Hutcheson

Hutcheson v. Superior Court

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 2022A159861California4,629 words

Opinion

Opinion

Miller, J.

Filed 2/7/

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ANDREW HUTCHESON,

Petitioner, v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF A159861

ALAMEDA COUNTY,

(Alameda County Respondent; Super. Ct. No. RG18894787)

UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,

Real Party in Interest.

The Legislature enacted the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, 1 § 2698 et seq., (PAGA)) for the “sole purpose” of increasing the limited capability of the State of California to enforce violations of the Labor Code. (Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 86 (Kim).) The statute authorizes “aggrieved employees” to file lawsuits on behalf of the state seeking civil penalties for violations of the Labor Code, and allocates 75 percent of the civil penalties recovered to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and the remaining 25 percent to all employees affected by the violation. (§ 2699, subd. (i); Moorer v. Noble L.A. Events, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 736, 742.) PAGA requires that before

All further statutory references are to the Labor Code unless

otherwise specified.

1…

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.