[ad_1]

For corporations doing enterprise in California, it’s vital to concentrate on the January 18, 2024 California Supreme Court docket determination 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 Common Act of 2004, created new enforcement and procedural requirements to the California Labor Code’s wage and hour provisions. Whereas the legislation has been considered as pro-plaintiff, the choice in Estrada could be seen as underscoring that standpoint.

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 Court docket concluded that, in contrast to the authority that trial courts should 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 concerning the landmark determination and its implications for companies going through PAGA claims by clicking right here.

* The California Supreme Court docket quoted Sheppard Mullin companions Richard Simmons and Ryan Krueger and affiliate Tyler Johnson’s The California Personal Attorneys Common Act (PAGA) Litigation and Compliance Guide a number of instances within the determination.

[ad_2]