In a newly published decision, the California Court of Appeal (Second District, Division Eight) affirmed the dismissal of a representative PAGA action on claim preclusion grounds, holding that a prior global PAGA settlement barred a subsequent plaintiff’s overlapping claims – even though the settling plaintiff had filed an amended complaint only 35 days after submitting an amended Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) notice for newly added claims and defendants.

In this case Lauren Brown, a former Dave & Buster’s employee, filed a standalone PAGA suit in June 2019 alleging meal and rest-break violations, off-the-clock work, inaccurate wage statements, and unpaid vacation wages under Labor Code § 227.3.

At that time, at least four other PAGA actions were already pending against the same Dave & Buster’s entities. One of those earlier actions – Andrade v. Dave & Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc. (San Diego Superior Court) -ultimately achieved a court-approved global settlement in November 2022 that expressly released all of the claims Brown was asserting, including the § 227.3 vacation claim, and covered all three Dave & Buster’s entities Brown had sued.

Dave & Buster’s successfully moved for judgment on the pleadings in Brown’s case, contending that the Andrade settlement constituted a final judgment on the merits of the same cause of action between parties in privity, thereby precluding Brown’s suit. The trial court agreed and dismissed the action with prejudice.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal in the published case of Brown v. Dave & Buster’s of California, Inc. -B339729 (November 2025).

On appeal, Brown conceded that the Andrade settlement precluded her non-vacation claims but argued that (1) she retained standing to pursue post-settlement violations (a contention the Court of Appeal swiftly rejected, noting her employment ended in 2018), and (2) Andrade’s failure to wait the full 65 days after her amended LWDA notice meant Andrade was never “deputized” to pursue or settle the newly added vacation-pay claim and additional entities, relying heavily on LaCour v. Marshalls of California, LLC (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1172.

The Court of Appeal distinguished LaCour, in which the prior settling plaintiff had never provided LWDA notice of the additional claims at all. Here, Andrade did provide an amended notice that specifically identified the § 227.3 claim and the additional defendants. The court held that the statutory 65-day waiting period does not explicitly apply to amended notices, and even if it did, Andrade substantially complied with PAGA’s administrative exhaustion requirement by giving the LWDA actual notice and an opportunity to act. The LWDA’s subsequent acceptance of the settlement (without objection) rendered the premature filing a harmless technical defect.

Citing federal district court authority and the longstanding doctrine of substantial compliance (historically applied to Government Claims Act notices), the panel concluded that invalidating the settlement on this ground would improperly allow later PAGA plaintiffs to collaterally attack prior approved settlements – an outcome the Supreme Court expressly rejected in Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664.

Accordingly, the Andrade settlement fully released Brown’s claims against all defendants, satisfying every element of claim preclusion. The judgment dismissing Brown’s action was affirmed, with costs awarded to Dave & Buster’s.

The decision reinforces the finality of approved PAGA settlements and signals that minor procedural deviations in administrative exhaustion will not undermine claim preclusion when the LWDA received actual notice and declined to intervene.