But I also like that the Court of Appeal doesn't let it work. Even smarter.
Plaintiff files a private attorney general (PAGA) action that says that his employer failed to reimburse him for required uniforms and footwear he needed on the job. The parties mediate the dispute, and propose to settle it.
But defendant says: "Hold on. In a totally different suit, we're facing a class action that claims that we didn't reimburse our employees for their required cell phone use. We'll agree to settle your case -- which (as you'll recall) is about something totally different (uniforms and shoes) -- only if you agree to amend your complaint to include the whole cell phone thing, and then we'll pay you your money."
Plaintiff, not surprisingly, is fine with that; he (and his lawyer) just want to get paid. So they amend the thing, settle it, and move for approval, which the trial court grants. Over the (totally anticipated) objection of the plaintiff (and his lawyers) in the other case, which just got settled around.
Nice job by defendant. Get something for (basically) nothing.
But the Court of Appeal reverses. Justice Goethals holds that since the plaintiff didn't originally assert a cell phone claim in his original PAGA notice, he doesn't have standing to settle the dispute. So the whole scheme falls apart.
You can settle the case you brought, but not someone else's case. At least in a PAGA dispute.
Nice try, though.
