Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc.

Summary

The court held that a plaintiff pursuing overlapping claims under PAGA may not intervene in another plaintiff’s PAGA action, require consideration of objections to that action’s settlement, or move to vacate the resulting judgment based solely on the state’s interest and the plaintiff’s status as a state proxy. PAGA’s statutory structure and legislative history assign settlement oversight to the courts and the LWDA and do not extend a private plaintiff’s implied authority to the procedural powers sought here. The court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment.