In February 2018, plaintiff Tricia Galarsa sued her former employer, Dolgen California, LLC (Dollar General), to recover civil penalties under PAGA for various Labor Code violations suffered by her or by other employees. The facts and procedural history set forth in the 2023 published case of Galarsa v Dolgen California, 88 Cal.App.5th 639, 305 Cal.Rptr.3d 15 were not recounted by the Court of Appeal in this 2025 opinion in the same case.
After Galarsa (2023), supra, 88 Cal.App.5th 639, was issued, the California Supreme Court granted Dollar General’s petition for review and deferred briefing pending its decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104 (Adolph). In September 2023, after Adolph was issued, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review. As a result, the clerk of this court issued a remittitur and this matter was returned to the trial court to implement our decision in Galarsa, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th 639.
In Galarsa (2023) the following was defined. “Type A/individual PAGA claim” refers to a PAGA claim seeking a civil penalty based on a Labor Code violation suffered by the plaintiff. (See Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 639, 648 (Galarsa) [“Type A” claim defined].) “Type O/nonindividual PAGA claim” refers to a PAGA claim seeking a civil penalty assessed on a Labor Code violation suffered by an employee other than the plaintiff. (See Galarsa, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 649 [“Type O” claim defined].)
That decision partially reversed the order denying Dollar General’s motion to compel arbitration and directed the trial court to issue a new order granting the motion to compel as to the Type A/individual PAGA claims. (Galarsa, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 655.) The denial of arbitration was affirmed as to the Type O/nonindividual PAGA claims and those claims were allowed to be pursued in court. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal did not address whether the trial court should stay the litigation on the Type O/nonindividual PAGA claims pending the completion of the arbitration.
In October 2024, Dollar General filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings on the Type O/nonindividual PAGA claims. On November 22, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the pending motion to compel arbitration and the demurrer. The court determined arbitration was not a mandatory first step for a plaintiff seeking to pursue only Type O/nonindividual PAGA claims. As a result, it denied the motion to compel arbitration. It also overruled the demurrer. A few days later, Dollar General filed a notice of appeal from the order denying its motion to compel arbitration.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in its 2025 published decision in Galarsa (II) v. Dolgen California -F089004 (October 2025).
“In this consolidated appeal and writ proceeding, we address two questions involving the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code,1 § 2698 et seq.). The first question is whether the version of PAGA in effect from mid-2016 to mid-2024 authorized an aggrieved employee to bring a PAGA action that seeks to recover civil penalties imposed for Labor Code violations suffered only by other employees. Such lawsuits are sometimes referred to as “headless” PAGA actions because the plaintiff employee has chosen not to pursue civil penalties for violations he or she suffered personally. (CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 872, 882 (CRST Expedited).) We again conclude such PAGA actions were allowed. (Ibid.)”
“The second question arises only if headless PAGA actions were allowed and involves standing to pursue the PAGA action as the representative of the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). To have standing, a PAGA plaintiff must be an “aggrieved employee.” (See § 2699, former subd. (c) [definition of aggrieved employee].) The question is whether the plaintiff employee’s status as aggrieved employee is a separate dispute that must be resolved in arbitration before the headless PAGA action proceeds in court.”
“This question does not appear to have been decided by a California appellate court since the United States Supreme Court decided Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 (Viking River).”
“We conclude the parties’ agreement to arbitrate certain disputes does not encompass the issue of plaintiff’s status as an aggrieved employee because that dispute is one the plaintiff’s principal, Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), has against the employer.”
“We therefore deny the employer’s petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s order overruling its demurrer to the headless PAGA action and affirm the order denying the employer’s motion to compel arbitration of the standing issue.”