On
The Turrieta decision involved a series of overlapping PAGA cases against rideshare operator Lyft—the Olson, Seifu and Turrieta actions—all of which argued that
The Court of Appeal affirmed. Ruling first on the denial of the motions to vacate, it found that the nonparties to Turrieta lacked standing because their "rights or interests [were not] injuriously affected by the judgment." Slip op. at 17 (quoting Sabi v. Sterling, 183 Cal. App. 4th 916, 947 (2010)). This conclusion flows from the fact that the state "is always the real party in interest" in a PAGA action. Id. at 18 (quoting Kim v. Reins Int'l
The same reasoning also applied to the motions to intervene, which required a "threshold showing" that the would-be-intervenors "had a direct and immediate interest in the settlement[.]" Id. at 27. "As with standing, appellants have no personal interest in the PAGA claims," and therefore no right to intervene. Id.
Ironically, the fact that a PAGA plaintiff represents the state's interests and not their own has been key to many plaintiff-friendly developments in the law over the years, in contexts such as arbitration, federal court jurisdiction and standing. In Turrieta, however, it effectively foreclosed the parallel plaintiffs from pursuing their claims.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
2029 Century
CA 90067-3010
Tel: 202.887.4000
E-mail: Jlarivee@akingump.com; pazimi@akingump.com
URL: www.akingump.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2021 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source