Limits on the Relation Back of Dead Plaitiff's PAGA Claims

Hargrove v. Legacy Healthcare, Inc., No. E76240 (July 1, 2022)

This is a PAGA case where the plaintiff died four years into the case. Dead Plaintiff’s lawyers moved to amend and swap in a New Plaintiff, which they viewed as necessary to avoid statute of limitations issues that would arise if they just filed a new case. The trial court denied the motion and dismissed the case. New Plaintiff appealed.

There’s a threshold issue about New Plaintiff’s standing to appeal. Generally appellate standing requires the appellant to be a “party aggrieved.” See Code Civ. Proc. § 902. That has two parts: (1) the appellant needs to be a party. Like, in the caption. So, for instance, unnamed members of a class who object to a class action settlement are not parties. And (2) is aggrieved. As in hurt by the judgment or order being appealed. There is, however, and exception to (1): you can appeal without being a party if you tried to become a party by moving to intervene but were rebuffed in that effort by the trial court. New Plaintiff didn’t officially do that here. But the Court of Appeal exercises its discretion to treat her amendment motion as an unsuccessful effort at permissive intervention. Which resolves the standing question.

On the merits, the Court of Appeal finds that New Plaintiff couldn’t sub in for Dead Plaintiff and her claim wouldn’t relate back. At the time Dead Plaintiff gave notice to the LWDA, New Plaintiff was not even an employee yet, so she wouldn’t have had standing to bring Dead Plaintiff’s PAGA claim. That purportedly distinguishes the facts of this case from. Hutcheson v. Superior Court, 74 Cal.App.5th 932, 935 (2022), which permitted both a substitution and relation back under facts where the new plaintiff would have had standing to bring the original plaintiff’s claim.

Affirmed.

Whiskey is for Drinking . . .

Dow v. Lassen Irrigation Co., No. C091965 (D3 Feb. 23, 2022)

This is a water dispute over an 80-year old consent decree. Under the decree, an organization called the Watermaster is vested, as an agent of the court, with some degree of discretion in administering the decree by doling out the water in the Susan River. Plaintiff in the case asked the Watermaster to allot some water in certain ways, which the Watermaster denied. A series of administrative appeals ensued and ultimately Plaintiff sued the Watermaster and some other party allotted water rights under the decree in superior court. The superior court ruled for Plaintiff. The Watermaster appealed.

The issue here is that only a “party aggrieved” can appeal. See Code Civ. Proc. § 902. The Watermaster is not such a party. It doesn’t get any more or less water because of the superior court’s order. It is more along the lines of a discovery master whose ruling got overturned. The Watermaster tries to argue that it is aggrieved because the court’s ruling will make the decree more difficult to administer. But the Watermaster is compensated for administrative expenses, which are passed on to the owners of the water rights.

Of course, water in California being a finite thing, the other party whose water rights will be affected by the court’s order is “aggrieved.” But the Court of Appeal will handle that separately.

Appeal dismissed.

Party Can't Appeal Sealing Order

Six4three v. Facebook, Inc., No. A156095 (May 18, 2020)

Plaintiff in an anti-SLAPP fight filed a declaration in support of its opposition that included hundreds of exhibits that had been designated as confidential under a protective order. After the motion was resolved, the trial court struck from the record a whole bunch of exhibits that were not germane to the motion. It also ordered parts of some exhibits sealed. Plaintiff appeals.
 
The Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal. The striking order is not an appealable order. Any appeal to it would have to be taken up in connection with an appeal of the anti-SLAPP ruling or from a final judgment. And so far as sealing order goes, Plaintiff isn’t aggrieved. Sealing prevents the general public from accessing the documents. But it has no effect on Plaintiff’s rights—plaintiff has copies of the documents already. Since Code of Civil Procedure § 902 limits appeals to a “party aggrieved,” Plaintiff lacks standing to appeal the sealing order.
 
Appeal dismissed.