Does a trial court have the discretion to apply the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction to stay a later-filed PAGA action if it has claims that overlap with a PAGA action filed earlier?

The Case: Shaw v. Superior Court

The Court: Cal. App. 5th

The Case: 78 Cal. App. 5th 245 (2022)

The Plaintiff: Shaw v. Superior Court

The plaintiffs in the case conceded that their PAGA-only action arose from facts and theories that already existed in a second PAGA action filed earlier, and pending in Los Angelus County. The trial court granted a motion to stay the legal action until a decision could be made on a petition for judicial coordination with the Los Angeles PAGA lawsuit. When the petition for judicial coordination was denied, the trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay. The court felt it was warranted according to the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction that states when 2 or more courts have subject matter jurisdiction, the first court that asserts jurisdiction usually retains it (to the exclusion of the other courts).

The Court’s Decision: Shaw v. Superior Court

When the California Court of Appeal denied the petition for judicial coordination holding that the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction warranted a stay of the action, and the trial court did not err in applying the doctrine. The language and purpose of PAGE left the court disagreeing with the Plaintiffs’ arguments that PAGA repudiated the judge-made exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine. In addition, the court rejected the argument regarding applying the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine to PAGA claims promoting reverse auctions. Instead, the court believes the doctrine stays following suits and prevents defendants from picking and choosing between plaintiffs. The court also pointed out that anytime there are multiple plaintiffs authorized to bring a PAGA claim, the possibility of a reverse auction exists, so the application of the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine would not increase the likelihood of a reverse auction.

The Conclusion: Shaw v. Superior Court

The court in the case concluded that the Plaintiffs argument that staying duplicative PAGA suits leads to frivolous filings was not convincing. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that the trial court acted outside their bounds of reason when determining that the countervailing policies raised by the plaintiffs did not outweigh the policies that support the application of the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine in the case.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file a California class-action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.