One week after the U.S. Supreme Court in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana disapproved part of a 2014 California Supreme Court opinion on California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (see here), the state high court today decided to take on another PAGA case.

The court granted review in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. and it limited the issue to: “Do trial courts have inherent authority to ensure that claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) will be manageable at trial, and to strike or narrow such claims if they cannot be managed?”

In a published opinion, the Fourth District, Division Three, Court of Appeal disagreed with the Second District, Division Four, decision in Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 746. Division Three concluded that “a court cannot strike a PAGA claim based on manageability.”

The Supreme Court denied review and depublication in Wesson.


Another review-granted PAGA case — Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. — is pending. (See here.)

Settlement of individual claims doesn’t kill PAGA lawsuits

Supreme Court avoids arbitration issue by finding a claim is not proper to resolve in any forum