The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District recently held in Brown v. Dave & Buster’s of California, Inc. that a settlement in one PAGA case can lead to the dismissal of another overlapping PAGA case. The claims in the two PAGA cases fully overlapped after an amended Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) notice and amended complaint were filed in the case that eventually settled, and the Court found a failure to wait 65 days between filing the amended LWDA notice and amended complaint to be harmless.
Background of the Case
Lauren Brown, a Dave & Buster’s employee, filed a PAGA lawsuit against the company, alleging violations of California wage and hour law including failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, vacation pay, and inaccurate wage statements. At the time, Dave & Buster’s had multiple ongoing PAGA lawsuits, filed prior to Brown’s by different employees. In June 2023, Dave & Buster’s filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that a settlement in one of the other overlapping PAGA lawsuits released all of Brown’s claims against the company. Brown argued that Andrade, the plaintiff in Andrade v. Dave & Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc., failed to exhaust her claims before the LWDA by failing to wait a full 65 days after filing an amended notice before filing an amended complaint in court. Andrade’s amended complaint added the named defendants in Brown’s case and a vacation pay claim, thereafter encompassing the same claims as Brown’s complaint. Brown argued that the Andrade settlement did not apply to the same entities she sued and did not apply to her vacation pay claim under Labor Code Section 227.3 because Andrade waited less than 65 days between sending her amended notice and filing her amended complaint. The trial court ruled in Dave & Buster’s favor, and dismissed Brown’s claims. Brown appealed.
The Court’s Decision
The Court of Appeal agreed that Brown’s claims were released as part of the settlement in the overlapping Andrade PAGA case. The Court examined the issue of whether Andrade’s failure to wait a full 65 days between filing an amended notice with the LWDA and filing her amended PAGA complaint could overcome Dave & Buster’s argument that Brown’s PAGA claims were released by that settlement. The Court found that Andrade’s failure to wait a full 65 days was harmless, given that the exhaustion requirement does not explicitly apply to amended notices and amended complaints. The Court held that the settlement fully encompassed and released Brown’s PAGA claims, and upheld the trial court’s ruling.
Significance
The settlement of a prior-filed PAGA claim can lead to the dismissal of another overlapping PAGA claim in a separate action. Dismissal can be granted even if the prior-filed PAGA claim has been amended to include all of the same claims as the overlapping PAGA action. A plaintiff’s failure to wait 65 days between filing the amended notice and amended complaint did not prevent such a settlement from releasing PAGA claims in an overlapping case.
If you have questions on this topic, please feel free to reach out to the author or your CDF Attorney of choice.
