied with §2699(l)(2) notice and review; settlement was arm’s length and fair; LWDA had notice | Held: Trial court reasonably found settlement fair and adequate; appellate review affirmed approval (no reversible error) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kim v. Reins Int’l California, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 73 (2020) (PAGA suits are representative actions for the state; penalties primarily benefit the public)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (2009) (PAGA plaintiff acts as proxy for the state; judgment binds nonparty employees as government action does)
- Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014) (clarifies PAGA’s representative nature and limits on employees’ ownership of PAGA claims)
- Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1756 v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 993 (2009) (PAGA claims are not assignable; employee does not own an assignable interest in PAGA penalties)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (2017) (statutory notice to LWDA and court review required for PAGA settlements; court must ensure fairness)
- Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc., 4 Cal.5th 260 (2018) (standards on who is an aggrieved party for appellate standing)
- Carleson, County of Alameda v. Carleson, 5 Cal.3d 730 (1971) (an "aggrieved party" must show immediate, pecuniary, substantial interest to appeal)
- Kowis v. Howard, 3 Cal.4th 888 (1992) (procedural guidance that summary denial of dismissal without prejudice does not preclude later full consideration on complete record)
- Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am., Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015) (discusses differences between PAGA and class actions; absent employees do not own PAGA penalty claims)