Because the one-year statute of limitations set out in CCP § 340(a) applied to requests for civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Lab C §§ 2698 et seq., a former employee’s claims against his former employer were barred; he could not go forward in a representative capacity with his PAGA claims after the one-year statute of limitations under CCP § 340(a) had run on his own claims. Thomas v. Home Depot USA Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2007), 527 F. Supp. 2d 1003.
What is PAGA?
The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) authorizes aggrieved employees to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California for Labor Code violations.
PAGA Purpose
The purpose of PAGA is not to recover damages or restitution, but to create a means of “deputizing” citizens as private attorneys general to enforce the California Labor Code. The relief is in large part for the benefit of the general public rather than the party bringing the action. A plaintiff asserting a PAGA claim may not bring the claim simply on his or her own behalf but must bring it as a representative action and include other current or former employees. A PAGA claim must be brought on behalf of other employees.
The Private Attorney General Act lets California employees file lawsuits against their employer for violating labor laws. To do so, the workers have to follow pre-filing requirements. This all has to be done before the statute of limitations has expired.
PAGA Notice Must be Filed within 1 year of Labor Law Violations
Aggrieved employees have 1 year to file their PAGA notice; this is the statute of limitations for PAGA claims. Former hourly employees’ claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Lab C §§ 2698 et seq., were subject to a one-year statute of limitations where numerous courts had made clear that a PAGA claim itself was for a penalty, not for wages. Martinez v. Antique & Salvage Liquidators, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2011), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12198.
The year begins on the day of the last labor violation mentioned in the claim.
Aggrieved Employee’s Claim Must Be Within 1 Year
Because the one-year statute of limitations set out in CCP § 340(a) applied to requests for civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Lab C §§ 2698 et seq., a former employee’s claims against his former employer were barred; he could not go forward in a representative capacity with his PAGA claims after the one-year statute of limitations under CCP § 340(a) had run on his own claims. Thomas v. Home Depot USA Inc. (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2007), 527 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75489.
Amended Complaint to Add PAGA
Employee’s later-added Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) claims for violations of labor code provisions not alleged in her first PAGA notice did not timely comply with the PAGA notice requirements and were time-barred; the employee’s second PAGA notice and third amended complaint were filed more than five years after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Oct. 31, 2018), 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519, 28 Cal. App. 5th 824, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 983.
Relation Back Doctrine
Because a Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act claim that was first asserted after limitations expired did not allege pre-filing notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, the relation back doctrine did not apply, and striking the claim as untimely was not error. Esparza v. Safeway, Inc. (Cal. App. 2d Dist. June 10, 2019), 247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 875, 36 Cal. App. 5th 42, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 530, modified, (Cal. App. 2d Dist. June 28, 2019), 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 601.
Tolling of Statute of Limitation
PAGA statute of limitations is tolled during the mandatory notice period. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (d).)
Although tolling did not add enough days to make a California Private Attorneys General Act claim timely, the claim was not time-barred because it was filed within 60 days of the expiration of the limitations period and thus related back to the filing of the original complaint. Robles v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2017), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132065.
PAGA and Business and Professons Code 17200 4 Year Statute of Limitations
Plaintiff asserted a class action on behalf of all yoga instructors who worked for defendant from four years prior to the filing of the complaint, alleging violations of the Lab C and unfair business practices pursuant to B & P C § 17200; defendant erred by contending the amount in controversy attributable to plaintiff’s claims for statutory damages and penalties under the Lab C Private Attorneys General Act, Lab C § 2699, was $49,718. Because the one-year limitations under CCP § 340(a) governed plaintiff’s claims for statutory penalties and plaintiff only worked for defendant during six months of the one-year period, the amount in controversy defendant attributed to statutory penalties had to be reduced by half. Walker v. CorePower Yoga, LLC (S.D. Cal. May 24, 2013), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74809.
Class Action
In a wage and hour action that was filed under the Private Attorneys General Act, Lab C §§ 2698 et seq., the employer demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that more than $5 million was in controversy for purposes of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332(d); the minimum amount in controversy was demonstrated based on penalties for non-compliant wage statements and for waiting-time penalties under Lab C §§ 226(e) and 203 and for damages for missed meal and rest periods under Lab C § 226.7 without even accounting for overtime violations, other penalties, or attorneys’ fees. Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2010), 730 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79772, aff’d, (9th Cir. Cal. 2011), 631 F.3d 1010, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1538.
Administrative Exhaustion
Because workers alleging labor law violations failed to plead compliance with the pre-filing notice and exhaustion requirements in Lab C, § 2699.3(a), they were not entitled to pursue causes of action alleging violations of provisions listed in Lab C, § 2699.5, and seeking civil penalties under Lab C, § 2699. Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2005), 134 Cal. App. 4th 365.
No Federal Jurisdiction
Federal district court had no jurisdiction to hear a suit brought in state court under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Lab C §§ 2698-2699.5, because the PAGA action (1) was not filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and (2) was not sufficiently similar to a Rule 23 class action, for purposes of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 USCS §§ 1332(d), 1453, 1711-1715, as PAGA had no notice requirements for unnamed aggrieved employees, nor could such employees opt out, the court did not inquire into the named plaintiff’s ability to fairly and adequately represent unnamed employees, PAGA did not require numerosity, commonality, or typicality, and PAGA said employees could pursue remedies available under state or federal law, either separately or concurrently with a PAGA action, Lab C § 2699(g)(1). Baumann v. Chase Inv. Servs. Corp. (9th Cir. Cal.), 747 F.3d 1117.
Pleading
In accordance with Lab C, § 2699(a), plaintiffs seeking civil penalties recoverable by the state in suits for violations of any California Labor Code provision specified in Lab C, § 2699.5, must plead compliance with the administrative procedures of Lab C, § 2699.3(a). Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2005), 134 Cal. App. 4th 365.