Legal Opinion
Huff v. Securitas Sec. Servs. United States, Inc.
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
Decided May 23, 2018No. H042852PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGrover, J.
*750This case presents the question of whether a plaintiff who brings a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698, et seq. ) may seek penalties not only for the Labor Code violation that affected him or her, but also for different violations that affected other employees. The trial court granted plaintiff Forrest Huff a new trial, reasoning that Huff's failure to prove he was personally affected by one of the multiple Labor Code violations alleged in his complaint did not preclude his action under PAGA. As we will explain, *751we conclude that PAGA…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- Arias v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- Chia-Lee Hsu v. AbbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Liliana Canela v. CostcoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2019
- Carrington v. Starbucks Corp., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Zakaryan v. Men's Wearhouse, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Donohue v. Amn Servs., LLC, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.