Build the defense
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.
The manageability motion sits at the intersection of two authorities, and it is worth being exact about which one supplies what. Estrada holds that trial courts lack inherent authority to strike a PAGA claim on manageability grounds — it is not a due process holding, and the court expressly reserved the question, expressing “no opinion as to the hypothetical questions of whether, and under what circumstances, a defendant’s right to due process might ever support striking a PAGA claim.” What Estrada supplies is the preserved power: its holding “does not preclude trial courts from limiting the types of evidence a plaintiff may present or using other tools to assure that a PAGA claim can be effectively tried.” The due process limits on extrapolated proof come from Duran. Section 2699(p), enacted seven months later, gave courts the statutory tool for the scope limitation Estrada left open.
Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills — What It Forecloses, and What It Preserves
Holding
Trial courts retain inherent authority to manage PAGA proceedings. A court cannot dismiss PAGA claims solely on manageability grounds — but it can narrow scope, limit evidence, and structure the trial to ensure fairness.
What Estrada Does Not Say
Estrada does not hold that every PAGA case must proceed to trial in its entirety. It holds that manageability alone is not a basis for dismissal. The distinction between dismissal and scope limitation is the entire foundation of the manageability motion.
Defense Application
Frame every manageability argument as a trial management request, not a dispositive motion. The court retains jurisdiction over all claims. This framing avoids the Estrada prohibition while securing the practical benefit of scope limitation.
Section 2699(p) — The Statutory Codification
What § 2699(p) authorizes
The 2024 reforms give a court authority to limit the evidence presented at trial, or otherwise limit the scope of a PAGA claim, so that the claim can be effectively tried. Paraphrased — check the current statutory text before quoting it in a brief.
Scope of Authority
The statute authorizes two types of limitations: (1) evidence limitations — restricting the evidence for specific violation categories or employee subgroups; and (2) scope limitations — narrowing the claims themselves to subsets that can be effectively tried.
Unanswered Questions
As of August 2026, no published appellate decision has interpreted § 2699(p). The first decisions will define: (a) what standard the court applies; (b) whether the court can limit scope sua sponte; (c) whether a scope limitation order is immediately appealable.
Duran v. U.S. Bank — The Due Process Backstop
Relevance to PAGA
While Duran addressed statistical sampling in the class action context, its due process principles apply with equal force to PAGA. The defendant has a constitutional right to present individualized defenses.
Application
When the defense argues that certain violation categories require individualized proof, Duran provides the constitutional authority. Section 2699(p) gives the court the statutory tool to avoid the constitutional problem.
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.
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
Multi-Worksite Variation
Different locations operate under different managers, policies, scheduling systems, and operational constraints. A single representative trial cannot capture site-specific conditions without devolving into a series of mini-trials.
Factor 2
Job Classification Diversity
PAGA notices often sweep in multiple job classifications with different duties, schedules, compensation structures, and applicable exemptions requiring separate analysis.
Factor 3
Individualized Defenses
When the employer's defense turns on employee-specific facts — voluntary meal period waivers, individual scheduling preferences, exempt classification analysis — representative adjudication cannot accommodate the necessary individualized inquiry.
Factor 4
Temporal Variation
Compliance infrastructure changes over time. Policy changes mid-period create distinct operational realities. The "Two Hotels" framework quantifies these temporal differences and supports period-specific scope limitation.
Factor 1 Deep Dive — Multi-Worksite Evidence Development
What to Document
For each location: (a) employee headcount, (b) on-site management structure, (c) scheduling system used, (d) specific meal/rest period policy in effect, (e) physical layout affecting break availability, (f) operational constraints (24/7 operations, client-site work, remote locations).
How to Present
Create a worksite comparison matrix as an exhibit. Columns: Location, Headcount, Supervisor(s), Scheduling System, Meal Policy, Rest Policy, Operational Constraints. If the matrix shows 8 locations used 3 different scheduling systems and 4 different meal policies — the argument for representative adjudication collapses.
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
Classification-Specific Variation
Regular rate: Different compensation structures require different calculations. A representative trial using one methodology cannot establish violations for employees with different structures.
Exemption defenses: The exemption analysis is individualized by definition — it turns on each employee's actual duties.
Break patterns: A warehouse worker's break scheduling is governed by different operational demands than a delivery driver's or an office administrator's.
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
Common Individualized Defenses
Voluntary meal period waivers: Under Brinker, each employee's waiver decision is individual and cannot be adjudicated representatively.
Different managers, different practices: Representative evidence from one supervisor's team cannot establish violations on another's.
Expense reimbursement variation: Individual employees incur different expenses at different levels — the reasonableness inquiry is individualized.
Factor 4 Deep Dive — Temporal Variation & the "Two Hotels" Framework
The Core Concept
When an employer demonstrably improved compliance during the PAGA period, the penalty analysis must account for two distinct operational realities with separate violation rates and potentially separate scope-limitation orders.
Interaction with Penalty Caps
If the employer implemented compliance improvements before the PAGA notice (15% cap) and after the notice (30% cap), the manageability motion can argue that different penalty structures apply to different temporal slices.
The motion should walk the court from the factual record through the legal standard to the specific relief requested.
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
When to Deploy
If the court is reluctant to limit scope outright, propose a bellwether structure — try claims for one representative location first.
Structure
Phase 1: try plaintiff's own location/classification. Phase 2: court assesses whether results can be applied to other locations or whether separate proceedings are needed.
Strategic Advantage
Signals the defense is not trying to prevent trial — it is trying to structure one. Forces plaintiff into a concession either way: if locations are the same, Phase 1 results apply broadly; if different, that supports scope limitation.
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.
The motion is only as strong as the factual record supporting it.
Written Discovery Targets
Interrogatories to Plaintiff
Request identification of: every location worked, every supervisor managing breaks, scheduling systems used, whether they ever voluntarily waived meal periods, awareness of different practices at other locations.
Document Requests
Request: all meal/rest policies by location, scheduling system documentation, organizational charts, training materials by location, communications about compliance changes.
Deposition Targets
Named Plaintiff
Establish geographic and temporal scope of personal experience. How many locations? Which supervisors? Voluntary meal period shortening? Awareness of different practices elsewhere?
PMQ Deposition
Topics: scheduling system differences, policy differences, supervisor training differences, changes during the PAGA period.
Plaintiff's Expert
Whether site-specific variation was considered in sampling, whether sample was stratified, what assumptions about operational uniformity were made.
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.
The manageability motion coordinates with several other pre-trial motions and defense strategies.
Standing Challenge Under § 2699(c)(1)
Standing challenges eliminate violation categories the plaintiff did not experience. Manageability narrows the remaining categories. File both.
Arbitration Motion Under Adolph
The Adolph framework sends individual claims to arbitration while representative claims stay in court. The manageability motion applies to the remaining representative claims.
Penalty Cap Evidence
The factual record — compliance infrastructure documentation, policy revisions, training records — serves both the manageability motion and the penalty cap arguments.
Dual-Track Coordination — PAGA Manageability & Class Certification
The manageability arguments overlap with class certification predominance analysis. Build one factual record. A certification denial on predominance grounds is persuasive evidence that PAGA claims are also unmanageable.
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.
For illustrative and educational purposes only. This framework does not constitute legal advice. As of August 2026, no published appellate decision had interpreted § 2699(p).