{"id":2559,"date":"2025-11-26T08:59:02","date_gmt":"2025-11-26T12:59:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2559"},"modified":"2025-11-26T08:59:13","modified_gmt":"2025-11-26T12:59:13","slug":"california-court-of-appeal-affirms-dismissal-of-standalone-paga-action-because-a-prior-global-settlement-precluded-overlapping-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/11\/26\/california-court-of-appeal-affirms-dismissal-of-standalone-paga-action-because-a-prior-global-settlement-precluded-overlapping-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"California Court Of Appeal Affirms Dismissal Of Standalone PAGA Action Because A Prior Global Settlement Precluded Overlapping Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and George J. Schaller<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0 On November 19, 2025, in Brown v. Dave & Buster\u2019s of Cal., Inc., Case No. B339729, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750 (Cal. App. Nov. 19, 2025), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed <\/a>a trial court\u2019s decision granting judgment on the pleadings that barred a standalone PAGA plaintiff\u2019s claims for lack of standing and due to a prior global settlement with overlapping claims.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In an important decision for all employers in California, t<\/em>he Court of Appeal recognized a prior PAGA settlement fully encompassed and released the standalone plaintiff\u2019s claims as to all defendant entities.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court <\/em>order<\/em> finding <\/em>that the <\/em>plaintiff did not have standing to sue and her claims were barred by claim preclusion. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lauren Brown worked for Dave & Buster\u2019s of California, Inc. and Dave & Buster\u2019s Inc. (collectively \u201cBuster\u2019s\u201d) in its Westchester restaurant location from November 2016 to April 2018.  Id.<\/em> at *1-2. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In June 2019, Brown filed a standalone representative action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (\u201cPAGA\u201d) against Buster\u2019s and alleged Buster\u2019s \u201cfailed to provide meal periods, rest periods, vacation pay, and wage statements . . . and routinely required employees to work off-the-clock.\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buster\u2019s filed a demurrer to abate\/stay, or in the alternative, a motion for discretionary stay, and argued that Brown\u2019s action \u201cwas between the same parties on the same cause of action in at least two previously-filed actions\u201d in Espinoza v. Dave & Buster\u2019s Management Corporation, Inc.<\/em>, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC710345, and Lopez v. Dave & Buster\u2019s of California, Inc., et al.<\/em>,San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 37-2018-00054080-CU-OE-CTL.  See Brown<\/em>, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750at *2. In October 2019, the trial court found Brown\u2019s case was \u201c\u2018substantially identical\u2019 to the Espinoza<\/em> action\u201d and sustained Buster\u2019s demurrer and stayed the case.  Id.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buster\u2019s, in February 2020, filed a statement with the trial court concerning additional information on earlier-filed PAGA actions.  Buster\u2019s statement included \u201cwhen each case was filed, when the other plaintiffs submitted their requisite notices to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (Agency), and which claims overlapped with Brown\u2019s.\u201d  See id.<\/em> at *3.  Buster\u2019s disclosed Rocha v. Dave & Buster\u2019s Management Corporation, Inc.<\/em>, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 19CV348961, and Andrade v. Dave & Buster\u2019s Management Corporation, Inc.<\/em>, San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 37-2019-00019561-CU-OE-CTL (\u201cAndrade<\/em>\u201d).  See Brown<\/em>, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750at <\/a>*3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On April 1, 2022, the Andrade <\/em>parties entered into a long-form settlement agreement with all three Buster\u2019s entities, including those that Brown sued.  Included in the released claims was \u201cfailure to pay accrued vacation pay at the end of employment, including but not limited to claims under the California Labor Code.\u201d  The released claims specifically cited \u00a7 227.3 of the California Labor Code regarding vacation pay.  Id. <\/em>at *4-5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiff in Andrade<\/em> moved for settlement approval, showing she notified the Agency of her motion and settlement agreement.  The Agency accepted the settlement and did not oppose it.  On November 4, 2022, the San Diego Superior Court granted approval of the Andrade <\/em>settlement.  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In April 2023, the parties in Brown\u2019s action notified the court that the Andrade <\/em>action had settled.  