Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA CA6

Filed 4/25/23 Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

FORREST A. HUFF, as Personal H048684 Representative of The Estate of Forrest C. (Santa Clara County Huff, etc., Super. Ct. No. 1-10-CV-172614)

Plaintiff, Appellant, and Cross- Respondent,

v.

SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.,

Defendant, Respondent, and Cross- Appellant.

Forrest C. Huff sued his former employer, Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., for multiple Labor Code violations under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA; Lab. Code, § 2698, et seq.). The action was tried to the court. Mr. Huff passed away after trial but before a decision was issued. His son, Forrest A. Huff, moved for an order allowing him to prosecute the suit as the personal representative of his father’s estate. The trial court granted that motion but rendered a decision in favor of Securitas on all claims. Both parties appeal. The son contends the judgment should be reversed because the trial court’s findings are not supported by the evidence. Securitas contends the result is ultimately correct and should be affirmed because it was error to allow the son to substitute into the action as the plaintiff. Because a representative PAGA cause of action is not a transferable property interest, we agree the trial court was

incorrect to allow the son to pursue this action on behalf of his father’s estate. But as the judgment for Securitas is the correct outcome, we will affirm it. I. BACKGROUND The elder Forrest Huff worked as a security guard for Securitas Security Services, a company that contracts with businesses to provide on-site security. He was employed by Securitas for about a year. After his employment ended he sued Securitas for Labor Code violations. He brought the suit as a representative action under PAGA, which allows an employee who suffered a Labor Code violation to sue on behalf of the state to collect monetary penalties for any Labor Code violations the employer committed. The suit alleged a violation of Labor Code section 201.3(b)(1)(A), requiring temporary services employers to issue paychecks weekly, and it sought penalties for that violation along with other violations involving failure to timely pay wages. The matter was tried to the court, which initially ruled against the elder Mr. Huff, finding he could not prevail on his PAGA claims because he did not show the violations at issue personally affected him. But the court then granted a new trial, deciding that under PAGA, a plaintiff is allowed to bring representative claims for Labor Code violations that may have affected only other employees. Securitas appealed that decision, and the new trial ruling was affirmed. In that first appeal this court held that PAGA allows a person affected by at least one Labor Code violation committed by an employer to pursue penalties for all Labor Code violations committed by that employer. The case was remanded and the new trial was conducted in June 2019. At its conclusion the court took the matter under submission and directed the parties to submit post trial briefing. Mr. Huff died before the close of briefing. Securitas moved for dismissal on the ground that a decedent’s estate is not permitted to pursue PAGA litigation. Plaintiff’s counsel countered by moving for an order substituting Mr. Huff’s son as the plaintiff, in the capacity of personal representative of his father’s estate. The trial court granted that motion and allowed the son to continue the action as the plaintiff. 2