The Supreme Court of California has made a significant ruling in a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) case.
Key points:
• The case involved three Lyft drivers filing separate PAGA lawsuits against the company.
• The driver who filed the first case reached a settlement with Lyft, while the other two Plaintiffs attempted to intervene in the first lawsuit, and object to the settlement.
• The Supreme Court ruled that PAGA does not allow an aggrieved employee to intervene in another’s PAGA action, even with overlapping claims.
This decision emphasizes that oversight of PAGA settlements rests with the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency and the courts, not other PAGA plaintiffs. This case is important because it differs from the traditional class action, which of course does permit other members of the class to intervene in cases and to object to settlements. This is another in a line of cases that has drawn distinctions between class actions and the unique statutory action allowed by PAGA.
What are your thoughts on this ruling?
