Employers May Face an Expanded Liability Period in PAGA Suits Under the Relation Back Doctrine

On February 7, 2022 a California Court of Attractiveness issued its decision in Hutcheson v. The Superior Court docket of Alameda County (UBS Money Services, Inc.).  The case addresses the relation back again doctrine in the context of a Non-public Attorneys Typical Act of 2004 (the “PAGA”) lawsuit, and will have significant consequences for PAGA circumstances relocating forward.

The primary Grievance in Hutcheson was filed by an staff named Larry Van Steenhuyse.  Mr. Steenhuyse worked for UBS Economic Providers, Inc. as a money advisor, and he gave notice to the Labor Workforce and Advancement Agency and UBS of his intention to search for penalties under the PAGA for UBS’ alleged Labor Code violations on December 22, 2017 (the details of the alleged violations are not crucial in this article).  Van Steenhuyse submitted his civil Criticism on February 26, 2018, after the LWDA failed to react or examine his detect letter in just the essential 65-working day period.

Andrew Hutcheson also worked for UBS as a monetary advisor, and he way too gave see to UBS and the LWDA of his intention to look for penalties less than the PAGA for UBS’ alleged Labor Code violations.  Hutcheson’s promises ended up duplicative of those people introduced by Steenhuyse.  Hutcheson submitted his recognize to the LWDA on April 18, 2018.  He then waited until February 2019 to file a civil Grievance towards UBS.  Each Hutcheson and Van Steenhuyse submitted their Complaints in Alameda County Excellent Court docket.

In March 2019, Hutcheson submitted a movement to intervene in Van Steenhuyse’s lawsuit and switch Van Steenhuyse as the named-plaintiff.  The events then agreed to the submitting of an amended Criticism that extra Hutcheson to Van Steenhuyse’s lawsuit and dismissed Van Steenhuyse as a plaintiff.  The events could not, even so, concur on the applicable restrictions time period for the lawsuit or irrespective of whether the doctrine of relation back would apply.

Hutcheson took the situation that the statute of constraints should date back to December 22, 2016, which was 1 yr ahead of Van Steenhuyse filed his letter with the LWDA, relying on the relation back again doctrine.  UBS argued that Hutcheson could only seek penalties courting back to December 19, 2017, a person calendar year and 65 days right before he submitted his personal lawsuit.  UBS moved for summary adjudication on the proposed liability period for the lawsuit on the grounds that the relation back again doctrine did not utilize to increase the legal responsibility period for Hutcheson’s representative claims.  The demo court docket agreed with UBS and granted the motion.  The demo court presumed that the basic necessities for the relation back again doctrine were being satisfied, but granted the motion for summary adjudication since it reasoned the relation back again doctrine could not utilize to PAGA claims as it would frustrate PAGA’s see needs to the LWDA and the employer.

Hutcheson filed a petition for a writ of mandate that was to begin with denied, but afterwards granted right after he appealed to the California Supreme Court docket.  Hutcheson’s writ was granted on the slim difficulty of irrespective of whether, underneath the certain information of the situation, the relation again doctrine used to a PAGA declare.  The Court docket of Attractiveness held that it does, and reversed the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication and entered an purchase denying UBS’ movement.  Specially, the Courtroom of Attractiveness relied on two things in the case that favored implementing the relation back again doctrine:  (1) the State of California, via the LWDA, was the serious bash in interest in the scenario (not Hutcheson or Van Steenhuyse) and (2) Hutcheson would have recovered less than the broader liability period had Van Steenhuyse prevailed in his case.  In truth, neither the LWDA nor Hutcheson stood to get better far more if the relation back doctrine was used than what Van Steenhuyse would have most likely recovered experienced he not dropped out of the lawsuit.  Importantly, Hutcheson had submitted his personal see with the LWDA and submitted a separate civil lawsuit alleging PAGA claims, therefore complying with PAGA’s exhaustion and see prerequisites.  Appropriately, the courtroom held that each people experienced standing beneath the PAGA to convey their promises, and not implementing the relation back again doctrine would frustrate PAGA’s objective of making it possible for aggrieved staff to recuperate penalties for Labor Code violations.  The courtroom relied on a series of the latest appellate and California Supreme Court choices that have taken an expansive watch of the PAGA when outlining its reasoning.

The Courtroom of Attractiveness also turned down the employer’s argument that implementing the relation again doctrine would frustrate the administrative observe requirement of the PAGA.  The court described the notice requirement serves the dual purpose of supplying the LWDA detect of the promises to allow for it to look into them and allowing the employer to reply.  The court docket held the purpose of the administrative specifications would not be pissed off in a predicament in which the LWDA and employer had discover of the claims from each allegedly aggrieved workers for the full time period of time, and that the absence of language in the PAGA about the relation back doctrine did not imply it could not apply.

In conclusion, the Court docket of Charm held that, in which a trial courtroom concludes the three things of the relation back doctrine are satisfied, there is absolutely nothing in PAGA’s language or statutory plan that prevents its application to a afterwards-substituted plaintiff.  This signifies nevertheless a further illustration of California courts expanding the reach and scope of the PAGA, and businesses should carry on to be aware of courts’ wide tactic when litigating these statements because the software of the relation again doctrine may well prolong an employer’s liability time period by extra months or yrs if the employer faces several successive PAGA lawsuits.