Garcia

BACKGROUND

This appeal is vexed with inaccurate descriptions of the procedural background and apparent misunderstanding of applicable legal principles. Defendant’s only argument in

2 response to plaintiff’s appeal is the mistaken claim that dismissal of plaintiff’s nonindividual PAGA claims was proper because plaintiff had voluntarily dismissed his individual PAGA claims in November 2019. A brief statement of the legal background may be helpful. Every PAGA action is a representative action on behalf of the state. (Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 87.) “Plaintiffs may bring a PAGA claim only as the state’s designated proxy, suing on behalf of all affected employees.” (Ibid.) “A PAGA claim is legally and conceptually different from an employee’s own suit for damages and statutory penalties.” (Id. at p. 81; see also id. at p. 80 [holding that an employee who had settled his own claims for Labor Code violations did not lose standing, “as the state’s authorized representative, to pursue PAGA remedies”].) Adolph explains the state of the law before Viking River. “In Iskanian [v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 382-383], we…