In re Baycol Cases I and II provides more guidance on operation of "death knell" doctrine in class action appeals

In California, the right to appeal is generally governed by the “one final judgment” rule, under which most interlocutory orders are not appealable.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1.)1  But Daar v. Yellow Cab Co.,  67 Cal.2d 695 (1967) concluded that an exception was necessary because orders dismissing all class action claims might in some instances escape review.  The Supreme Court created what is now referred to as the “death knell” doctrine, allowing a party to appeal such class action claim dismissal orders immediately, even though they are not final.  In re Baycol Cases I and II (February 28, 2011) marks the the Supreme Court's return to that docrine.

In 2007, after consolidation with other actions in a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, adding to the UCL and unjust enrichment claims a claim under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.). Bayer demurred to both the class allegations and each substantive claim. On April 27, 2007, the trial court sustained the demurrer in its entirety without leave to amend. It thereafter denied Shaw's motion for reconsideration on both class and individual claims and entered a judgment of dismissal. Bayer served a notice of entry of judgment on October 29, 2007, and Shaw filed his notice of appeal on December 20, 2007. The Court of Appeal reversed dismissal of Shaw's individual UCL claim, concluding he should have been granted leave to amend. However, it declined to consider on the merits the appeal of the class claims dismissal and instead dismissed that portion of the appeal. Relying on cases that have held death knell orders terminating class claims are immediately appealable, the Court of Appeal reasoned that, upon entry of the April 27, 2007, order sustaining Bayer's demurrer, the class claims dismissal, unlike the individual claims dismissal, was appealable. Consequently, the December 20, 2007, notice of appeal was, as to the class claims, untimely. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.104, 8.108(e).)

The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the preservation of individual claims is an essential prerequisite to application of the death knell doctrine. The doctrine renders appealable only those orders that effectively terminate class claims but permit individual claims to continue. When an order terminates both class and individual claims, there is no need to apply any special exception to the usual one final judgment rule to ensure appellate review of class claims. Instead, routine application of that rule suffices to ensure review while also avoiding a multiplicity of appeals.

In Safaie v. Jacuzzi Whirlpool Bath, Inc., Court holds that decertification order, affirmed on appeal, bars subsequent motion to certify

Stephen v. Enterprise Rent-a-Car, 235 Cal. App. 3d 806 (1991) held that a party has no right to bring a second motion to certify a class after the court has denied the first motion and the time for appeal has passed.  Stephen arose when a plaintiff failed to timely appeal an order denying certification.  But Stephen did not consider all of the unusual permutations that could occur.  In Safaie v. Jacuzzi Whirlpool Bath, Inc. (February 22, 2011), the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) examined whether, after an unsuccessful appeal of an order decertifying a class, the plaintiff could move for recertification on the basis of new law (Tobacco II).  The Court concluded that, because the plaintiff did not petition for review while Tobacco II was pending, the order affirming decertication was final and no further attempts at certification were permissible absent equitable considerations necessary to prevent unfairness.

The Court offered interesting comments about the course that it expects class actions to follow:

We agree with Stephen's holding and find its rationale persuasive. To ensure fairness to the class action plaintiff, trial courts are required to liberally grant continuances and ensure a plaintiff has the opportunity to make a complete record before the court rules on class certification. (See Stephen, supra, 235 Cal.App.3d at pp. 814- 815.) Once the record is complete, if the trial court issues a final order denying a class certification motion in its entirety, the plaintiff has the right to seek immediate appellate review and to obtain a written ruling from a Court of Appeal on the disputed issues, and then, if dissatisfied, to petition for review in the California Supreme Court. Thus, unlike the situation with most interlocutory orders, the plaintiff is provided the right to an immediate appeal even though the case is still pending. However, this special status has a necessary ramification: once the appellate period has passed or once the appellate court has affirmed the order and a remittitur has issued, the order is final and plaintiff is bound by the final decertification decision.

Slip op., at 12.  The Court later discussed the possibility of equitable exceptions to the rule in Stephen:

In reaching this conclusion, we recognize trial courts have broad discretion to determine the propriety of class actions, including to be procedurally innovative in certifying an appropriate class and in formulating procedures to ensure fairness and avoid manifest injustice in class action litigation. (See Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 339.) Moreover, a court has the discretion to move sua sponte to certify a class. (See City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 453-454.) However, to the extent there may be equitable exceptions to the rule precluding successive class certification motions after a final order denying certification, the circumstances here do not come within this exception.

