Skip to content

On Wednesday, a panel of the California Court of Appeal’s First District unanimously held that venue for an action alleging violation of California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) is proper in any county where an allegedly aggrieved employee worked and suffered violations of the Labor Code. In Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Superior Court of Alameda County, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Petitioner Crestwood Behavioral Health Inc.’s motion to transfer venue of the PAGA Action to Sacramento County. Crestwood Behavioral Health v. Superior Court, No. A160523, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 137 (Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2021). Petitioner argued that venue was improper in Alameda County as Petitioner is not based there, and Plaintiff Fragoza never worked there.

The Court rejected Petitioner’s argument and found that venue was proper in Alameda County. The Court cited Code of Civil Procedure sections 393 and 395.5, which provide that venue is proper in a county “in which the cause or some part of the cause, arose” (CCP § 393(a)) or “where the obligation or liability arises” (CCP § 395.5(a)). The Court held that in determining proper venue for a PAGA Action, a Plaintiff is not limited to the county/counties in which he or she suffered Labor Code violations, but instead may file suit in any county in which an allegedly aggrieved employee suffered a Labor Code violation. The Court reasoned that in a PAGA Action, the Plaintiff serves “as a proxy for the state.” The Court determined that there was no reason Plaintiff’s venue should be restricted based only on her own claims, as she pursues civil penalties on behalf of the state for alleged Labor Code violations suffered by aggrieved employees across the state. Here, the Court found that venue was proper in Alameda County because Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged that Labor Code violations occurred (and thus liability arose) at Petitioner’s facilities in Alameda County.

The effect of this holding is significant. Taken to its extreme, it gives a PAGA Plaintiff virtual carte blanche to forum shop. Any county where an employer operates and has employees appears to be a proper venue for a PAGA Action according to this decision.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Matthew J. Weber Matthew J. Weber

Matthew J. Weber represents employers in workplace matters, including virtually all types of employment litigation, with an emphasis in wage and hour class actions and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) actions. He also represents employers in single-plaintiff actions, including cases related to alleged

Matthew J. Weber represents employers in workplace matters, including virtually all types of employment litigation, with an emphasis in wage and hour class actions and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) actions. He also represents employers in single-plaintiff actions, including cases related to alleged discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and harassment. Matthew has experience in state and federal court, as well as arbitration, and has deep experience in compelling matters to arbitration. Matthew is experienced in all stages of litigation, including initial investigations, pleading challenges, discovery, depositions, motions, and trial.

Matthew is an active member of the Labor and Employment community, regularly writing on wage and hour topics, including authoring wage and hour chapters/sections in a number of treatises/publications. Matthew counsels employers regarding employment policies, accommodations/leaves of absence, and exemption and independent contractor classification.

Photo of Timothy Long Timothy Long

Timothy Long, Co-Managing Shareholder of the Sacramento office, has deep experience litigating complex labor and employment issues, having served as lead counsel in multiple class, collective, and representative actions and advising on dozens more. Tim splits his time between GT’s Los Angeles and…

Timothy Long, Co-Managing Shareholder of the Sacramento office, has deep experience litigating complex labor and employment issues, having served as lead counsel in multiple class, collective, and representative actions and advising on dozens more. Tim splits his time between GT’s Los Angeles and Sacramento offices, and is Practice Group Leader of the Sacramento office’s Labor & Employment Practice. Tim’s clients have included a variety of financial institutions and entities, health care-related entities, airlines, retailers, high-tech companies, and transportation and logistics companies. Tim also advises private investment funds and their partners in disputes concerning the management of funds, removal of non-performing members, and disputes involving portfolio companies.

Tim has litigated virtually every wage-and-hour issue there is, including exemption, incentive compensation, independent contractor, off-the-clock, meal and rest, pay practice, and PAGA claims. He also has defeated class and collective certification (including at Stage One) in exemption, off-the-clock, and pay practice cases, and has defeated PAGA claims short of trial. Tim has also litigated a wide variety of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims, as well as wrongful termination, defamation, Anti-SLAPP, fraud, emotional distress, breach of contract, and other employment-related claims. Tim has both prosecuted and defended employers in trade secret and unfair business practices litigation. He has also resisted competitor efforts to enjoin the lawful practices of his clients.