Can a California Trial Court Stay a Later-Filed PAGA Action Due to Overlapping Claims?

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.

When Can the ABC Test be Applied?

In a recent California employment law case, the question is asked, “When can the ABC test be applied? Do workers need to establish they were hired before the ABC test applies?”

The Case: Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc.

The Court: Calif. App. 5th

The Case No.: C087709 Super. Ct. No. 34201600190824 COEDS

The Plaintiff: Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc.

The plaintiffs in the case, Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc., are unlicensed flooring installers. The plaintiffs worked for Roussos Construction installing floors. According to court documents, there were three people who worked “between” the plaintiffs and the company, Roussos. The plaintiffs refer to these three individuals as “supervisors.” Roussos referred to these three individuals as “subcontractors.”

The Defendant: Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc.

Roussos Construction is a general contractor. At trial, Roussos maintained that they use independent contractors (the three referred to by plaintiffs as supervisors and by the company as subcontractors) licensed to perform work outside of Roussos Construction’s contractor’s license, and that the subcontractors hired the plaintiffs, paid the plaintiffs, and are responsible for complying with applicable labor laws in regards to the plaintiffs.

The Case: Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc.

The parties involved in the case, Mejia v. Roussos Constr., Inc., disagreed about appropriate jury instruction with Roussos arguing that the ABC Test used to determine employee vs. independent contractor status can only be applied after it is established that the workers were hired by Roussos or by Roussos’ agent. The plaintiffs in the case argued that case law does not establish a “hiring test” alongside the ABC Test articulated in the Dynamex Ops. W. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), the California Supreme Court opinion that led to the adoption of the ABC Test in California. In the end, the trial court agreed with the defendant, instructing the jury to make a predicate finding of whether or not Roussos Construction was the hiring entity. After receiving this instruction, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant on all counts.

Do Workers Need to Establish They Were Hired Before the ABC Test Applies?

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment on the wage and hour counts involving the ABC Test holding that there was no “threshold hiring entity test” created or intended by the Dynamex court. In conclusion, the Court of Appeals found that workers do not need to establish they were hired before the ABC Test can be applied.

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

California Resident Seeking to Challenge Non-Compete

Michael Jed Sewell, a California resident, responded to a breach of employment agreement claim with his own breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and California wage and hour claims.

The Case: LGCY Power, LLC v. Superior Court

The Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District

The Case No.: 20 ECG 01508

The Breach of Employment Agreement Claim:

A Utah limited liability company formed in Delaware and headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, LGCY, filed suit against Michael Jed Sewell, a California resident, and six other LGCY executives and managers after they left the company and started a competing company. Sewell was a former sales representative and eventually a sales manager for LGCY. In 2015, Sewell signed a “Solar Representative Agreement,” which included language about noncompetition, non solicitation and confidentiality as well as Utah choice of law and forum provisions. Four years later, in 2019, Sewell and several others at the company left to form a competing solar sales company. LGCY filed suit in Utah State Court against all seven former executives and managers citing breach of their employment agreements, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of trade secrets, etc. Four of the defendants (not including Sewell) filed a joint cross-complaint against LGCY in the Utah court proceeding unsuccessfully seeking to dismiss LGCY’s action.

Filing a Cross-Complaint in California to Defend Against Claims:

Sewell did not join the cross complaint filed by four of his co-defendants in Utah court. Instead, Sewell filed a complaint in Fresno County Superior Court. Sewell’s complaint alleges almost identical claims as those filed by his co defendants in Utah.

Can Sewell File a Cross Complaint in California?

According to the Court of Appeal, California Labor Code Section 925 allows for an exception to California’s compulsory cross-complaint statute (Code Civ. Proc., Section 426.30) enabling an employee who comes within Section 925’s purview to file a California complaint based on allegations related to causes of action an employer filed against them in a pending action in a sister state. Additionally, the clause does not require California to extend credit or apply the sister state’s compulsory cross-complaint statute. LGCY petitioned for a writ of mandate, but their attempt to get Sewell’s California action dismissed was unsuccessful. The court found that the company did not demonstrate that the Fresno County Superior Court erred in overruling its demurrer.

The Findings of the Court:

The Court of Appeal denied LGCY’s writ petition based on Cal. Lab. Code Section 925 being an exception to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 426.30(a), the compulsory cross-complaint rule that LGCY argued required Sewell to file cross claims in the Utah action. The court found that Sewell satisfied the requirement of Section 925 requesting the trial court void the contract under the statute (voiding the contract required a judicial determination). The court also noted that the changes in Sewell’s work responsibilities, title, and compensation since Section 925 went into effect sufficiently qualified the contract for the application of the statute. The California court also rejected LGCY’s claim that the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution required them to recognize Utah’s compulsory cross-complaint statute.

If you have questions about California employment law or need help filing a California employment law complaint, 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.

Did Panda Express Fail to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses?

According to a recent lawsuit, Panda Express allegedly violated labor law by failing to reimburse employees for required expenses, specifically the cost of using their personal cell phones to complete their required job duties.

The Case: Jeffrey Lee v. Panda Express LLC, Panda Express Inc.

The Court: San Francisco County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CGC-22-598730

The Plaintiff: Jeffrey Lee v. Panda Express LLC, Panda Express Inc.

Jeffrey Lee, the plaintiff in the case, filed a class action complaint alleging that Panda Express violated California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Panda Express allegedly:

• Failed to pay minimum wages

• Failed to pay overtime wages

• Failed to provide legally required meal and rest periods

• Failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements

• Failed to reimburse employees for required expenses

• Failed to provide wages when due

Based on the allegations included in the complaint, the company allegedly violated employment law several times as defined in California Labor Code Sections §§ 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s). Doing so gives rise to civil penalties.

The Defendant: Jeffrey Lee v. Panda Express LLC, Panda Express Inc.

The defendant in the case, Panda Express, also allegedly failed to reimburse employees for required business expenses. California Labor Code § 2802 states that "an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties..." While employed by Panda Express, Jeffery Lee and other California Class Members were allegedly required to use their personal cell phones and home offices to complete required job duties. However, the company allegedly did not reimburse them for using their personal items.

The Case: Jeffrey Lee v. Panda Express LLC, Panda Express Inc.

The lawsuit, Jeffrey Lee vs. Panda Express, is currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court of the State of California.

If you have questions about California employment law or need help filing a California employment law complaint, 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.

Prime Healthcare Anaheim Faces PAGA Only Complaint Alleging Labor Law Violations

A former Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC employee filed a PAGA Only complaint alleging that the company violated numerous labor laws during their years of employment. 

The Case: Salvatore vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC

The Court:   Orange County Superior Court,

The Case No.: 22PSCV00242

The Plaintiff: Salvatore vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC

According to the plaintiff in the case, Franco, the defendant allegedly failed to provide employees with fully relieved thirty-minute meal breaks required by law. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that the employer sometimes required employees to work more than 4 hours without receiving the required ten-minute rest period mandated by labor law. According to the California Supreme Court, an “off-duty” rest period is defined as time when an employee is relieved from their work-related duties and free from their employer’s control. 

The Defendant: Salvatore vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC

The defendant in the case is Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC. The company operates an acute care hospital in Orange County, California. The company employed Salvatore from 1980 to June 5, 2021, classified as a non-exempt employee (paid hourly). As an hourly employee, Salvatore was entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods and payment of minimum and overtime wages due for the time she worked with the company. According to the plaintiff, Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC required employees to perform off-the-clock work, interrupted their meal breaks and rest periods with tasks and assignments, undergo mandatory drug testing and other exams off-the-clock that were a condition of employment, etc. 