Slip op., at 17.

From all of this I take away two possible lessons.  First, you must file a petition for review with the California Supreme Court if there is any chance that a change in law could help your certification arguments.  Second, the farther away you get from the wellspring of all consumer and employee protection, the more likely it is that your class action will receive the firing squad, not a certification order.  This theory would explain why Los Angeles is dicey, Orange County is perilous, and San Diego is the kiss of death.  But it's just a theory.

In Gutierrez v. California Commerce Club, Inc., Court of Appeal reverses order sustaining a demurrer to class allegations in a wage & hour suit

Those corporate employers are nothing if not a tenacious lot.  They keep challenging class action allegations at the pleading stage despite a substantial weight of authority finding that approach to be improper in most class actions.  In Gutierrez v. Commerce Club, Inc. (August 23, 2010), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division One) reviewed a trial court order sustaining a demurrer to class allegations without leave to amend in a suit alleging, among other things, that the plaintiffs and other similarly situated members of the putative class were injured by the Club's unlawful policy and practice of denying meal and rest breaks to certain hourly, non-union employees.

After stating the procedural history in fair detail, the Court restated some of the purposes for class action litigation:

The wisdom of permitting the action to survive a demurrer is elementary.  "'Class action litigation is proper whenever it may be determined that it is more beneficial to the litigants and to the judicial process to try a suit in one action rather than in several actions. . . . It is clear that the more intimate the judge becomes with the character of the action, the more intelligently he may make the determination. If the judicial machinery encourages the decision to be made at the pleading stages and the judge decides against class litigation, he divests the court of the power to later alter that decision . . . . Therefore, because the sustaining of demurrers without leave to amend represents the earliest possible determination of the propriety of class action litigation, it should be looked upon with disfavor.' [Citation.]" (Tarkington, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1511; see also Prince, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 1326.)

Slip op., at 7-8.  The Court then agreed with the defendant that there have been occasions where class allegations were resolved at the demurrer phase.  But the Court went on to explain that wage & hour cases were not amongst those relatively rare examples:

The Club is correct that there are circumstances in which granting a motion to strike or sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend a class action complaint will be appropriate. A review of the cases in which courts have approved the use of demurrers to determine the propriety of class actions, however, reveals that the majority of those actions involved mass torts or other actions in which individual issues predominate.

Slip op., at 8.  In contrast to mass tort actions, the Court found that wage & hour cases were generally unsuited to evaluation of class claims on the pleadings:

There is no discernible difference between this action and the wage and hour cases (or their type) at issue in Prince and, more recently, in Tarkington. As we explained in Prince and reiterated in Tarkington, such cases "'routinely proceed as class actions' because they usually involve '"a single set of facts applicable to all members,"' and '"one question of law common to class members."'" (Tarkington, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1511, quoting Prince, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1327–1328.) As long as the lead plaintiff "'alleges institutional practices . . . that affected all of the members of the potential class in the same manner, and it appears from the complaint that all liability issues can be determined on a class-wide basis,'" no more is required at the pleading stage. (Tarkington at p. 1511.)

Slip op., at 9.  The Court finished its discussion with emphasis:

We return again to and rely upon the well-established principle, that "only in mass tort actions (or other actions equally unsuited to class action treatment) [should] class suitability . . . be determined at the pleading stage. In other cases, particularly those involving wage and hour claims, [such as the instant action,] class suitability should not be determined by demurrer." (Prince, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 1325, italics added; see also Tarkington, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1512.)

Slip op., at 11.

While their message should be clear, somehow I doubt that it will appreciably reduce that massive waste of resources devoted to pleadings challenges.

Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles (Greenwell, objector) provides much-needed words of restraint concerning Kullar

Since Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 116 (2008) (Kullar) and Clark v. American Residential Services LLC, 175 Cal. App. 4th 785 (2009) (Clark) were decided, trial courts and settling parties in class actions have been looking over their shoulder at every settlement, concerned about the amount of information necessary to meet the Kullar/Clark standard for adequate settlement review.  For example, the Los Angeles Superior Court appears to be utilizing some form of checklist derived, in part, from Kullar to analyze proposed class action settlements.  Fortunately, in Munoz v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles (ord. pub. July 2, 2010) (Greenwell, objector), the Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Eight) explains that much of the angst over Kullar/Clark is overblown because their requirements have been overstated and/or misconstrued.

Plaintiffs in Munoz filed a class action lawsuit against BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles (BCI), alleging unpaid overtime wages, missed meal and rest period wages, and other Labor Code violations and unfair business practices. The proposed class consisted of production supervisors and merchandising supervisors who were allegedly misclassified as exempt.  After mediation, the parties agreed to settle the matter for $1.1 million. Notice of the proposed settlement elicited one objection. Two of the 188 class members opted out.  The average net payment to each class member would be about $4,300. The trial court found the settlement fair and reasonable. The objector, Greenwell, appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in approving the settlement, principally because the parties did not provide the court with the information necessary to make a finding that the settlement was reasonable and fair.

The Court of Appeal summarized the obligation of a trial court evaluating a class action settlement:

Some cases state that a presumption of fairness exists “where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm's-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small.” (Dunk, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 1802.) Kullar emphasizes that this is only an initial presumption; a trial court's approval of a class action settlement will be vacated if the court “is not provided with basic information about the nature and magnitude of the claims in question and the basis for concluding that the consideration being paid for the release of those claims represents a reasonable compromise.” (Kullar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at pp. 130, 133.) In short, the trial court may not determine the adequacy of a class action settlement “without independently satisfying itself that the consideration being received for the release of the class members' claims is reasonable in light of the strengths and weaknesses of the claims and the risks of the particular litigation.” (Id. at p. 129.)

Slip op., at 10.  However, after explaining that the objector complained "that the record before the trial court contained no evidence of 'the potential value of the claims,'" the Court went on to explain that Kullar is misunderstood:

Greenwell misunderstands Kullar, apparently interpreting it to require the record in all cases to contain evidence in the form of an explicit statement of the maximum amount the plaintiff class could recover if it prevailed on all its claims--a number which appears nowhere in the record of this case. But Kullar does not, as Greenwell claims, require any such explicit statement of value; it requires a record which allows “an understanding of the amount that is in controversy and the realistic range of outcomes of the litigation.”

Slip op., at 11.  Continuing, the Court noted, "Indeed, the standard list of factors a trial court should consider in determining whether a settlement is fair and reasonable does not expressly include specification of the maximum amount of recoverable damages (see Kullar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 128), and Kullar is clear that the most important factor '"'is the strength of the case for plaintiffs on the merits, balanced against the amount offered in settlement.'"' (Id. at p. 130.)"  Slip op., at 11, n. 6.

The Court itemized the information available to the trial court in the case before it:

The information before the court included the size of the class (188) and the payroll data on all class members during the class period (including total amounts of salaries paid during the class period). It also included declarations from 30 class members (15 percent of the class) indicating the number of hours worked per week and per day (and the significant differences in those numbers): e.g., 70 hours per week, 48 hours per week, 60 hours per week, 42-44 hours per week, 55 hours per week, “no more than 50 hours per week,” 45 hours per week in winter and 50-60 hours per week at other times of the year, eight to nine hours per day, 45 hours per week, and so on. These declarations also showed significant variations....

Slip op., at 11.  In other words, the trial court had more than enough information to evaluate the "strength of the case" and compare that to the amount offered in settlement.

As an additional measure of assistance, the Court highlighted the facts from Kullar and Clark that undermined those settlements:

As a final observation on this topic, we note that the evidentiary records in Kullar and Clark, upon which Greenwell relies so heavily, are significantly different from this case. In Kullar (which did not involve the misclassification of exempt employees), there was no discovery at all on meal period claims that were added in an amended complaint and were the focal point of the objections to the settlement. (Kullar, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at pp. 121-122.) While Kullar class counsel argued that the relevant information had been exchanged informally and during mediation (id. at p. 126), nothing was presented to the court--no discovery, no declarations, no time records, no payroll data, nothing (id. at pp. 128-129, 132)--to allow the court to evaluate the claim. And in Clark, the problem was that the trial court was not given sufficient information on a core legal issue affecting the strength of the plaintiffs' case on the merits, and therefore could not assess the reasonableness of the settlement terms. (Clark, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 798.) The record in this case contains neither of the flaws that doomed the Kullar and Clark settlements.

Slip op, at 13.

