Lowe’s Succeeds in Getting PAGA Claims Dismissed Based on Viking River

When the court compels individual PAGA claim arbitration, what happens to the non-individual PAGA claims?

The Case: Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

The Case No.: 2:2021cv00087

The Plaintiff: Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

Maria Johnson’s individual PAGA claim alleged Lowe’s failure to provide paid sick leave and accurate wage statements to employees. The plaintiff, Maria Johnson, argued that the waiver was unenforceable in her situation because it was a wholesale waiver of PAGA claims. However, the court disagreed based on findings in Viking River. In Viking River (Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana), the court found that PAGA actions are representative either because they are brought by employees acting as representatives (proxies of the state) or because they are predicated on code violations sustained by other employees. According to the court, Johnson’s severability provision was similar to the condition considered in Viking River and therefore warranted identical results. As in Viking River, the court enforced the agreement to send individual PAGA claims to arbitration, compelling Johnson’s individual PAGA claim to arbitration. Also, based on Viking River, the court found that once the individual PAGA claims were compelled to arbitration, her non-individual PAGA claims should be dismissed due to lack of standing.

What is a PAGA Claim:

PAGA (enacted in 2004) enables employees to bring actions against employers violating the California Labor Code to recover civil penalties. PAGA claims can be filed on behalf of the individual employee and on behalf of other allegedly victimized employees working for the same employer. Until recently, the court held that categorical waivers of PAGA standing could not be enforced, and claims could not be separated into arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims.

The Defendant: Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

In the Johnson case, U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley granted Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC’s motion to compel arbitration of Johnson’s individual PAGA claim for the alleged failure to provide paid sick leave or accurate wage statements.

Relevant Provisions in the Arbitration Agreement: Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

The most relevant provisions of the arbitration agreement being considered in this case included the following:

  • Controversies “arising out of [the plaintiff’s] employment … shall be settled by binding arbitration.”

  • Employees may bring claims “solely on an individual basis,”…not on a representative basis under PAGA.

  • “[I]f a court of competent jurisdiction finds the … Representative Action Waiver unenforceable for any reason, then the unenforceable waiver provision shall be severable from [the] Agreement, and any claims covered by any deemed unenforceable waiver provision may only be litigated in a court of competent jurisdiction, but the remainder of the agreement shall be binding and enforceable.”

The Case: Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC

On September 21, 2022, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order compelling arbitration of a plaintiff’s individual claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and dismissing the remaining representative PAGA claims. The court’s actions can be considered a straightforward application of the Supreme Court of the United States’ June 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (Viking River). However, the California Supreme Court has since granted review in a case that might complicate California courts’ application of Viking River.

If you have questions about how to file a California class action lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced class action attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Halsey Faces New Lawsuit Alleging Multiple Employment Law Violations

A recently filed lawsuit alleges that Halsey engaged in numerous employment law violations.

The Case: Ashley Funches v. Ashley D. Frangipane aka Halsey, Leaving Things Behind Touring, Halsey Music LLC (hereafter referred to as Halsey)

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 22STCV18905

The Plaintiff: Ashley Funches v. Halsey

The plaintiff in the case, Ashley Funches, is the former nanny for Halsey, the “Without Me” singer. Funches claims Halsey forced her to work “around the clock on consecutive days with little to no day of rest” and failed to pay overtime – and then fired her when she sought time off for medical care. According to Funches, she sent Halsey a text message informing Halsey that she might need to have a medical procedure completed that would require her to take a leave of absence from work. Allegedly, the only response Funches received to the message came days later, and instead of responding to the request for time off, Halsey fired Funches with no warning. Funches filed her complaint on June 9th, 2022 in Los Angeles court.

The Defendant: Ashley Funches v. Halsey

The defendant in the case, Halsey, is the “Without Me” singer facing a new lawsuit claiming she fired her nanny after she requested time off to have a medical procedure completed. The well-known star describes the claims as “baseless.”

The Case: Ashley Funches v. Halsey

The case, Ashley Funches v. Halsey, will consider various claims of California labor law violations including failure to pay overtime wages, and alleged discrimination based on disability.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file an overtime 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.

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.