Pineda v. Colusa Medical Center CA3

Filed 2/27/23 Pineda v. Colusa Medical Center CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Colusa) ----

MARY PINEDA, C094568

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CV24393)

v.

COLUSA MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Mary Pineda appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary adjudication of her individual and representative claims under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, § 2698, et seq.; statutory section citations that follow are found in the Labor Code unless otherwise stated) after she filed her PAGA cause of action prematurely before the statutory 65-day waiting period had expired. PAGA allows an employee to bring a civil action against an employer on behalf of himself and other employees to recover civil penalties for violations of the Labor Code. (§ 2699, subd. (a).)

1

Civil penalties are $100 for each initial violation, and $200 for each subsequent violation. (§§ 210, subd. (a), 2699, subd. (f)(2).) If civil penalties are recovered, 75 percent goes to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and 25 percent goes to the aggrieved employees. (§ 2699, subd. (i).) The aggrieved employee is also entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees. (§ 2699, subd. (g)(1).) On appeal, plaintiff contends that a plaintiff is not barred from maintaining a PAGA action where he or she properly and timely filed a sufficient PAGA notice with the Labor Workforce Development Agency (Agency), but prematurely filed a lawsuit alleging a PAGA claim prior to the expiration of the 65-day waiting period, if the Agency subsequently fails to act on the notice within 65 days. Defendant Colusa Medical Center (Colusa Medical) challenges the propriety of Pineda’s appeal from the order granting summary adjudication of Pineda’s entire PAGA claim, arguing that the appeal is from a nonappealable order and violates the one final judgment rule. In any event, Colusa Medical contends the court properly dismissed Pineda’s PAGA claim because she failed to comply with requisite waiting period before filing suit. We conclude that the order granting summary adjudication in this case is not appealable. We therefore dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits of Pineda’s contentions.