Arias v. Superior Court

Citation209 P.3d 923,95 Cal.Rptr.3d 588,46 Cal. 4th 969
Decision Date29 June 2009
Docket NumberNo. S155965.,S155965.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
PartiesJose A. ARIAS, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of San Joaquin County, Respondent; Angelo Dairy et al., Real Parties in Interest.

California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Blanca A. Bañuelos, Stockton, and Michael L. Meuter, Salinas, for Petitioner.

Worksafe Law Center, M. Suzanne Murphy; The Impact Fund, Brad Seligman, Jocelyn Larkin; Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Julie A. Su, Yungsuhn Park; Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Anel Flores; Legal Aid Society—Employment Law Center, Matthew Goldberg, San Francisco; Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County, David Pallack, Pacoima, José Tello; The Watsonville Law Center, Dori Rose Inda; National Employment Law Project, Laura Moskowitz, Washington, DC; California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and Julia L. Montgomery for Garment Worker Center, Inquilinos Unidos and Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Barsamian, Saqui & Moody, Saqui & Raimondo, Michael C. Saqui, Fresno; McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth and Anthony P. Raimondo, Fresno, for Real Parties in Interest.

Law Offices of Steven Drapkin, Steven Drapkin, Los Angeles; O'Melveny & Myers, Scott H. Dunham, Los Angeles, Ryan W. Rutledge, Newport Beach; National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., and Robin S. Conrad, Washington, DC, for Employers Group, California Employment Law Council, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and California Restaurant Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.

KENNARD, J.

We hold that an employee who, on behalf of himself and other employees, sues an employer under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.) for Labor Code violations must satisfy class action requirements, but that those requirements need not be met when an employee's representative action against an employer is seeking civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.).

I

Jose A. Arias sued his former employer, Angelo Dairy, and others. In the first through sixth causes of action of the First Amended Complaint, plaintiff on behalf of himself alleged violations of the Labor Code, labor regulations, and an Industrial Welfare Commission wage order.

In the seventh through eleventh causes of action of the first amended complaint, plaintiff asserted claims on behalf of himself as well as other current and former employees of defendants. We summarize those causes of action below.

The seventh and eighth causes of action alleged breach of contract and breach of the warranty of habitability on the ground that defendants provided residential units in a defective and dangerous condition.

The ninth cause of action alleged violations of the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), based on defendants' failures to credit plaintiff for all hours worked, to pay overtime wages, to pay wages when due, to pay wages due upon termination, to provide rest and meal periods, and to obtain written authorization for deducting or offsetting wages.

The tenth cause of action sought enforcement under the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.)1 of penalties provided for in the Labor Code (Lab.Code, §§ 203, 226).

The eleventh cause of action alleged, under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab.Code, § 2698 et seq.), that defendants had violated the Labor Code, labor regulations, and an Industrial Welfare Commission wage order by failing to pay all wages due, to provide itemized wage statements, to maintain adequate payroll records, to pay all wages due upon termination, to provide rest and meal periods, to offset proper amounts for employer-provided housing, and to provide necessary tools and equipment.

The trial court granted defendants' motion to strike the seventh through eleventh causes of action (brought on behalf of plaintiff and other employees) on the ground that plaintiff failed to comply with the pleading requirements for class actions. Plaintiff petitioned the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate. That court held that the causes of action brought in a representative capacity alleging violations of the unfair competition law, but not the representative claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, were subject to class action requirements. It issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to issue a new order striking the representative claims alleged in the seventh through tenth causes of action, but not the eleventh cause of action. We granted plaintiff's petition for review.

II

Plaintiff contends the Court of Appeal erred in holding that to bring representative claims (that is, claims on behalf of others as well as himself) under the unfair competition law, he must comply with class action requirements.2 We disagree.

The unfair competition law prohibits "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice...." (§ 17200.) Before 2004, any person could assert representative claims under the unfair competition law to obtain restitution or injunctive relief against unfair or unlawful business practices. Such claims did not have to be brought as a class action, and a plaintiff had standing to sue even without having personally suffered any injury. (Former §§ 17203, 17204, added by Stats.1977, ch. 299, § 1, p. 1202; Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 126, fn. 10, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 999 P.2d 718; Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, 561, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 731, 950 P.2d 1086; see Corbett v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 649, 680-681, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 46.)

In 2004, however, the electorate passed Proposition 64, an initiative measure. Proposition 64 amended the unfair competition law to provide that a private plaintiff may bring a representative action under this law only if the plaintiff has "suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition" and "complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure...."3 This statute provides that "when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court, one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all." This court has interpreted Code of Civil Procedure section 382 as authorizing class actions. (Washington Mutual Bank v. Superior Court, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 913, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 320, 15 P.3d 1071; Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 470, 174 Cal.Rptr. 515, 629 P.2d 23; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 458, 115 Cal.Rptr. 797, 525 P.2d 701.)

Plaintiff contends that because Proposition 64's amendment of the unfair competition law requires compliance only with "[s]ection 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure" (§ 17203, see fn. 3, ante), and because that statute makes no mention of the words "class action," his representative lawsuit brought under the unfair competition law need not comply with the requirements governing a class action.

At issue is whether, as amended by the voters' passage of Proposition 64, 17203's language stating that to bring a representative action under the unfair competition law a private plaintiff must "compl[y] with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure," imposes a requirement that the action be brought as a class action. To resolve the issue, we examine the statutory language to determine the intent of those who enacted it.

The general principles that govern interpretation of a statute enacted by the Legislature apply also to an initiative measure enacted by the voters. (Robert L. v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 894, 900, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 30, 69 P.3d 951.) Thus, our primary task here is to ascertain the intent of the electorate (Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1016, 1037, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 814, 155 P.3d 226) so as to effectuate that intent (Nolan v. City of Anaheim (2004) 33 Cal.4th 335, 340, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 857, 92 P.3d 350).

We look first to the words of the initiative measure, as they generally provide the most reliable indicator of the voters' intent. (Bernard v. Foley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 794, 804, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 248, 139 P.3d 1196; Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 871, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 824, 891 P.2d 804.) Usually, there is no need to construe a provision's words when they are clear and unambiguous and thus not reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning. (People v. Leal (2004) 33 Cal.4th 999, 1007, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 869, 94 P.3d 1071; People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 621, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 356, 927 P.2d 713.) That, according to plaintiff, is true here.

A literal construction of an enactment, however, will not control when such a construction would frustrate the manifest purpose of the enactment as a whole. (People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1126, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 569, 184 P.3d 702; Horwich v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272, 276, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 222, 980 P.2d 927; Faria v. San Jacinto Unified School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App.4th 1939, 1945, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 72.) "The intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible, be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act." (Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735, 248 Cal.Rptr. 115, 755 P.2d 299.) In determining the purpose of an initiative measure, we consider the analysis and arguments contained in the official election materials submitted to the voters. (E.g., Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1050, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 814, 155 P.3d 226; Robert L. v. Superior Court, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 901, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 30, 69 P.3d 951.)

A thorough review of the Voter Information Guide prepared...