Munoz v. BCI clearly holds that there is no obligation on parties seeking approval of a class action settlement to state a specific sum that would represent the maximum possible recovery if the class prevailed on all theories.  Rather, the Court must have information that permits it to evaluate the strength of the claims compared to the amount offered in settlement.  This showing ought to be satisfied by a discussion of the specific risk factors associated with the various theories, along with data about such things as the size of the class.  In other words, if a trial court can roughly approximate the magnitude of the claims and the likelihood of recovery, it can fashion the necessary metric.

In addressing other arguments, the Court rejected a challenge to the $5,000 incentive awards approved by the trial court.

Mundy v. Neal confirms that pre-filing settlement attempt necessary for catalyst theory fees sought via Civil Code section 55

The plaintiff sued to force a land owner to install a van-accessible handicap parking space.  The landowner installed the space.  Plaintiff filed a dismissal with prejudice.  Plaintiff then sought his attorney fees under a catalyst theory because his lawsuit motivated corrective action that inures to the public benefit.  The trial court denied the motion for fees. The Court of Appeal, in Mundy v. Neal (June 30, 2010) (Second Appellate District, Division Two) affirmed, holding that the plaintiff did not attempt to settle prior to filing suit and was not the prevailing party under Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 553, 577 (2004).  Simple as that.

In Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. v. Gore, California Supreme Court strengthens protections surrounding attorney speech

The California Supreme Court, in Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. v. Gore (May 17, 2010) explicitly examined the narrow issue of the scope of the commercial speech exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 425.16, 425.17, subd. (c).)  Indirectly, the opinion concerns the scope of protection available to attorney communications directed at potential clients, class members or witnesses.  The issue arose when, in February 2006, plaintiff Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. (Simpson) filed an action for defamation and related claims against defendants Pierce Gore and The Gore Law Firm after publication of a newspaper advertisement placed by Gore a few weeks earlier. The advertisement, directed to owners of wood decks constructed after January 1, 2004, advised readers that “you may have certain legal rights and be entitled to monetary compensation, and repair or replacement of your deck” if the deck was built with galvanized screws manufactured by Simpson or other specified entities, and invited those persons to contact Gore “if you would like an attorney to investigate whether you have a potential claim.”

Gore moved successfully in the superior court to have the entire complaint by Simpson stricken under section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.  The Supreme Court affirmed as well, though limiting its review exclusively to the applicability of the commercial speech exemption to the anti-SLAPP statute set forth in section 425.17(c)(1).

The ruling offers additional protection to law firms prosecuting class actions.  A defendant will have little recourse against an advertisement that is crafted to satisfy the analysis supplied in this decision.

Update on 2010-05-20 07:35 by The Complex Litigator

Forgive the (corrected) typo in the title.  Some of those slip through.

Corporate officer can use attorney status to obtain relief from default class action judgment

My condolences to my colleague, Greg Karasik.  After almost two years of attempting to elicit some form of meaningful response from the defendant in Gutierrez v. G & M Oil Company, Mr. Karasik obtained something you don't see every day, a default judgment in a class action.  Sadly, that judgment of about $4 million was set aside by the trial court after it concluded that Michael Gray, Vice President and General Counsel for the defendant, could use his own neglect to set aside the default that he, in his capacity as corporate officer, knew about all along.  The Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division Three) in Gutierrez v. G & M Oil Company (May 7, 2010) affirmed the decision.

The Court observed that the issue was one of first impression:

Today we face the related question of whether in-house attorneys come within the mandatory relief from default or dismissal provision of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question is, as far as we are aware, one of first impression in California. However, based on what the Supreme Court said in General Dynamics and in PLCM about the role of in-house attorneys, there can be no doubt about the answer: yes.

There is a wrinkle in this case, however, that requires a little more explication. Here, the in-house attorney who negligently allowed a $4 million default judgment to be taken against his company and his employer, a gas station chain, had the title of “Vice President and General Counsel.” Thus, he was a corporate officer as well as being an in-house attorney. Should that make a difference?

Slip op., at 2.  Concluding that the issue was one of statutory construction, the Court found that "there is nothing in section 473 which suggests that in-house attorneys who are also officers of a corporation are somehow exempt from the operation of the mandatory provisions of the statute."  Slip op., at 3.

