Hamilton

Hamilton v. Vail Corp. CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 10, 2024C095844California11,443 words

Opinion

Opinion

Eurie, J.

BACKGROUND

I California Plaintiffs’ and Colorado Plaintiffs’ Suits California Plaintiffs—Anna Gibson, Zachariah Saiz-Hawes, William Berrier, Matthew Allen, Adam Heggen, Paul Greg Roberds, and Christopher Hamilton—and Colorado Plaintiffs—Randy Dean Quint, John Linn, and Mark Molina—all alleged employment claims against Vail Resorts, The Vail Corporation, Heavenly, or some combination of the three. Heggen filed the first suit (the Heggen action). In October 2020, he filed a putative class action complaint against Heavenly in California state court, seeking to represent a California class of current and former employees. Apart from raising proposed class action claims, he also alleged a claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.)—a law that authorizes employees who have been the subject of certain Labor Code violations to file representative actions on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees. (Lab. Code, § 2699.) Colorado Plaintiffs filed their own suit two months later in federal court in Colorado (the Colorado action). They filed a putative FLSA collective and class action complaint against Vail Resorts that was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.