Zackaria v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
142 F. Supp. 3d 949
C.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiff Aladdin Zackaria sued Wal-Mart for wage-and-hour violations and included a representative claim under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
- The court previously denied class certification under Rule 23 for the class claims; a PAGA claim remained.
- Parties filed overlapping motions in limine: Wal‑Mart sought to exclude evidence from non‑party employees as irrelevant/hearsay; Zackaria sought to preclude references to the denied class certification and to limit Wal‑Mart from calling all 340+ APCs.
- Central dispute: whether denial of Rule 23 class certification prevents a representative PAGA claim or limits use of evidence from other employees.
- The court concluded PAGA representative claims are not governed by Rule 23 manageability/certification requirements and denied the motions in limine as premature, ordering plaintiff to file a 10‑page PAGA trial plan identifying aggrieved employees and proof strategy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a representative PAGA claim must satisfy Rule 23 certification | PAGA is a law‑enforcement statute and need not meet Rule 23 | Rule 23 governs federal procedure and therefore a representative action in federal court must satisfy its requirements | Held: PAGA claims need not satisfy Rule 23; they are substantively distinct and proceed without class certification |
| Whether manageability/Predominance requirements of Rule 23 apply to PAGA | Manageability requirement is inapplicable; individualized determinations do not bar PAGA enforcement | Individualized issues would predominate, making representative PAGA claims unmanageable and inappropriate | Held: Manageability under Rule 23 is inapplicable; individualized proof may be burdensome but does not foreclose PAGA claims |
| Admissibility of evidence from non‑party/absent employees | Evidence from aggrieved employees is relevant to PAGA; plaintiff may rely on such testimony/declarations | Such evidence is irrelevant given denial of class certification and may be hearsay/prejudicial | Held: Rulings on admissibility premature because plaintiff must first identify which aggrieved employees he will represent and specify proof; motions in limine denied without prejudice |
| Whether plaintiff’s prior characterization/appeal about ‘individual’ claims precludes pursuing representative PAGA relief | Plaintiff’s petition re: class certification concerned class claims, not the separate PAGA claim | Plaintiff’s prior statements show he intended individual relief, so representative PAGA claim should be limited | Held: Plaintiff’s appellate filings about class claims do not alter that PAGA is a separate representative enforcement vehicle; the court did not treat the petition as dispositive on PAGA scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (2009) (describing PAGA as a private attorney‑general law‑enforcement mechanism allocating penalties between LWDA and private plaintiffs)
- Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014) (PAGA actions function as enforcement on behalf of the state; aggrieved employee represents LWDA interests)
- Baumann v. Chase Inv. Servs. Corp., 747 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) (PAGA suits are fundamentally different from Rule 23 class actions for CAFA/Erie analysis)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (Rule 23 is a federal procedural device that can apply in diversity cases; discussed but distinguished in PAGA context)
- Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am., Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015) (reiterating PAGA’s distinct nature and penalties tied to number of labor‑code violations)
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (1945) (articulating substantive/procedural distinction used to analyze whether a federal rule displaces state law)