Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Super. Ct.

Filed 2/17/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., Petitioner, A160523

v. (Alameda County THE SUPERIOR COURT OF Super. Ct. No. HG19043894) ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; MARICRIS FRAGOZA, Real Party in Interest.

In this writ proceeding, we must determine what venue is proper in an action filed under the Private Attorneys General Act (the Act; Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.). In the challenged order, the respondent court concluded that claims under the Act may properly be tried in a county where petitioner Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. (Crestwood) allegedly committed Labor Code violations against some of its employees, rather than only in the counties where real party in interest Maricris Fragoza was employed or where Crestwood has its principal place of business. Crestwood seeks a writ of mandate directing respondent court to grant its motion to transfer venue. We conclude that the trial court did not err and deny the petition.

1

BACKGROUND A. When employers violate worker protections in the Labor Code, state law provides a variety of enforcement options. The employee can file an individual lawsuit for damages and statutory penalties. (See, e.g., Lab. Code, §§ 203, 1194.) The employee can file a claim with the Labor Commissioner, who can investigate the claim and order the employer to pay owed wages. (See, e.g. id., § 98.) The Labor Commissioner can, in some instances, initiate an administrative proceeding or lawsuit to impose civil penalties. (See, e.g., id., §§ 98, 210, 225.5.) Some violations may subject an employer to criminal prosecution. (See e.g., id. § 215.) The Legislature added an additional option in 2003 when it enacted the Act. Concerned that state labor laws were not being adequately enforced, due to funding constraints and competing priorities of enforcement agencies, the Legislature created a mechanism to deputize “aggrieved employee[s]” to pursue civil penalties. (See Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (a); Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 81 (Kim).) Only aggrieved employees have standing to bring this type of enforcement action. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (a); Kim, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 81.) An aggrieved employee is a person who was employed by the defendant employer and who suffered one or more of the alleged Labor Code violations. (Lab. Code, 2699, subd. (c); Kim at p. 82.) The Act authorizes the employee to pursue civil penalties for Labor Code violations committed by the employer against all aggrieved employees. (Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (a); Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 745, 751 (Huff).) An employee who brings such an action is acting as an agent of state enforcement agencies. (Kim, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 81.) The enforcement