Under Kim, Adolph’s allegations that Labor Code violations were committed against him while he was employed by Uber

PAGA provides no mechanism to enable a court to adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has been committed to a separate proceeding.

The Legislature enacted PAGA almost two decades ago in response to widespread violations of the Labor Code and significant underenforcement of those laws.

In October 2019, Adolph sued Uber in superior court, alleging individual and class claims for relief under Labor Code section 2802 and the UCL.

This case concerns a question of standing under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). Details on the Uber Lawsuit

Uber gets taken to court by Erik Adolph

First, Uber contends that unless Adolph’s non-individual claims are dismissed, his PAGA action will run afoul of Viking River

Uber makes several arguments in urging that a PAGA plaintiff loses standing to litigate non-individual claims in court

Next, Uber contends that a PAGA plaintiff must have a “financial stake in the outcome of the case”

Uber also argues that PAGA contains a third standing requirement — the action must “be . . . brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself