PAGA case stagnated by arbitration: between mouse and elephant

PAGA case and arbitration: background.

Whether to end the slings and arrows of absurd property, to represent public interests or to submit to the salary of reach that donates to other life lines in the California economy is questionable. And it will be decided one day by the Court of Appeals, but before that there was a defense lawyer, a petty "private lawyer law" into a mixture of class actions, a pitfall of all accompanying disability plaintiffs.

In a nutshell, "PAGA" is a set of California Labor Law that balls a civil lawyer to do what the California State Council felt the state law enforcement agency could not do or not do. This law has built-in incentives for civil lawyers to work as lawyer officers to raise such lawsuits and to collect attorney fees in case of winning suit. As part of the "contract", employees and the nation divided procedures for recovery.

A procedural battle is currently a clear PAGA based legal action for the penalty that California normally will regain and a specific individual labor law that causes direct action without sharing benefits Claim state. The reason for the previous court is that the arbitration request signed by the employee does not extend to a labor law criminal case that can be recovered only by the California pre-PAGA. California state and its employees are effectively 75% and 25% equity partners respectively, and employers can not force arbitration to California. However, for such overtime or break violations, employees have separate, direct rights to collect that amount as "wages" rather than as fines. These requests can be subject to an arbitration agreement signed by an employee.

Claims of Paga, California, are not subject to waiver and arbitration of "remedy measures".

The current California state law means that even if there is an intention to abandon it, it is impossible to abandon PAGA of the preliminary dispute. Exemption does not have the enforcement power to remedy and rectify the violation of employment of employers by laws of penal provision by the enforcement measures of the country contrary to the basic policy of PAGA's law. Securitas Security Service USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (Edwards) 2015 Cal.App. LEXIS 190 (Cal.App. 4th Dist. Feb. 27, 2015). As the abandonment of the arbitration agreement contained clauses that prevented the separation of illegal PAGA exemption, the entire agreement was invalid against public policy.

A situation arises when plaintiffs' lawyers pack multiple causes of action into the initial submitted court documents called 'complaints'. In the past, the complaint alleges its own violation as its cause is due to civil penalties that can only be recovered through California through the Industrial Relations Department.

Now, if the plaintiff's employee satisfies certain conditions notified to the department and the consent of the department is obtained, the plaintiff can take legal pension from the defendant - employer. However, if there is no approval of the department, such as overtime, break violation, discrimination, retribution retaliation, behavioral litigation for defamation, employees have raised other causes that can always be appealed.

If the plaintiff included such cause of action along with the cause of the action based on the penal provision in the complaint and the plaintiff began hiring, all disputes between the employer and the employee prior to the dispute are private binding Signed an arbitration agreement that it will be settled by arbitration with a certain amount. That is, the jury, the judge, the appellate court shall not exist. Instead, private companies called arbitration services are hired by parties to settle the dispute. Employee's signed agreement includes abstinence of aversion and disgust.

For the final link of the chain, we assume that the defendant persuades the court that the arbitration agreement is enforceable, and the court will order the arbitration for the case except exceptions. Requests for criminal proceedings by precedents are not subject to arbitration and the arbitral tribunal sends the remaining causes of these cases to arbitration. These undeterminable litigation causes for penalties are called "PAGA" claims. Although these claims usually include many employees who make lawsuits as a group, for technical reasons the Group is a "class" requiring the court to order a grant by "class certification" It is not considered. This is important, as PAGA's claim could make millions of dollars serious judgment.

Paga Cases who suffered damage by arbitration are not subject to arbitration,

The court has been set: the court, in the case of PAGA, ordered individual arbitration wage claims and see if the employee has executable PAGA's assertion "wait"? Perhaps the agent of PAGA will simply leave if it is fully restored by arbitration or settlement.

Because the court does not want a parallel lawsuit that would produce inconsistent results, it may be staying in the case of PAGA and the possibility of producing several incidental estoppel with respect to the facts / problems of PAGA case is there. Since the trial court does not jurisdict arbitration agreement and the arbitrator is a separate private agreement between the employer and the employee it is possible to take the timing as to how the arbitration can be advanced. Even if the judgment of PAGA is within the jurisdiction of the court, the trial court may wish to settle in the process of arbitration.

Main discussion of defense bars: to appeal to the complexity of multi-party litigation and excessive court self-interest handling self-interests of PAGA representatives. First cleft of defense debate: The trial court shall not sacrifice the purpose and direction of PAGA for administrative efficiency until relief by the appellate court.

"Delivering" a judge, especially to a non-judicial official, is a solution, but it is also a miscarriage of justice. It is a general military tactical attack and is currently strongly sought for by defense: splitting and conquering the cost of warfare and increasing by sacrifice, but of course the name of efficiency is.

But "fragmentary things" is one thing, case management is another thing. It is reasonable to expect the courts to manage their own procedures in order to guarantee legal procedures and to limit the cost and complexity of litigation. Whether or not legislation and case law support "incident management" is still not clear even in the range that there is a possibility of negating the case of PAGA, how much restraint and management are carried out in the case of PAGA. The situation of the classic post blink vs. restaurant group is a place where a break violation is variable for each employee and class certification is not indicated. Should I mention PAGA's case for penalty as well?

Referee response to combined paga and nonpaga claims

Other trial courts will decide "PAGA case for arbitration of wage claims other than PAGA or for civil trials". That question has a very practical feeling. If arbitration is held for the first time, the prosecution will explore the problem and there is a possibility that the trial case of the trial will be affected. It would be a classic "shake the dog's tail". Logic shows that time and energy are spent on larger problems, temporary solutions involve small cases of individual overtime. Or, individual overtime period applications will be dismissed considering the case of pure PAGA. Of course, a simple solution that requires client consent is to only have the case of "pure PAGA" and select only "pretty" PAGA if possible. In other words, do not include mild or high risk individual wages and discrimination claims. Also, private lawyer officers, plaintiffs, attorneys should focus on cases with high commonality based on company wide breaches. For example, Bright v. Store for only 99 cents 189 Cal.App 4th 1472 (2010) It was the result of the company's policy that stool is not practical when we could not provide sitting stool while retail shop sitting at retail store.

Restart engine stopped PAGA's assertion

The court will create a case management rule that will be more stringent than the strict class action proceedings, but it is more than a complete freedom to appeal the case as a simple lawsuit. Experienced lawyers are already dealing with this kind of "complex" case, using complex multi-party litigation guidelines to control the scope of cost and discovery, quickly and intermediating intermediate loggams in litigation There is a high possibility to undertake a method to solve efficiently. But I also predict that the California Supreme Court will settle the ultimate nature of these conflicts "for public" as if the state elected attorney general had bought it. Although the result is dissatisfied with either the appellate court or the lawyer, the case of PAGA can be concluded promptly without interruption to some changes in arbitration and class action approval procedures.

Conclusion

The greed that followed Adam Smith 's word is to make the world go round. Lawyers seem to deny both the intellectuality and foresight of California's law by arguing that they are lawyers of plaintiff lawyers, not cases of "individual lawyers". Get "Rich Act". Well, it clearly shows that it is a real incentive of PAGA method. An incentive to change the employer to comply with the law every news release of employee's separate verdict. Please let me comply with the law if the employer want to abolish the case of PAGA.

Related Photos