“To intervene in the ongoing PAGA action of another plaintiff asserting overlapping claims, to require a court to consider objections to a proposed settlement in that overlapping action, and to move to vacate the judgment in that action — would be inconsistent with the scheme the Legislature enacted,” the opinion said.
However, the justices left open the possibility that the state Legislature could amend the law to resolve such issues.
“We reiterate that the Legislature, in its policymaking role, remains free to consider the questions we have addressed and resolved in this opinion … and to decide whether statutory recognition of the rights Olson asserts is wise and/or necessary to achieve PAGA’s goals,” they said in the opinion.
PAGA Deal Drivers Trial : Dissenting Opinion
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Goodwin H. Liu argued that the decision “is contrary to basic principles undergirding the rules of civil procedure, which facilitate (even if they do not require) adjudication of the same claims in a single proceeding.”
