Dunlap

Dunlap v. Superior Court

Good Law
142 Cal. App. 4th 330·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1304·2006 Daily Journal DAR 11490·47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 614·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8049
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 27, 2006B185247California4,485 words

Opinion

Opinion

Klein, J.

Plaintiff Omar Dunlap, a former employee of defendant Bank of America, N.A. (Bank), seeks a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order granting the Bank’s motion to strike certain portions of Dunlap’s first amended class action complaint and to enter an order denying the motion to strike.

The essential issue presented is whether the trial court properly struck Dunlap’s claims for statutory penalties on the ground he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in accordance with the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAG Act) (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.).

Dunlap’s second through fifth causes of action, which are at issue herein, did not seek any penalties which previously were recoverable only by the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). The only penalties being sought therein were various statutory penalties, which penalties already were recoverable by employees under the Labor Code prior to the adoption of the PAG Act. Therefore, Dunlap was not required to comply with the PAG Act’s administrative prerequisites to filing suit before pursuing statutory penalties in said causes of action.

Accordingly, the trial court erred in…

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.