More Details of the Case: Salvatore vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC

According to case documents, Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC allegedly engaged in numerous labor code violations. The lawsuit against Prime Healthcare Anaheim, LLC is pending in the Orange County Superior Court. As a PAGA only complaint, Salvatore vs. Prime Healthcare Anaheim LLC utilizes the mechanism put in place by the State of California, allowing an employee to act as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agency to sue seeking civil penalties. The action is essentially a law enforcement action intended to protect California workers. PAGA actions aim not to recover damages or restitution but to allow aggrieved employees to act as deputized citizens to enforce Labor Code. 

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss how to file a California PAGA-only action, 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, and Riverside.

Former Employee Alleges Autonomous Labs Violated California Labor Law

According to a recent class-action lawsuit, Autonomous Labs Inc. faces allegations that they failed to provide California workers with overtime wages, minimum wage, and meal and rest periods required by law.

The Case: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

The Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: CIVSB220474

The Plaintiff: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

The plaintiff in the case alleges multiple labor code violations. The plaintiff in the suit was employed by Autonomous Labs Inc from March 2017 to September 2021 and was classified as a non-exempt employee paid through an hourly wage, commission-based compensation, and non-discretionary bonuses. Plaintiff claims that the company violated the law by failing to provide legally required meal and rest periods and minimum and overtime wages for hours worked. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Autonomous Labs’ conduct violated PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act), which gives rise to civil penalties. PAGA enables aggrieved employees to act on behalf of themself, other workers, and California state in filing to recover civil penalties. Under PAGA, aggrieved employees are essentially deputized as private attorneys to enforce the employment law. An aggrieved employee is defined as an employee of the alleged violator against whom one or more of the alleged labor law violations was committed (refer to California Labor Code Section 2699(c)).

The Defendant: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

The defendant in the case, Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc., faces a class-action lawsuit. (Autonomous, Inc. operates its business in California under the name Autonomous Labs Inc. or Autonomous Labs). While Autonomous, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, the company operates under the name Autonomous Labs Inc in California - and conducts (and continues to conduct) a significant amount of business in California.

Case Details: Nesbitt v. Autonomous, Inc. dba Autonomous Labs Inc.

The complaint is currently pending in San Bernadino County Superior Court of the State of California. According to the lawsuit, Autonomous Labs allegedly violated California Labor Code numerous times. The allegations of labor code violations are based on the plaintiff’s claims that the company failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide employees with minimum wages, failed to provide employees with rest periods and meal breaks, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse for business expenses, made unlawful deductions, and failed to provide wages due in a timely manner.

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.

Bed Bath & Beyond’s Online Gift Platform Ends Finger Scan Case with $4.5M

Class members in the Illinois finger scan case against the online gift platform owned by popular Bed, Bath & Beyond agreed to a $4.5 settlement to end the litigation.

The Case: Williams et al. v. Personalizationmall.com LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

The Case No.: 1:20-cv-00025

The Plaintiff: Williams et al. v. Personalizationmall.com LLC

The plaintiff, Williams, along with other class members, claim that Personalizationmall.com LLC violated Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to obtain informed consent from their workers before mandated they scan themselves in and out of work using their fingerprints. The plaintiffs claim the company did not inform them in writing (as required by law), and that the fingerprint scanning system captured, collected, stored, and used the employees’ biometric info even though signed releases were not obtained.

The Defendant: Williams et al. v. Personalizationmall.com LLC

The Defendant in the case, Personalizationmall.com LLC, is an online gift platform owned by Bed, Bath & Beyond. In order to resolve the fingerprint scan fight, the defendant struck a deal with the plaintiffs in the case. Class members signaled to the Illinois federal judge that they agree to accept the $4.5 million deal to end litigation over the online gift platform’s allegedly illegal fingerprint scanning and collection practice.

The Case: Williams et al. v. Personalizationmall.com LLC

The class members requested preliminary approval of the settlement noting that the deal would provide compensation for more than 20,000 people allegedly required to use the company’s vein-scanning time clock without consent; which constitutes an alleged employment law violation. The $4.5 million settlement agreement was reached during the 11-hour mediation the two parties engaged in during October 2021.

If you have questions about corporate fingerprint scanning practices or other employment law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Our experienced Illinois employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in Chicago, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Riverside.