{"id":2704,"date":"2026-01-27T14:57:52","date_gmt":"2026-01-27T18:57:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2704"},"modified":"2026-01-27T14:57:54","modified_gmt":"2026-01-27T18:57:54","slug":"video-dmcar-trend-10-california-continued-its-dominance-as-ground-zero-for-expansion-of-representative-litigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/01\/27\/video-dmcar-trend-10-california-continued-its-dominance-as-ground-zero-for-expansion-of-representative-litigation\/","title":{"rendered":"VIDEO \u2013 DMCAR Trend #10: California Continued Its Dominance As \u201cGround Zero\u201d For Expansion Of Representative Litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/T10-DMCAR-2026.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"576\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/T10-DMCAR-2026-1024x576.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-2705\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/T10-DMCAR-2026-1024x576.png 1024w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/T10-DMCAR-2026-300x169.png 300w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/T10-DMCAR-2026-768x432.png 768w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/T10-DMCAR-2026-1536x864.png 1536w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/T10-DMCAR-2026.png 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 767px) 89vw, (max-width: 1000px) 54vw, (max-width: 1071px) 543px, 580px\" \/><\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Duane Morris Takeaway:<\/em><\/strong><em> The final trend in our DMCAR series outlines how the C<a><\/a>alifornia Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) inspired more representative lawsuits than any other statute in America over the past three years. According to the California Department of Industrial Relations, the number of P<a><\/a>AGA notices filed in 2025 approached 9,900, which surpasses the 9,464 P<a><\/a>AGA notices in 2024.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>DMCAR co-editor Jennifer Riley outlines this trend in the following video:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Trend #10 \u2013 California Continued Its Dominance As \u201cGround Zero\u201d For Representative Litigation\" width=\"525\" height=\"295\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/8H8UHRe8-Gc?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The so-called P<a><\/a>AGA reform legislation passed in 2024 by California lawmakers seemingly did little to nothing to curb interest in these cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The P<a><\/a>AGA created a scheme to \u201cdeputize\u201d private citizens to sue their employers for penalties associated with violations of the C<a><\/a>alifornia Labor Code on behalf of other \u201caggrieved employees,\u201d as well as the State. A P<a><\/a>AGA plaintiff may pursue claims on a representative basis,<em> i.e<\/em>., on behalf of other allegedly aggrieved employees, but need not satisfy the class action requirements of R<a><\/a>ule 23.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus, the P<a><\/a>AGA provides the plaintiffs\u2019 class action bar a mechanism to harness the risk and leverage of a representative proceeding without the threat of removal to federal court under the C<a><\/a>AFA and without the burden of meeting the requirements for class certification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The PAGA\u2019s popularity in recent years, however, also flows from its status as one of the most viable workarounds to workplace arbitration agreements. Thus, it presents one of the most pervasive litigation risks to companies doing business in California.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"1\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>The Growth Of PAGA Notices Continues<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>According to data maintained by the California Department of Industrial Relations, the number of P<a><\/a>AGA notices filed with the LWDA has increased exponentially over the past two decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The number grew from 11 notices in 2006, to 1,606 in 2013, and then underwent three sizable jumps \u2013 to 4,530 in 2014, to 5,732 in 2018, and to 7,464 in 2023, each coinciding with a significant shift in the legal landscape regarding arbitration. In 2024, notices exceeded 9,464 for the first time and, in 2025, the number of P<a><\/a>AGA notices reached a new all-time high of approximately 9,981.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Employers saw the largest single year increase in 2014, when the number of notices increased from 1,605 in 2013 to 4,532 notices in 2014, an increase of 182%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The most significant drop in the past two decades occurred in 2022, when notices fell from 6,502 in 2021 to 5,817 in 2022, before their resurgence in 2023 and continued growth in 2024 and 2025. The following chart illustrates this trend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/PAGA.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"576\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/PAGA-1024x576.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-2706\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/PAGA-1024x576.png 1024w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/PAGA-300x169.png 300w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/PAGA-768x432.png 768w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/PAGA.png 1280w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 767px) 89vw, (max-width: 1000px) 54vw, (max-width: 1071px) 543px, 580px\" \/><\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>These numbers closely tie to the shifting impact of workplace arbitration programs, in that each of the major shifts coincides with the timing of a significant expansion or pull back in the law governing the enforcement of arbitration agreements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>P<a><\/a>AGA reform seemingly has had little to no impact on the growth on P<a><\/a>AGA filings. On June 18, 2024, Governor Newsom announced that labor and business groups had inked a deal to alter the P<a><\/a>AGA in return for removing the referendum to repeal the P<a><\/a>AGA from the November 2024 ballot. The California Legislature quickly moved to approve two bills (AB 2288 and S<a><\/a>enate Bill 92). The alterations included reforms to the penalty structure, new defenses for employers, changes to the PAGA\u2019s standing requirements, and a new \u201ccure\u201d process for both small and large employers, among other changes. These reforms affect all P<a><\/a>AGA notices filed on or after June 19, 2024, with some exceptions. As noted above, however, P<a><\/a>AGA reform did little to quell P<a><\/a>AGA filings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"2\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Could PAGA Activity Skyrocket?