In Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., a divided Supreme Court today holds that a plaintiff in an action under California’s Private Attorneys General Act can’t intervene to object to a proposed settlement in another PAGA action with shared claims. PAGA plaintiffs are employees suing on the state’s behalf to collect — for the state, themselves, and other aggrieved employees — civil penalties from employers for Labor Code violations.

The court’s opinion by Justice Martin Jenkins concludes that allowing one PAGA plaintiff “to intervene in the ongoing PAGA action of another plaintiff asserting overlapping claims, to require a court to consider objections to a proposed settlement in that overlapping action, and to move to vacate the judgment in that action . . . would be inconsistent with the scheme the Legislature enacted.” Rather, the court says, the Legislature has left the task of reviewing settlements to “joint oversight by courts and the [California Labor and Workforce Development Agency].”

Justice Leondra Kruger writes a separate concurrence, which Justice Joshua Groban joins. Both sign the court’s opinion, however. Among other things, she writes “to underscore the undisputed point that a trial court has a duty to ensure the fairness and soundness of any settlement of PAGA claims alleging an employer’s Labor Code violations.”

Justice Goodwin Liu, with Justice Kelli Evans, dissents. He writes that the majority doesn’t decide whether the state can intervene in a PAGA action and thus “elides a key aspect of how PAGA works and does not follow the statutory scheme to its logical conclusion.” Justice Liu also states that “the court’s decision creates a substantial risk of auctioning the settlement of representative PAGA claims to the lowest bidder and insulating those settlements from appellate review,” results which “are inconsistent with the statute’s purpose: to maximize enforcement of the Labor Code by permitting private attorneys general to prosecute labor violations against defendants on behalf of the state.” He calls for legislative action to overturn today’s decision.

The court affirms the Second District, Division Four, Court of Appeal’s published opinion. It also disapproves the First District, Division Four, decision in Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56.

Horvitz & Levy is appellate counsel for the defendant.