In Osuna v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.1, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a representative claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), holding that the plaintiff had standing to bring the claim even though he had not worked for the employer during the one-year statute of limitations period preceding his PAGA notice.
Edgar Osuna worked for Spectrum until February 2022. He filed his PAGA notice with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) in August 2023 – 18 months after his last day of work. The trial court sustained Spectrum’s demurrer to his representative PAGA claim, ruling that Osuna lacked standing because he did not personally suffer a Labor Code violation within the one-year limitations period.
The appellate court reversed, holding that Osuna met the then-applicable statutory definition of an “aggrieved employee” under Labor Code § 2699(c) because he was employed by the alleged violator and had suffered at least one Labor Code violation during his employment. The court emphasized that the statute of limitations for civil penalties is separate from and does not alter the threshold standing requirement.
However, the court was careful to note that this outcome is governed by the version of the law in effect at the time Osuna filed suit. Assembly Bill 2288 (AB 2288), part of the 2024 PAGA reform package supported by Western Growers, added a new standing requirement effective June 19, 2024: a plaintiff must have personally suffered a Labor Code violation within the one-year limitations period. Had Osuna’s case been filed after that date, his claim would have been barred.
What Does it Mean
This case reinforces the importance of the standing reforms included in AB 2288, also known as “New PAGA,” which Western Growers actively supported during the 2024 legislative session. By ensuring that only employees who have recently experienced alleged Labor Code violations can bring PAGA claims, the law curtails stale or speculative litigation and will effectively reduce the number of meritless claims.
1 Osuna v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (May 27, 2025, No. B338047)