Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., 16 Cal. 5^th 664 (2024)

This case involved “what has become a common scenario in PAGA litigation” in which multiple persons claiming to be an “aggrieved employee” within the meaning of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) file separate and independent lawsuits seeking recovery of civil penalties from the same employer for the same alleged Labor Code violations. The lower courts denied intervention motions filed by Brandon Olson and Million Seifu in an action Tina Turrieta filed against Lyft. In this opinion, the California Supreme Court affirmed the lower court, holding that “an aggrieved employee’s status as the State’s proxy in a PAGA action does not give that employee the right to seek intervention in the PAGA action of another employee, to move to vacate a judgment entered in the other employee’s action, or to require a court to receive and consider objections to a proposed settlement of that action.” See also Taylor v. Tesla, Inc., 104 Cal. App. 5^th 75 (2024) (Tesla’s anti-SLAPP motion was properly denied where PAGA claim based on Tesla’s failure to produce personnel records did not rest on any written or oral statement or writing undertaken in connection with a public issue).