Uber Is Doing Everything They Can to Get Out of This Lawsuit, But It's Not Working

D.

Next, Uber contends that a PAGA plaintiff must have a “financial stake in the outcome of the case” and that if an arbitrator grants an award to the plaintiff based on his or her personally sustained violations, the plaintiff loses standing to litigate non-individual claims because he or she has no financial stake in those claims.

For purposes of standing, however, the statute does not require a PAGA plaintiff who has alleged one or more personally sustained violations to seek civil penalties for those violations in the same forum as the litigation of non-individual claims.

As the Attorney General observes in his amicus curiae brief, “it is not the promise of economic recovery — in court or elsewhere — that gives an aggrieved employee standing to pursue PAGA claims based on violations committed against other workers.”

We agree with Adolph that “it is plaintiff’s status as an aggrieved employee, not the redressability of any injury the plaintiff may have suffered, that determines the availability of PAGA standing.”

The Legislature clearly delineated PAGA’s standing requirements, and “ ‘ “ ‘[w]here the words of the statute are clear, we may not add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative history.’ ” ’ ” (Kim, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 85.)

We also note that a PAGA plaintiff compelled to arbitrate individual claims may have a personal stake in the litigation of non-individual claims. For instance, PAGA has a provision for recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. (§ 2699, subd. (g)(1).)

This provision may help plaintiffs secure representation by enticing attorneys to take cases they might not have if limited to recovering fees and costs for individual claims alone.