CONTACT ME

SUBSCRIBE


  • Enter your email address:

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

« Oral argument reports: Arias and Amalgamated | Main | Blog hiatus »

Monday, April 13, 2009

Comments

Jeffrey Wilens

This was a stupid argument by plaintiff's counsel on the PAGA issue. I hope her argument is just being oversimplified by the reporter. The UCL language (pre-Prop 64) allowing non-class representative actions is almost identical to the PAGA language allowing non-class representative actions. This point should have been hammered down by the plaintiff's counsel. I hope it was.

Also the reporter minimizes the harm of requiring class cert for PAGA. Many court's won't certify meal and rest claims, but similar relief can be obtained under non-class PAGA actions.

The comments to this entry are closed.

2020 Supreme Court Calendar


Research


Disclaimer


  • Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice or a solicitation for business. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney in your jurisdiction. To read this blog's complete disclaimer, click here.


  • The UCL Practitioner
    © 2003-2020
    by Kimberly A. Kralowec
    All rights reserved.



  • Header design by Webmotion
    Photos by Jack Gescheidt
    Powered by TypePad


  • StatCounter