The opinion examines at some length the operation of section 473 as it pertains to in-house counsel.  I can credit the Court for a well-reasoned and well-written analysis (aside: though I regularly disagree with Division Three, there are some very good writers in that Division of the Fourth Appellate District).  Still, it is a disappointing outcome where an attorney that is also an officer of a company can avoid imputation of knowledge to the company by claiming that he was wearing his attorney hat.

Geico's attempt to "pick off" class representative in UCL action is unsuccessful

Oh, the riches that come to those who wait.  After a fairly dry spell, California's Courts of Appeal bestow no fewer than three opinions about issues related to class actions and the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").  The first up for commentary is Wallace v. Geico General Insurance Company (April 19, 2010).  In Wallace, the Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) considered whether GEICO's offer of monetary compensation to Wallace after she filed her lawsuit caused her to lose standing as the representative plaintiff.  Concluding that she did not, the Court reversed the trial court's order striking class allegations.

Wallace filed a proposed class action complaint against GEICO. According to Wallace, her vehicle was damaged in an accident and required body work. She obtained an estimate from a repair shop of her choice and presented the estimate to GEICO. GEICO told her that it would not pay the full amount of the estimate because the hourly rate for labor charged by that business was above what GEICO considered to be the prevailing labor rate.

Meanwhile, following a consent order issued by the California Department of Insurance, GEICO was obligated to calculate reimbursements in an alternative fashion.  Two months after Wallace filed her lawsuit, GEICO sent a check for $387.56 to Wallace to cover the amount that Wallace paid out of pocket for the repair of her vehicle.  Based on the fact of that payment, the trial court ruled that Wallace lacked standing but gave Wallace time to locate an adequate class representative and allowed discovery for that purpose.  Less than two months later, GEICO moved to strike class allegations.  The trial court granted the motion on the ground that the class had no representative.

The Court of Appeal began its review by examining the "pick off" cases:

In the specific situation where a defendant in a class action has forced an involuntary settlement on the representative plaintiff after the lawsuit is filed, case law creates an exception to the requirement that a representative plaintiff continue to be a member of the proposed class. These cases, which are "sometimes referred to as 'pick off ' cases" (Watkins v. Wachovia Corp. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1590), "arise when, prior to class certification, a defendant in a proposed class action gives the named plaintiff the entirety of the relief claimed by that individual. The defendant then attempts to obtain dismissal of the action, on the basis that the named plaintiff can no longer pursue a class action, as the named plaintiff is no longer a member of the class the plaintiff sought to represent. . . . [T]he defendant seeks to avoid exposure to the class action by 'picking off ' the named plaintiff, sometimes by picking off named plaintiffs serially." (Ibid., citing, among others, La Sala, supra, 5 Cal.3d 864.) In this situation, "the involuntary receipt of relief does not, of itself, prevent the class plaintiff from continuing as a class representative." (Watkins, at p. 1590; see also Larner v. Los Angeles Doctors Hospital Associates, LP (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1299 [case law "prevents a prospective defendant from avoiding a class action by 'picking off' prospective class-action plaintiffs one by one, settling each individual claim in an attempt to disqualify the named plaintiff as a class representative"]; Ticconi v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins. Co. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 528, 548 [" '[A] prospective defendant is not allowed to avert a class action by "picking off " prospective plaintiffs one-by-one. Thus, precertification payment of the named plaintiff 's claim does not automatically disqualify the named plaintiff as a class action representative.' "].) 

Slip op., at 11-12.  Having explained that the "pick off" attempt was improper, the Court then explained what the trial court should have done in that situation:

Instead of a reflexive dismissal of the representative plaintiff on the basis that he or she lacks standing as the trial court did here — the proper procedure in a pick off situation is for the trial court to consider whether "the named plaintiffs will continue fairly to represent the class" in light of the individual relief offered by the defendant. (La Sala, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 872.) As a practical matter, in most cases, that evaluation may be performed in the context of a ruling on a motion for class certification, where the trial court inquires into the existence of, among other things, "(1) predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class." (Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004) 34 Cal.4th 319, 326, italics added; see also Weiss, supra, 385 F.3d at p. 348 [allowing class certification motion to be filed after defendant attempted to pick off the representative plaintiff].)

