Standing After Individual Claims Are Compelled to Arbitration

Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

(2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104

The arbitration playbook changed overnight. Individual claims go to arbitration, but the representative PAGA action stays in court — and the plaintiff keeps standing. Defense…

Read Analysis →
Manageability of PAGA Claims at Trial

Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc.

(2024) 15 Cal.5th 582

Courts cannot dismiss PAGA on manageability grounds — but they can narrow scope dramatically. AB 2288 codified this in § 2699(p). This is where multi-location…

Read Analysis →
Meal Period Presumption and Rounding

Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC

(2021) 11 Cal.5th 58

Every short meal punch in the time-clock data now creates a rebuttable presumption that the employer failed to provide a compliant meal period. Rounding cannot be used to round…

Read Analysis →
Arbitration Fee Forfeiture Standard

Hohenshelt v. Superior Court

(2025) 18 Cal.5th 310

Five years of strict-liability appellate authority — reversed. Late arbitration fee payment forfeits arbitration only if willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent. Eleven Court of…

Read Analysis →
Intervention and Objection Rights in Overlapping PAGA Actions

Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc.

(2024) 16 Cal.5th 664

A PAGA plaintiff's status as the state's proxy carries no right to intervene in, object to the settlement of, or move to vacate the judgment in another employee's overlapping PAGA…

Read Analysis →
Whether Public Entities Are Subject to the Labor Code and PAGA

Stone v. Alameda Health System

(2024) 16 Cal.5th 1040

Public entities sit outside PAGA entirely — not merely outside its default penalties. A hospital authority, a special district, a joint powers authority: none is a 'person' under…

Read Analysis →
Good Faith Defense to Liquidated Damages

Iloff v. LaPaille

(2025) 18 Cal.5th 551

Ignorance of the minimum wage law no longer defeats the mandatory liquidated damages award. An employer that never asked what the law required cannot fall back on unsettled…

Read Analysis →
Whether 'Headless' PAGA Actions Are Permitted

Leeper v. Shipt, Inc.

(Pending) Cal. S.Ct., S289305

Can a plaintiff renounce individual PAGA relief entirely and plead a representative-only action that leaves nothing to compel to arbitration? The Supreme Court took the case on…

Read Analysis →
Regular Rate for Meal/Rest Period Premiums

Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC

(2021) 11 Cal.5th 858

Meal and rest period premiums must be calculated at the regular rate — not base hourly. Applied retroactively. For employees with commissions or bonuses, the gap between base and…

Read Analysis →
Meal/Rest Premiums: Wages or Penalties?

Kirby v. Immoos Fire Protection, Inc.

(2012) 53 Cal.4th 1244

The § 226.7 premium is a wage, not a penalty. It cannot be recovered as a PAGA penalty. This distinction alone can reduce inflated demands by 30–50%. The foundation of every…

Read Analysis →
Meal Period Standard: 'Provide' Not 'Ensure'

Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court

(2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004

An employer who provides the opportunity for an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period has complied — even if employees voluntarily worked through. But Donohue's rebuttable…

Read Analysis →
What Is Recoverable Through PAGA?

ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court

(2019) 8 Cal.5th 175

PAGA recovers civil penalties. Wages are not civil penalties. Overtime underpayments, meal premiums, unreimbursed expenses — none are recoverable through PAGA as penalties. The…

Read Analysis →
Meal/Rest Premiums as 'Wages' for Derivative Penalties

Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc.

(2022) 13 Cal.5th 93

One missed meal period now generates four separate penalty streams: the premium itself, a PAGA default penalty, a § 226 wage statement penalty, and § 203 waiting time penalties.…

Read Analysis →
Regular Rate Calculation for Flat-Sum Bonuses

Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of California

(2018) 4 Cal.5th 542

Flat-sum bonuses must be divided by nonovertime hours only — not total hours. This produces a higher regular rate, increasing both overtime premiums and (after Ferra) meal/rest…

Read Analysis →
Due Process Limits on Statistical Sampling at Trial

Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn.

(2014) 59 Cal.4th 1

Statistical sampling must satisfy due process. The sample must be representative, the methodology sound, and the defendant must retain the right to challenge individual claims.…

Read Analysis →
Currently Monitoring
Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. (S289305)PENDING
Whether headless PAGA claims are permitted. Fully briefed — merits briefing closed with the January 2026 amicus wave; Rodriguez (S290182), Williams (S291199) and CRST Expedited (S292005) are held as companion grants. The published argument calendar makes fall 2026 the earliest window for a decision.
Camp v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (S277518)PENDING
Whether neutral time rounding survives Donohue and Troester. Fully briefed since late 2023; still awaiting argument.
LWDA Proposed RegulationsTRACKING
First-ever formal PAGA regulations: notice of proposed rulemaking published February 6, 2026; comment period closed March 23; public hearing held April 9. Final rules pending.
Reform Appellate AuthorityTRACKING
Watching for the first wave of published appellate interpretations of the 2024 reform provisions.
Labor Code § 226.7(f) SunsetTRACKING
The security services rest period carve-out — which permits on-call, device-carrying rest periods under a qualifying collective bargaining agreement and abrogates Augustus for that industry alone — is repealed January 1, 2027 by § 226.7(g). The successor version of § 226.7, added by the same 2020 act and already on the books, is the section without it. Watching whether the Legislature extends the sunset.
Hohenshelt ProgenyTRACKING
Post-Hohenshelt decisions on the willful/grossly negligent/fraudulent standard, from Wilson v. Tap Worldwide forward. Searched through August 2026: the only published California appellate decisions citing Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98 since Hohenshelt are Wilson and Wise v. Tesla Motors, Inc. (2025) A170983, and Wise applies the section not at all — it cites Hohenshelt for the unrelated proposition that the FAA does not preempt Civil Code section 1642. Wilson therefore remains the only application of the standard.