United States: California Court Rules That A PAGA Claim Does Not Survive The Plaintiff's Death

While there are many similarities between class claims and representative claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), the different nature of the two types of claims produces divergent results in some contexts. A decision last month in Flores v. Iniguez, Riverside Superior Court Case No. CVRI2104139, highlights one such distinction: under California law, a putative class claim survives the plaintiff's death, but a PAGA claim does not.

In Flores, the plaintiff filed a wage and hour lawsuit asserting both putative class claims and claims for civil penalties under PAGA. After the plaintiff died, his successors-in-interest moved to substitute as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The court permitted the substitution under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.30, which provides that a cause of action that survives the death of the person entitled to commence an action passes to the decedent's successor-in-interest.

However, the Court found that the PAGA claim did not survive the plaintiff's death because the claim belongs to the State, not the employee. Citing Kim v. Reins Int'l Cal., Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 73, 81 (2020), the court explained, "[a]n employee suing under PAGA 'does so as the proxy or agent of the state's labor law enforcement agencies.'" and a PAGA claim is always a "dispute between an employer and the state," not the employee. Therefore, there is no assignable interest in a PAGA claim. As a result, "[t]o substitute a PAGA plaintiff, one must be an aggrieved employee during the same time period and provide notice to the LWDA." Accord Khanna v. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., 2009 WL 10730978, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2009).

The Flores decision is just the latest illustration that the differing nature of class and PAGA claims is not a semantic distinction, but one that has real consequences in litigation. Many of those consequences favor the plaintiff—for example, by exempting PAGA cases from federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) or by potentially providing PAGA plaintiffs greater access to broad, representative discovery. However, as Flores demonstrates, defendants should also think carefully about how PAGA's nature as a law enforcement action provides arguments that are not available with respect to class claims.