Brown alleged there \u201cmight not be complete overlap with Andrade<\/em> as to her unpaid vacation claim, but she was still checking on this issue.\u201d  Id.<\/em> at *4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thereafter, in June 2023, Buster\u2019s moved for judgment on the pleadings and argued the Andrade <\/em>settlement released all of Brown\u2019s claims and that claim preclusion barred Brown\u2019s lawsuit.  Id.<\/em>  Buster\u2019s supported its motion with various documents from the Andrade <\/em>action, including the pre-filing notice to the Agency on May 13, 2019, the Andrade <\/em>complaint filed on November 14, 2019 (which omitted a vacation pay violation), the amended notice letter to the Agency on February 3, 2022, and the corresponding amended complaint filed in Andrade <\/em>on March 10, 2022.  The amended notice to the Agency added a vacation pay claim, under \u00a7 227.3, and added the named defendants in Brown\u2019s case.  Id. <\/em>at *4. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brown opposed Buster\u2019s motion and asserted she had standing to bring all claims in her PAGA letter because Buster\u2019s violated her rights under the Labor Code.  Citing LaCour v. Marshalls of Cal., LLC<\/em>, 94 Cal. App. 5th 1172 (2023), Brown maintained because the Andrade <\/em>plaintiff failed to exhaust her claims before the Agency, \u201cshe was therefore not deputized to pursue and settle the Labor Code violations in [Andrade\u2019s] amended complaint.\u201d  See Brown<\/em>, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750at *5.  Brown also noted the plaintiff in Andrade <\/em>waited 35 days between sending her amended pre-filing notice and filing her complaint in court, and therefore, the Andrade <\/em>settlement did not apply to Brown\u2019s \u00a7227.3 vacation pay claims against the Buster\u2019s entities Brown sued.  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trial court granted Buster\u2019s motion without written comment, dismissed Brown\u2019s complaint with prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of Buster\u2019s.  Thereafter, Brown appealed.  Id. <\/em>at *5-6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The California Court of Appeal\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Appealaffirmed the trial court\u2019s decision, finding Brown lacked standing, claim preclusion barred Brown\u2019s PAGA claims, and the Andrade<\/em> plaintiff\u2019s failure to wait 65 days to file her amended complaint was a \u201charmless defect\u201d where the Agency had an opportunity to object to the Andrade <\/em>global settlement and did not do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the outset, the Court of Appealopined Brown identified no error from the trial court decision and determined Brown \u201ceffectively concede[d]\u201d the Andrade <\/em>settlement resulted in a final judgment on the merits and did not bar her non-vacation pay claims.  Id. <\/em>at *6. The Court of Appealsimilarly rejected Brown\u2019s argument that she had standing to pursue Labor Code violations after November 4, 2022, the date after court approval of the Andrade <\/em>settlement, because her employment with Buster\u2019s ended in 2018.  Id. <\/em>at *6-7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Appealconsidered the sole issue as — \u201cdid Andrade\u2019s failure to adhere strictly to the 65-day waiting period for her amended claims defeat Buster\u2019s claim preclusion argument?\u201d  Id. <\/em>at *7.  In determining this question, the Court of Appealexplained \u00a7 2699.3 of the Labor Code provides \u201cif the Agency does not respond within 65 calendar days of an aggrieved employee providing it with written notice, \u2018the aggrieved employee may commence a civil action.\u2019\u201d  The crux of the Court of Appeal\u2019sdecision centered on Andrade<\/em>\u2019s amended complaint which was filed \u201cfewer than 65 days after her amended notice to the Agency.\u201d  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Appealreasoned claim preclusion \u201cbars a new lawsuit if the first case had (1) the same cause of action; (2) between the same parties, or parties in privity; and (3) a final judgment on the merits\u201d and noted the doctrine \u201cpromotes judicial economy by requiring all claims based on the same cause of action that were or could have been raised <\/em>to be decided in a single suit.\u201d  Id. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brown argued LaCour<\/em>, 94 Cal.App.5th 1172 (2023), controls and suggested the Court of Appealfind the Andrade<\/em> settlement \u201cdoes not bar her vacation pay or reach the Buster\u2019s defendants in [Brown\u2019s] case because [the] Andrade [plaintiff] filed her second amended complaint only 35 days after submitting her amended presuit notice to the agency.\u201d  See Brown<\/em>, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750at *7-9.  The Court of Appeal interpreted Brown\u2019s reliance on LaCour <\/em>to suggest the plaintiff in Andrade<\/em> \u201cwas never authorized to pursue the additional vacation pay claim and new defendants in her amended complaint\u201d which would necessarily encompass Brown.  Id. <\/em>at *9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buster\u2019s contended LaCour<\/em> is \u201c\u2018completely inapposite\u2019 and factually distinguishable\u201d given \u201cAndrade\u2019s initial notice letter, initial complaint, amended notice letter, and amended complaint \u2018expressly include all of Brown\u2019s alleged Labor Code violations such that they encompass Brown\u2019s entire PAGA claim.\u2019\u201d  Buster\u2019s additionally contended \u201cAndrade\u2019s failure to abide by the 65-day waiting period is a technicality\u201d and \u201cnot dispositive as to the issue of administrative exhaustion under PAGA.\u201d  Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Appealdetermined on the \u201cadministrative exhaustion issue, LaCour<\/em> does not apply\u201d and California\u2019s Supreme Court has described \u201cPAGA\u2019s statutory pre-filing notice requirement as a \u2018condition of suit.\u2019\u201d  Similarly, the Court of Appealreasoned the purpose of PAGA\u2019s pre-filing notice requirement is to afford \u201cthe Agency \u2018the opportunity to decide whether to allocate scare resources to an investigation\u2026\u2019\u201d Id.<\/em> at *11. It explained \u201c[n]othing in the statute\u2019s language or any published case law suggests the 65-day waiting period also applies to amended <\/em>notices and complaints.\u201d  Id. <\/em> Accordingly, the Court of Appealfound \u201cAndrade\u2019s failure to wait 65 days was a harmless defect\u201d and the \u201cAgency accepted Andrade\u2019s global settlement with Buster\u2019s after it had an opportunity to object.\u201d  Id.  <\/em>at *12.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In sum, the Court of Appeal held \u201cAndrade\u2019s settlement fully encompassed and released Brown\u2019s claims as to all Buster\u2019s entities, thus satisfying all elements of claim preclusion\u201d and affirmed the trial court\u2019s decision. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Employers facing PAGA litigation can rely on Brown <\/em>for support that prior settlements have a preclusive effect where, as here, the prior settlement and second lawsuit have overlapping claims. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brown<\/em> also supports the proposition that PAGA\u2019s 65-day notice waiting period requirement for filing suit may not apply to amended PAGA notices.  In another win for employers, the Court of Appeal found the plaintiff in Brown<\/em> could not recover for periods after she left the company in 2018 \u2013 thereby limiting the scope of PAGA penalties further.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the myriad issues employers defend against in PAGA litigation, this decision signals an important strategic consideration in defending overlapping PAGA actions.  Employers when faced with multiple PAGA actions must consider the sequencing of PAGA settlements and whether an already settled PAGA action can create a preclusive effect barring a separate PAGA action.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and George J. Schaller Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 On November 19, 2025, in Brown v. Dave & Buster\u2019s of Cal., Inc., Case No. B339729, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750 (Cal. App. Nov. 19, 2025), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed a trial court\u2019s … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “California Court Of Appeal Affirms Dismissal Of Standalone PAGA Action Because A Prior Global Settlement Precluded Overlapping Claims”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[107],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9,96],"class_list":["post-2559","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-paga-actions"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Riley","first_name":"Jennifer A.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/jenniferriley.html","description":"Read Jennifer's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":96,"user_id":655,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gschaller","display_name":"George Schaller","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/07\/schallergeorge-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Schaller","first_name":"George","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/georgeschaller.html","description":"Read George's Bio<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2559","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2559"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2559\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2559"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2559"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2559"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}