<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>As noted above, the P<a><\/a>AGA emerged as one of the most popular tools of the plaintiffs\u2019 class action bar in recent years due to its potential immunity from workplace arbitration agreements. The California Supreme Court is poised to consider the viability of so-called \u201cheadless\u201d P<a><\/a>AGA actions in 2026 \u2013 <em>i.e<\/em>., actions that lack or disclaim any individual P<a><\/a>AGA claim (often because the plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement covering such claim) and seek to pursue only the representative P<a><\/a>AGA component on behalf of other allegedly aggrieved employees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The growing adoption of arbitration programs led the plaintiffs\u2019 class action bar to identify various workarounds, and the P<a><\/a>AGA emerged as one of the most viable in 2016 when the California Supreme Court issued its decision in <em>I<a><\/a>skanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles<\/em>, 59 Cal.4th 348 (Cal. 2014). In that case, the California Supreme Court held that representative action waivers in arbitration agreements are \u201ccontrary to public policy and unenforceable as a matter of state law.\u201d <em>I<a><\/a>d.<\/em> at 384. In so holding,<em> I<a><\/a>skanian<\/em> essentially immunized P<a><\/a>AGA claims from arbitration and permitted plaintiffs to pursue representative actions under P<a><\/a>AGA unhindered by arbitration agreements or commitments to arbitrate on an individual basis. The decision undoubtedly fueled the filing of P<a><\/a>AGA notices in 2014, which catapulted from 1,606 in 2013 to 4,530 in 2014.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The P<a><\/a>AGA suffered its first setback as an arbitration work-around in 2022 with the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision in <em>V<a><\/a>iking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana<\/em>, 142 S.Ct. 1906 (2022). In <em>V<a><\/a>iking River<\/em>, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, to the extent <em>I<a><\/a>skanian<\/em> precludes division of P<a><\/a>AGA actions into individual and non-individual claims, and thereby \u201cprohibit[s] parties from contracting around this joinder device,\u201d the FAA preempts such rule. <em>I<a><\/a>d. <\/em>As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the lower court should have compelled arbitration of the plaintiff\u2019s individual P<a><\/a>AGA claim and should have dismissed the P<a><\/a>AGA representative claim. <em>I<a><\/a>d.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The set-back was short lived as, in 2023, the California Supreme Court minimized the impact of the <em>V<a><\/a>iking River<\/em> decision. In <em>A<a><\/a>dolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc.<\/em>, 14 Cal. 5th 1104 (Cal. 2023), the California Supreme Court took up the issue of whether, under California law, a P<a><\/a>AGA plaintiff who\u2019s individual P<a><\/a>AGA claim is compelled to arbitration retains standing to bring a representative P<a><\/a>AGA claim. The California Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative. It held that, once a P<a><\/a>AGA plaintiff is compelled to arbitrate his or her individual P<a><\/a>AGA claim, so long as he or she is found to be an \u201caggrieved employee,\u201d the plaintiff retains standing to maintain a non-individual P<a><\/a>AGA claim in court. <em>I<a><\/a>d.<\/em> at 1105.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>By deciding that an individual who signs an arbitration agreement can return to court after arbitration to pursue a representative proceeding under the P<a><\/a>AGA, the California Supreme Court relegated arbitration agreements to a mere hurdle rather than a bar to P<a><\/a>AGA representative actions. Still, the plaintiffs\u2019 bar has continued its attempt to eliminate the arbitration defense altogether to streamline their ability to proceed with representative actions in court. One emerging tool is the so-called \u201cheadless\u201d P<a><\/a>AGA action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While such a tool seemingly runs counter to the ruling in <em>A<a><\/a>dolph<\/em> and other cases, which have held that a P<a><\/a>AGA claim necessarily consists of both and individual and representative portions, the California Court of Appeal gave it life in April 2024 with its decision in <em>B<a><\/a>alderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting<\/em>, 101 Cal. App. 5th 533 (2024). In that opinion, the California Court of Appeal denied a motion to compel arbitration, holding that a plaintiff could maintain a representative P<a><\/a>AGA action, even without an individual P<a><\/a>AGA claim, so long as the plaintiff alleges that he or she suffered a L<a><\/a>abor Code violation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Appellate courts have taken different views as to this strategy over the past year. On July 7, 2025, for instance, in <em>C<a><\/a>RST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court Of Fresno County<\/em>, 112 Cal. App. 5th 872 (Cal. App. 2025), the Court of Appeal for the Fifth District concluded that a worker\u2019s dismissal of his individual P<a><\/a>AGA claim did not bar him from pursuing a representative P<a><\/a>AGA claim. The trial court granted the worker\u2019s unopposed motion to dismiss his individual P<a><\/a>AGA claim, and the defendant then sought dismissal of the non-individual P<a><\/a>AGA claim on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to proceed. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeal concluded that the P<a><\/a>AGA statute is ambiguous on this point and, faced with an ambiguous statute, opined that the primary objective of the P<a><\/a>AGA statute is to maximize enforcement of labor laws and deter employer violations. As such, it held that requiring arbitration of individual claims before pursuing non-individual claims would undermine those enforcement efforts and that, to achieve effective enforcement, the P<a><\/a>AGA statute should be interpreted to allow \u201cP<a><\/a>AGA plaintiffs and their counsel the flexibility to choose among bringing a P<a><\/a>AGA action that seeks to recover of civil penalties on (1) the LWDA\u2019s individual P<a><\/a>AGA claims, (2) the LWDA\u2019s non-individual P<a><\/a>AGA claims, or (3) both.\u201d <em>I<a><\/a>d.<\/em> at 917.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In <em>W<a><\/a>illiams, et al. v. Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC<\/em>, 2025 Cal. LEXIS 4161 (Cal. App. July 9, 2025), the Court of Appeal for the Second District reached the opposite conclusion. The plaintiff, a former insurance adjuster, filed an action alleging that the defendant failed to pay overtime compensation. Although the plaintiff separated from his employment in January 2022, the plaintiff waited until March 2023 to file a P<a><\/a>AGA notice with the LWDA. The plaintiff thereafter filed suit solely on behalf of other current and former employees and did not seek penalties on his own behalf. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff\u2019s action holding that, because the plaintiff filed his P<a><\/a>AGA notice more than a year after his employment ended, his individual claim was time-barred and, without a timely individual claim, he could not maintain a P<a><\/a>AGA representative claim. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court\u2019s ruling. It explained that a P<a><\/a>AGA plaintiff must have a timely claim for violations he or she personally suffered. The plaintiff filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court, and the California Supreme Court granted and deferred the appeal pending consideration and disposition of related issues in <em>L<a><\/a>eeper, et al. v. Shipt, <\/em>331 Cal. Rptr. 3d 450 (Cal. 2025)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In <em>L<a><\/a>eeper<\/em>, the Court of Appeal for the Second District reached a similar conclusion. The plaintiff, a former Shipt worker, alleged that Shipt misclassified her and others as independent contractors in violation of state wage &amp; hour laws. The trial court denied the d<a><\/a>efendant\u2019s motion to compel arbitration ruling that, because the plaintiff sought only non-individual civil penalties, there were no individual claims to arbitrate. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed. It reasoned that every P<a><\/a>AGA action inherently includes an individual claim, alongside the representative claim. The Court of Appeal opined that the statutory language of the P<a><\/a>AGA states that a P<a><\/a>AGA action is one brought both on behalf of the plaintiff (the individual claim) and on behalf of others (the representative claim). On request for review, the California Supreme Court agreed to review the Court of Appeal\u2019s order and to address the following questions: (i) Does every P<a><\/a>AGA necessarily include both individual and non-individual P<a><\/a>AGA claims, regardless of whether the complaint specifically alleges individual claims; and (ii) can a plaintiff choose to bring only a non-individual P<a><\/a>AGA action?&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If the California Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs on these issues and allows plaintiffs to maintain \u201cheadless\u201d or representative-only P<a><\/a>AGA claims, it will allow plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to bypass arbitration and to avoid the risk that they might not succeed on their individual P<a><\/a>AGA claims. If plaintiffs can avoid arbitration altogether, such a ruling surely would bolster PAGA\u2019s popularity as an arbitration work-around. Either way, given the technical requirements of California wage &amp; hour law, coupled with the potentially crushing statutory penalties available to successful plaintiffs, employers should anticipate continued growth of P<a><\/a>AGA lawsuits in 2026.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley Duane Morris Takeaway: The final trend in our DMCAR series outlines how the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) inspired more representative lawsuits than any other statute in America over the past three years. According to the California Department of Industrial Relations, the number of PAGA &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/01\/27\/video-dmcar-trend-10-california-continued-its-dominance-as-ground-zero-for-expansion-of-representative-litigation\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;VIDEO \u2013 DMCAR Trend #10: California Continued Its Dominance As \u201cGround Zero\u201d For Expansion Of Representative Litigation&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-2704","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2704","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\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2704"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2704\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2704"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2704"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2704"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2704"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}