Cal. Codes » Labor Code
California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 2698 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This part shall be known and may be cited as the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 915 cases (559 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Arias v. Superior Court, 209 P.3d 923 (Cal. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arias v. Superior Court, 209 P.3d 923 (Cal. 2009). · cites it 6× “) for Labor Code violations must satisfy class action requirements, but that those requirements need not be met when an employee's representative action against an employer is seeking civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698…”
Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North Am., Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “After closely examining Concepcion and the Court’s other statements regarding the purposes of the FAA, we conclude that the Iskanian rule does not stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA’s objectives, and is not preempted.”
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, 209 P.3d 937 (Cal. 2009). · cites it 4× “) The other law is the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.), which provides that an "aggrieved employee" may bring an action to recover civil penalties for violations of the Labor Code "on behalf of himself or herself and other current or…”
Sarah Murphy v. Sfbsc Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “” Ultimately, the parties executed a settlement agreement and, per the parties’ stipulation, we then dismissed the appeal without prejudice to 1 PAGA refers to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698–2699.5, which authorizes aggrieved employees to…”
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639 (2022). · cites it 2× “Cal. Lab. Code Ann. §2698 et seq. (West 2022).”
Joseluis Alcantar v. Hobart Serv., 800 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “, and PAGA, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 2698 et seq. Alcantar sought certification of a class of service technicians employed by Hobart in the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit.”
Roderick Magadia v. Wal-Mart Assocs., 999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “See Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. Walmart removed the case to federal court.”
Louis v. McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., 460 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (C.D. Cal. 2006). · cites it 3× “, and the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act, California Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq. *1155 Both claims are based on McCormick & Schmick’s purported violation of Labor Code § 351.”
Joseph Baumann v. Chase Inv. Servs. Corp, 747 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 3× “, for Amicus Curiae California Employment Law Council and Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. OPINION HURWITZ, Circuit Judge: This is a civil action filed in California state court under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”),…”
Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 13 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “The court awarded back wages and unpaid benefits, imposed penalties for the Labor Code violations pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.), and awarded plaintiffs statutory attorney fees and costs.”
Carolyn Callahan v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmty., 42 F.4th 1013 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “(“Brookdale”), 1 her former employer, pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab. Code sections 2698–2699.5, which allows aggrieved employees to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations on behalf of themselves, the state, or other…”
Ontiveros v. Zamora, 303 F.R.D. 356 (E.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 2× “However, plaintiff brought claims under the California Private Attorney General Act of 2004, Cal. Labor Code § 2698 et seq., (“PAGA”).”
Show all 915 citing cases →
— Cal. Labor Code § 2698(a)(f) — 1 case
Thomas v. Home Depot USA Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
— Cal. Labor Code § 2698(c) — 1 case
Thomas v. Home Depot USA Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.