[ad_1]
For corporations doing enterprise in California, it’s vital to pay attention to the January 18, 2024 California Supreme Courtroom choice in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc.*, which examined whether or not trial courts can strike PAGA claims on manageability grounds. PAGA, or the Personal Attorneys Normal Act of 2004, created new enforcement and procedural requirements to the California Labor Code’s wage and hour provisions. Whereas the regulation has been seen as pro-plaintiff, the choice in Estrada will be seen as underscoring that perspective.
The underlying case in Estrada examined the conflicting selections of two California courts of attraction as as to whether trial courts have the inherent authority to strike a PAGA declare on manageability grounds. The California Supreme Courtroom concluded that, not like the authority that trial courts need to bar class motion claims, trial courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA Claims on manageability grounds. Nonetheless, the court docket famous that trial courts produce other instruments at their disposal to handle PAGA claims.
Learn extra in regards to the landmark choice and its implications for companies going through PAGA claims by clicking right here.
* The California Supreme Courtroom quoted Sheppard Mullin companions Richard Simmons and Ryan Krueger and affiliate Tyler Johnson’s The California Personal Attorneys Normal Act (PAGA) Litigation and Compliance Handbook a number of occasions within the choice.
[ad_2]