Slip op., at 13.  Next, the Court explicitly held that the "pick off" cases apply to UCL actions, even after Proposition 64:

We agree with the parties that the pick off cases are persuasive here, regardless of the injury-in-fact requirement set forth in section 17204. As required by section 17204, Wallace "suffered injury in fact" and "lost money or property" as a result of the practices at issue in this lawsuit. (§ 17204.) Specifically, Wallace was injured by paying for the repair work to her vehicle that GEICO did not agree to cover. Thus, at the time Wallace filed suit she was a proper plaintiff under section 17204. We see no indication in the history of Proposition 64, as reviewed by our Supreme Court in Californians for Disability Rights, supra, 39 Cal.4th 223, 228, that the voters amended section 17204 with the intent of allowing defendants in class actions brought under section 17200 et seq. to defeat class status by forcing an involuntary settlement.

Slip op., at 15-16.  The Court went on to explain that Proposition 64 focused on "the filing of lawsuits by attorneys who did not have clients impacted by the defendant's conduct."  Slip op., at 16.  Thus, "[b]ecause the doctrine expressed in the pick off cases is an established part of class action procedure, there is no reason to believe that Proposition 64 was intended to alter that doctrine in the context of suits brought under section 17200 et seq."  Slip op., at 17, relying on In re Tobacco II Cases (2009) 46 Cal.4th 298, 318.

I still can't get over the fact that an insurance company wouldn't pay for the full cost of vehicle repair.  Inconceivable.

Judge Patel offers interesting comments about the puzzle of PAGA

United States District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel (Northern District of California) offered some interesting comments, but no clear solutions, to the puzzle posed by litigation of PAGA claims as representative actions.  Ochoa-Hernandez v. Cjaders Foods, Inc.. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010) 2010 WL 1340777.  In the course of denying plaintiff's motion to preclude the defendant from contacting current or former employees about the litigation, the Court said:

From a practical perspective, plaintiff's analogy between class actions and PAGA claims is also misplaced. While both fall within the general category of virtual representation, there are significant differences between the two. Unlike a class action seeking damages or injunctive relief for injured employees, the purpose of PAGA is to incentivize private parties to recover civil penalties for the government that otherwise may not have been assessed and collected by overburdened state enforcement agencies. Id. (“The act's declared purpose is to supplement enforcement actions by public agencies, which lack adequate resources to bring all such actions themselves.”). Unlike class actions, these civil penalties are not meant to compensate unnamed employees because the action is fundamentally a law enforcement action. Moreover, unlike the binding finality of a class action with respect to damages, the individual employee has less at stake in a PAGA representative action: if the employer defeats a PAGA claim, the nonparty employees, because they were not given notice of the action or afforded an opportunity to be heard, are not bound by the judgment as to remedies other than civil penalties. Id. at 987, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 588, 209 P.3d 923. Thus, nonparty employees can bring an action against the employer based on identical facts so long as they do not seek civil penalties. Class members, however, would be bound by a judgment against the class, independent of the remedy later sought.

*5 Class actions litigated in federal court also contain numerous procedural protections that are not available in PAGA claims. Unnamed employees need not be given notice of the PAGA claim, nor do they have the ability to opt-out of the representative PAGA claim. There is no indication that the unnamed plaintiffs can contest a settlement, if any, reached between the parties. The court does not have to approve the named PAGA plaintiff, nor does the court inquire into the adequacy of counsel's ability to represent the unnamed employees. These procedural protections ensure the fidelity of the attorney-client arrangement in a class action. Their absence further militate against considering a PAGA claim akin to a certified class action.

Additionally, in order to bridge the gap between Arias and the creation of an attorney-client relationship, at least two inferential steps are required, and neither is present. First, Arias is silent on what procedures, if not class action procedures, are sufficient to perfect representative status in representative actions. While representative status may accrue once administrative requirements have been satisfied, Arias does not so hold and plaintiff cites no further authority. Second, assuming that representative status is perfected once administrative requirements are satisfied, Arias does not contemplate the practical issue of when, if at all, an attorney-client relationship arises between plaintiff's counsel and the current or former employees.

Slip op., at 4-5.  If it isn't obvious from this long excerpt, the argument up for discussion was whether an attorney-client relationship existed between the absent employees and the attorney for the named plaintiff.  While the Court's comments explain why a PAGA claim is different from a class action, the discussion is not intended to address the case management question posed by PAGA.  Nevertheless, the brief observations by this Court are of interest to practitioners in this area of law.