In a closely watched decision, the California Supreme Court recently delivered a significant ruling affecting the landscape of representative actions under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). In a 5–2 split decision, the Court held that a plaintiff bringing a representative action under PAGA does not have the right to intervene in another PAGA action involving overlapping claims, nor can they object to a proposed settlement or move to vacate a judgment in that related action. This ruling is poised to impact how future PAGA cases are handled, particularly in scenarios where multiple plaintiffs assert similar claims against the same employer. 

Background of the Case 

The case, Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (S271721), centers on a common scenario in PAGA litigation: multiple individuals claiming to be “aggrieved employees” file separate lawsuits against the same employer for the same alleged Labor Code violations. In this instance, Tina Turrieta, and two other drivers for Lyft, Inc., each filed separate PAGA actions alleging misclassification as independent contractors and seeking civil penalties for violations such as failure to pay minimum wages, overtime premiums, and business expense reimbursements. 

In December 2019, Turrieta and Lyft reached a $15 million settlement, which included over $3 million allocated to the State’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). As required by PAGA, notice of the settlement was given to the LWDA. However, another driver, Brandon Olson, who had filed a separate PAGA action based on the same claims, sought to intervene in Turrieta’s case, object to the settlement, and later move to vacate the judgment after the trial court approved the settlement and denied his motions. 

The trial court ruled that Olson lacked standing to intervene or challenge the settlement, a decision upheld by the California Court of Appeal. Olson subsequently petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, arguing that as a deputized agent of the State under PAGA, he should have the right to intervene and object to the settlement. 

Supreme Court’s Ruling 

Writing for the majority, Justice Jenkins concluded that PAGA does not grant an aggrieved employee the right to intervene in another employee’s PAGA action, object to a proposed settlement, or move to vacate a judgment in that action. The Court emphasized that while PAGA plaintiffs act as proxies for the State, this status does not extend to allow them to disrupt another plaintiff’s action. 

The ruling underscores that once a representative PAGA action is settled or adjudicated, other plaintiffs with overlapping claims have no automatic right to challenge the outcome. This decision effectively creates a “race to settlement” among PAGA plaintiffs, where the first action to reach a resolution will likely preclude others from intervening or seeking to alter the outcome. 

Implications for Future PAGA Actions 

This decision will likely influence strategic decisions in future PAGA litigation. Plaintiffs may now seek alternative procedural avenues, such as moving for consolidation or coordination of related cases, to ensure their claims are heard. Additionally, the decision could prompt more direct outreach to the LWDA during settlement negotiations, as the Court left open the possibility that the State itself could object to a proposed settlement.