Opinion
S271721
01-05-2022
TURRIETA v. LYFT (Seifu)
The petition for review is granted. The issue to be briefed is limited to the following: Does a plaintiff in a representative action filed under the Private Attorneys General Act ( Lab. Code, § 2698, et seq. ) (PAGA) have the right to intervene, or object to, or move to vacate, a judgment in a related action that purports to settle the claims that plaintiff has brought on behalf of the State?
Pending review, the opinion of the Court of Appeal, which is currently published at 69 Cal.App.5th 955, 284 Cal.Rptr.3d 767, may be cited, not only for its persuasive value, but also for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of a conflict in authority that would in turn allow trial courts to exercise discretion under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456, 20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937, to choose between sides of any such conflict. (See Standing Order Exercising Authority Under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(e)(3), Upon Grant of Review or Transfer of a Matter with an Underlying Published Court of Appeal Opinion, Administrative Order 2021-04-21; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3) and corresponding Comment, par. 2.) The request for an order directing depublication of the opinion is denied.
Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban and Jenkins, JJ.