To continue reading

Request your trial
620 cases
  • Abbott Labs. v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 31 Maggio 2018
    ...116, 129, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 999 P.2d 718, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 982-983, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 588, 209 P.3d 923 ; Gananian v. Wagstaffe , at p. 1543, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 487.) Reviewing courts "will not impute to the Legis......
  • Luchini v. Carmax, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 23 Luglio 2012
    ...employee's action "functions as a substitute for an action brought by the government itself." Arias v. Super. Ct., 46 Cal.4th 969, 986-87, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 588, 209 P.3d 923 (2009). 5. In his declaration, Jahan Sagafi, Mr. Luchini's counsel, states "we will not prosecute Mr. Luchini's individ......
  • Donohue v. Amn Servs., LLC
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 21 Novembre 2018
    ...allow "an aggrieved employee" to recover civil penalties for certain violations of the Labor Code.41 ( Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 980, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 588, 209 P.3d 923.) Under PAGA, an " ‘aggrieved employee’ " is defined as an employee "against whom one or more of the al......
  • Jarboe v. Hanlees Auto Grp.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 14 Agosto 2020
    ...brings the PAGA claim "as the proxy or agent of the state's labor law enforcement agencies." ( Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 588, 209 P.3d 923 ( Arias ).) Recently, our Supreme Court, in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 22......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 firm's commentaries
  • Split Of Authority Emerges Regarding Whether Employers Can Dismiss PAGA Lawsuits On Manageability Grounds
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 8 Aprile 2022
    ...('LWDA')]." The court advised that due to these differences, highlighted in California Supreme Court decisions Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969 (2009) and Kim v. Reins Int'l California, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 73 (2020), when seeking PAGA penalties, plaintiffs are not required to meet clas......
  • Split of Authority Emerges Regarding Whether Employers Can Dismiss PAGA Lawsuits on Manageability Grounds
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 7 Aprile 2022
    ...(‘LWDA’)].” The court advised that due to these differences, highlighted in California Supreme Court decisions Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969 (2009) and Kim v. Reins Int’l California, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 73 (2020), when seeking PAGA penalties, plaintiffs are not required to meet clas......
  • May Courts Strike Unmanageable PAGA Claims? California Supreme Court to Answer
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 20 Luglio 2022
    ...for class actions, which PAGA claims are not. Estrada, at 711-712, citing Kim (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 86-87 and Arias v. Sup. Ct. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 975. Estrada further explained that “[a]llowing dismissal of unmanageable PAGA claims would effectively graft a class action requirement onto......
  • May Courts Strike Unmanageable PAGA Claims? California Supreme Court to Answer
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 20 Luglio 2022
    ...for class actions, which PAGA claims are not. Estrada, at 711-712, citing Kim (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 86-87 and Arias v. Sup. Ct. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 975. Estrada further explained that “[a]llowing dismissal of unmanageable PAGA claims would effectively graft a class action requirement onto......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 books & journal articles
  • Mcle Self-study: Paga Is Not Dead Yet! Viking's Impact Likely Minimal
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Labor & Employment Law Review (CLA) No. 36-6, November 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...(Viking).2. Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698-2699.8.3. Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq.4. Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.3(a).5. Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969, 980 (2009).6. ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal. 5th 175, 197 (2019).7. Alexander J.S. Colvin, The growing use of mandatory arbitration, Ec......
  • Gotta Get Those Ill-Gotten Gains: Improving the FTC's Authority to Seek Disgorgement in Antitrust Cases.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 121 No. 7, May 2023
    • 1 Maggio 2023
    ...[perma.cc/2HUKEE5X]. (156.) Leonard H. Sansanowicz, The Nature of PAGA Actions, ADVOC. Mag. (May 2021) (citing Arias v. Superior Ct., 209 P.3d 923, 929-30 (Cal. 2009)), https://www.advocatemagazine.com/ article/2021-may/the-nature-of-paga-actions (157.) Daniel S. Wittenberg, Multidistrict L......
  • Wage and Hour Case Notes
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Labor & Employment Law Review (CLA) No. 30-1, January 2016
    • Invalid date
    ...F.3d 1027, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2014); Baumann v. Chase Inv. Servs. Corp., 747 F.3d 1117, 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2014; Arias v. Superior Ct., 46 Cal. 4th 969, 981, 985 (2009).12. 563 US ___, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011).13. 24 Cal. 4th 83, 114 (2000).14. 57 Cal. 4th 1109, 1133 (2013).15. 29 Cal. 4th 1......
  • Wage and Hour Case Notes
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Labor & Employment Law Review (CLA) No. 33-6, November 2019
    • Invalid date
    ...5th 723 (2019).5. Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 386-88 (2014).6. Id. at 381.7. Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969, 986 (2009).8. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Prods., Inc., 40 Cal. 4th 1094, 1104 (2007).9. See Cal. Lab. Code § 1197.1(c)(3) (petitioners for a writ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT