paint-brush
Uber Argues That PAGA Has a Third Standing Requirement and That the Defendant Doesn't Meet Itby@legalpdf

Uber Argues That PAGA Has a Third Standing Requirement and That the Defendant Doesn't Meet It

by Legal PDFFebruary 2nd, 2024
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

Uber also argues that PAGA contains a third standing requirement — the action must “be . . . brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees” (§ 2699, subd. (a)) — and that Adolph cannot satisfy this requirement with respect to non-individual claims upon being compelled to arbitrate individual claims.

People Mentioned

Mention Thumbnail
featured image - Uber Argues That PAGA Has a Third Standing Requirement and That the Defendant Doesn't Meet It
Legal PDF HackerNoon profile picture

ERIK ADOLPH vs. Uber Court Filing, retrieved on July 17, 2023, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This is part 10 of 15.

C.

Uber also argues that PAGA contains a third standing requirement — the action must “be . . . brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees” (§ 2699, subd. (a)) — and that Adolph cannot satisfy this requirement with respect to non-individual claims upon being compelled to arbitrate individual claims.


But even if we were to agree with Uber’s reading of the statute, Adolph would have standing. Adolph filed a PAGA complaint seeking recovery “on behalf of himself . . . and other current or former employees.” (§ 2699, subd. (a).) “Even though Viking [River] requires the trial court to bifurcate and order individual PAGA claims to arbitration when an appropriate arbitration agreement exists, the individual PAGA claims in arbitration remain part of the same lawsuit as the representative claims remaining in court. Thus, plaintiffs are pursuing a single PAGA action ‘on behalf of [themselves] and other current or former employees,’ albeit across two fora.” (Piplack, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 1292.)


Continue Reading Here.


About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.


This court case S274671 retrieved on September 22, 2023, from courts.ca.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.