Hutcheson
Hutcheson v. Superior Court
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.