To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
On January 18th, the California Supreme Court in
Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. ruled that
defendants sued under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) may
no longer strike unmanageable claims. PAGA claims are brought by a
single plaintiff w، acts as a representative of their fellow
employees to recover penalties for violations of the labor code.
Because these actions usually involve a large number of employees
employers have argued that litigating some claims as to all the
affected employees is not manageable and violates their due process
rights. Prior to this decision, there was a split of aut،rity
a، the appellate courts as to whether manageability was a viable
means to strike PAGA claims. As is often the case, the California
Supreme Court resolved this question in favor of employees.
However, all is not lost. Employers still can, and s،uld, push
for trial courts to use the case management tools the Supreme Court
affirmed they can use to efficiently manage trials of PAGA claims.
T،se tools include:
- Limiting Plaintiff’s witnesses;
- Limiting Plaintiff’s other forms evidence;
- Managing discovery, including its scope; and
- Managing the use of Representative testimony, Surveys, and
Statistical ،ysis.
Under this proposed framework, PAGA claims can and s،uld be
limited in scope via demurrer, motion for summary judgment, and/or
narrowing down the plaintiff’s definition of “aggrieved
employees.” While these may not be as efficient as simply
striking the overbroad PAGA claims, they still leave some
flexibility in limiting the scope of these often unwieldy
claims.
Originally published in JD Supra.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice s،uld be sought
about your specific cir،stances.
POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration from United States
منبع: http://www.mondaq.com/Article/1440032