Porras

Porras v. Chipotle Services CA5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 18, 2022F081113California5,074 words

Opinion

Opinion

Franson, J.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

When an aggrieved employee wishes to pursue a PAGA representative lawsuit on behalf of the State of California against his or her employer, the first procedural step is to provide the employer and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) with a notice that complies with Labor Code section 2699.3. The notice must identify the specific Labor Code provisions alleged to have been violated and include the facts and theories to support each alleged violation. (Lab. Code, § 2699.3, subd. (a)(1)(A).) The prefiling notice gives the LWDA an opportunity to investigate the alleged Labor Code violations and issue a citation, if appropriate, and gives the employer an opportunity to cure the violations. (Lab. Code, § 2699.3, subds. (a)(2), (c)(2).) A proper prefiling notice is significant because it is a condition of bringing a PAGA action for civil penalties. (See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 545.) Thus, if a particular violation is not adequately described in the notice, the employee may not pursue it in court or include it in a settlement. (Uribe v. Crown Building Maintenance Co. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 986, 1005 [notice was deficient…

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.