Resource

Manageability Motion Framework

Scope Limitation Under § 2699(p) and Estrada

The strategic landscape.

After Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 582, courts cannot dismiss PAGA claims on manageability grounds — but they can limit the scope of evidence and claims at trial. AB 2288 codified this authority in § 2699(p), giving trial courts explicit power to "limit the evidence to be presented at trial or the scope" of PAGA claims "to ensure that the claims can be effectively tried."

Why this matters quantitatively.

A manageability order that limits the trial to one location out of eight does not reduce the aggrieved employee count by one-eighth — it reduces the trial complexity by an order of magnitude. A well-constructed manageability motion can reduce the effective exposure model by 50–80% before any merits adjudication.

Statutory & Case Law Foundation

The manageability motion sits at the intersection of two authorities. Estrada established that due process requires a trial court to ensure that PAGA claims can be adjudicated fairly to the defendant. Section 2699(p), enacted seven months later, gave courts the statutory tool to implement that constitutional floor.

Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills — The Constitutional Foundation

Section 2699(p) — The Statutory Codification

Duran v. U.S. Bank — The Due Process Backstop

Key distinction.

A manageability motion is not a demurrer or motion to dismiss. It does not seek to eliminate PAGA claims — it seeks to narrow what gets tried. Frame it accordingly in every filing.

Manageability Factors — Building the Record

The motion must identify specific, concrete reasons why the PAGA claims as pled cannot be effectively tried on a representative basis. Four categories of proof individualization most commonly support scope limitation.

Factor 1 Deep Dive — Multi-Worksite Evidence Development

Multi-Property Hotel Operator

An employer operates 8 hotels across 3 counties. The downtown properties have union contracts with negotiated meal schedules. The resort properties use a different timekeeping system. Two properties opened during the PAGA period. A manageability motion argues: the trial should be limited to properties using the same scheduling system and meal period policy.

Factor 2 Deep Dive — Job Classification Mapping

Automotive Dealership Group

The PAGA notice defines "aggrieved employees" as "all non-exempt employees." The dealership employs commissioned salespeople (Wage Order 7 exemption potentially applies), hourly service technicians (flat-rate pay), parts department (hourly), and administrative staff (potential administrative exemption). The regular rate calculation, meal period scheduling, and overtime exposure are all different for each group.

Factor 3 Deep Dive — Individualized Defense Identification

Factor 4 Deep Dive — Temporal Variation & the "Two Hotels" Framework

Motion Structure — Section-by-Section Template

The motion should walk the court from the factual record through the legal standard to the specific relief requested.

Introduction & Relief Requested

required

State the motion seeks an order under § 2699(p). Lead with quantitative impact. Distinguish from a motion to dismiss.

Factual Background — Operational Complexity

required

Worksite-by-worksite breakdown, job classification matrix, policy/system timeline. Reference the plaintiff's own discovery responses acknowledging variation.

III

Legal Standard — Estrada & § 2699(p)

required

Three steps: Estrada's due process holding, § 2699(p)'s statutory codification, Duran's due process limits.

Individualized Proof Analysis — By Violation Category

critical

For each violation category, demonstrate why representative proof cannot establish liability. Meal periods: Donohue rebuttable presumption requires individualized rebuttal. Rest periods: often untracked, inherently individual. Overtime: different compensation structures require different regular rate calculations. Wage statements: different payroll systems produce different formats.

Opposition Anticipation & Preemptive Responses

strategic

"Estrada Prohibits This": This motion seeks trial management, not dismissal. "Sampling Can Solve the Problem": Sampling is subject to Duran's due process constraints and does not eliminate heterogeneity. "This Is a Disguised Dismissal": The proposed order preserves jurisdiction over all claims.

Proposed Scope Limitation & Order Language

strategic

Present three tiers: Tier 1 (Ideal) — plaintiff's location/classification only. Tier 2 (Moderate) — same scheduling system or compensation structure. Tier 3 (Minimal) — exclude only operational outliers. Always draft the proposed order language.

Sample Order Language — Scope Limitation

Pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(p) and consistent with Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 582, the Court hereby orders: 1. Meal and rest period claims limited to employees at [Location(s)] during the PAGA period. 2. Overtime claims tried separately for [Classification A] (hourly) and [Classification B] (commission-based). 3. Wage statement claims limited to the period [Date] through [Date] when [Payroll System] was in use. 4. This order does not dismiss any claim. Parties may seek modification upon good cause.

Fallback: Bellwether Trial Proposal

VII

Supporting Declarations & Evidence

required

Operations Declaration: locations, employees, classifications, reporting structures, scheduling systems, policy history, operational differences. Payroll/Compliance Declaration: timekeeping systems, payroll platforms, statement formats. Expert Declaration (if applicable): why representative sampling would fail under Duran. Plaintiff's Own Evidence: cite any acknowledgment of site-specific variation.

Motion Strength Assessment

The viability depends on operational heterogeneity. Not every case warrants this motion.

strong

Multi-Location, Multi-Classification

5+ locations, distinct managers and scheduling systems, 3+ job classifications. The ideal manageability motion.

moderate

Single Location, Multiple Classifications

One location but multiple classifications with different compensation structures. Strongest when exemption defenses apply to some classifications.

weak

Single Location, Single Classification

Must rely on temporal variation, individualized defenses, or violation-specific characteristics. Consider whether resources are better deployed elsewhere.

Discovery Strategy for Building the Manageability Record

The motion is only as strong as the factual record supporting it.

Written Discovery Targets

Deposition Targets

Timing.

File after close of fact discovery but before trial. The ideal window is post-MSJ, pre-trial.

Expert deposition preparation.

Use the Expert Deposition Framework resource — a six-domain deposition outline targeting population definition, sample selection, violation definition, paid premiums, confidence intervals, and affirmative defense accommodation.

Coordination with Other Defense Motions

The manageability motion coordinates with several other pre-trial motions and defense strategies.

Standing Challenge Under § 2699(c)(1)

Arbitration Motion Under Adolph

Penalty Cap Evidence

Dual-Track Coordination — PAGA Manageability & Class Certification

Cross-references.

See the publication Manageability After Estrada: Using § 2699(p) to Limit PAGA Scope. The temporal variation analysis uses the "Two Hotels" Framework. The Penalty Estimator models the quantitative impact of scope limitation.

Key Authorities

Lab. Code § 2699(p)

Court may limit evidence and scope of PAGA claims

Lab. Code § 2699(c)(1)

Personal experience standing requirement

Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills (2024) 15 Cal.5th 582

Due process requires manageable PAGA proceedings

Duran v. U.S. Bank (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1

Due process limits on statistical sampling

Adolph v. Uber Technologies (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104

Standing framework post-arbitration

Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004

"Provide" standard — rebuttal evidence is individualized

Donohue v. AMN Services (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58

Rebuttable presumption requires individual inquiry

AB 2288 (2024)

Codified § 2699(p) manageability authority

For illustrative and educational purposes only. This framework does not constitute legal advice. No published appellate decision has yet interpreted § 2699(p).