Employee can’t file PAGA suit when identical suit is pending

A California Court of Appeal recently ruled that an employee can’t file a new lawsuit under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) if the suit arises from the same facts and theories as another pending PAGA action.

Exclusive concurrent jurisdiction?

Under the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, when two or more courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over a dispute, the court that first asserts jurisdiction gets to be the decision maker. The rule is based on the public policies of avoiding conflicts that might arise between courts if they were free to make contradictory decisions or awards relating to the same controversy, along with preventing vexatious litigation and multiplicity of suits.

When the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction rule applies, the second suit should be stopped.

Background

The employees in this suit alleged PAGA-only claims. They argued Beverages & More! (BevMo) maintains a policy that requires the presence of two persons in any store while open. The policy regularly requires employees to go without their off-duty, uninterrupted meal and rest periods or, alternatively, premium pay for noncompliant meal and rest periods. As a result, they claimed BevMo failed to do the following: