68 Cal.App.5th 746
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiff Fred Wesson, a former Staples store general manager (GM), brought a PAGA representative action on behalf of 346 current/former California GMs alleging misclassification as exempt executives and seeking nearly $36 million in civil penalties.
- The trial court denied class certification, finding GM duties varied too much for classwide proof.
- Staples moved to strike the PAGA claim as unmanageable and violative of its due process rights because its exemption defense would require individualized proof for each GM; the court invited a trial plan showing manageability.
- Wesson submitted a plan addressing common proof of his prima facie case but refused to propose how to try Staples’s affirmative (exemption) defense, insisting the court lacked authority to impose a manageability requirement or to consider defenses.
- The trial court struck the PAGA claim as unmanageable and denied Wesson’s summary adjudication motion as moot; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding courts have inherent authority to ensure PAGA claims are manageable, that due process requires considering affirmative defenses in the manageability analysis, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) May a trial court, under its inherent authority, require a PAGA claim to be manageable and strike it if it is not? | Courts lack power to impose a manageability requirement on PAGA claims; PAGA need not follow class-action manageability rules. | Courts have inherent authority to manage their dockets and may preclude representative procedures that cannot be fairly and efficiently tried. | Yes. Courts have inherent authority to ensure PAGA claims are manageable and may strike unmanageable claims. |
| 2) Must a manageability assessment account for the defendant’s affirmative defenses (due process concern)? | Manageability should focus only on plaintiff’s prima facie case; defendant has no right to force individualized proof. | Due process entitles defendants a fair opportunity to present available affirmative defenses; manageability must account for them. | Yes. Due process requires considering affirmative defenses; courts must ensure defendants can fairly present them. |
| 3) Did the trial court err by not deciding Wesson’s summary adjudication motion before striking the PAGA claim, and was Wesson entitled to summary adjudication? | Summary adjudication could have narrowed issues and made trial manageable; Staples lacked individualized evidence to defeat it. | Staples presented evidence creating triable issues on exemption elements. | Even if procedural sequencing could be questioned, summary adjudication was meritless because Staples’ evidence raised triable issues on the exemption defense. |
| 4) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in striking the PAGA claim as unmanageable? | Striking was improper and would undermine PAGA’s remedial purpose; alternatives or sampling could manage the case. | The record showed great variability across 346 GMs and no workable plan to try Staples’s exemption defense without hundreds of individual mini-trials. | No abuse of discretion. Given the record and plaintiff’s refusal to address manageability of the defense, striking the claim was reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (2009) (PAGA is a procedural vehicle allowing employees to recover civil penalties on the state's behalf and need not satisfy class-action requirements)
- Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 993 (2009) (PAGA is a procedural mechanism; plaintiff acts as surrogate for state enforcement)
- Duran v. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn., 59 Cal.4th 1 (2014) (class certification/management requires that individual issues, including affirmative defenses, be manageable; defendants must be allowed a fair opportunity to present defenses)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (2017) (proof of a uniform policy can help render a PAGA trial manageable)
- Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co., 20 Cal.4th 785 (1999) (employer’s realistic expectations and job requirements are relevant in exemption analysis; employee’s substandard performance does not defeat a valid exemption)
- Safeway Wage & Hour Cases, 43 Cal.App.5th 665 (2019) (discusses executive exemption elements and examples of exempt vs. nonexempt tasks)
- South Bay Chevrolet v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 72 Cal.App.4th 861 (1999) (trial court may preclude representative UCL claims that cannot be efficiently tried)
- Weiss v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation, 9 Cal.5th 840 (2020) (describes courts’ inherent powers to manage litigation and craft procedures where necessary)
- Cohn v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., 169 Cal.App.4th 523 (2008) (courts must manage massive, complex litigation to protect court resources and fairness)