California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 2699.5 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)The provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 2699.3 apply to any alleged violation of the following provisions: subdivision (k) of Section 96, Sections 98.6, 201, 201.3, 201.5, 201.7, 202, 203, 203.1, 203.5, 204, 204a, 204b, 204.1, 204.2, 205, 205.5, 206, 206.5, 208, 209, and 212, subdivision (d) of Section 213, Sections 221, 222, 222.5, 223, 224, 230, 230.1, 230.2, 230.3, 230.4, 230.7, 230.8, and 231, subdivision (c) of Section 232, subdivision (c) of Section 232.5, Sections 233, 234, 351, 353, and 403, subdivision (b) of Section 404, Sections 432.2, 432.5, 432.7, 435, 450, 511, 551, 552, 601, 602, 603, 604, 750, 751.8, 800, 850, 851, 851.5, 852, 921, 922, 923, 970, 973, 976, 1021, 1021.5, 1025, 1026, 1101, 1102, 1102.5, and 1153, subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 1174, Sections 1197.5, and 1198, subdivision (b) of Section 1198.3, Sections 1199, 1199.5, 1290, 1292, 1293, 1293.1, 1294, 1294.1, 1294.5, 1296, 1297, 1298, 1301, 1308, 1308.1, 1308.7, 1309, 1309.5, 1391, 1391.1, 1391.2, 1392, 1683, and 1695, subdivision (a) of Section 1695.5, Sections 1695.55, 1695.6, 1695.7, 1695.8, 1695.9, 1696, 1696.5, 1696.6, 1697.1, 1700.25, 1700.26, 1700.31, 1700.32, 1700.40, and 1700.47, Sections 1735, 1771, 1774, 1776, 1777.5, 1811, 1815, 2651, and 2673, subdivision (a) of Section 2673.1, Sections 2695.2, 2801, 2806, and 2810, subdivision (b) of Section 2929, and Sections 3073.6, 6310, 6311, and 6399.7.

(b)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), the amendments made to this section by the act adding this subdivision shall apply to a civil action brought on or after June 19, 2024.

(2)The amendments made to this section by the act adding this subdivision shall not apply to a civil action with respect to which the notice required by subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), or subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 2699.3 was filed before June 19, 2024.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Joseluis Alcantar v. Hobart Serv., 800 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Joseluis Alcantar v. Hobart Serv., 800 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “Said conduct, in addition to the forgoing, violated each Labor Code section as set forth in California Labor Code section 2699.5. The only facts or theories that could be read into this letter are those implied by the claimed violations of specific sections of the California…”

Achal v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 781 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “The Court therefore assumes for the purpose of the present motion that section 226(e) applies to Achal’s PAGA claims.”

Conde v. Open Door Mktg., LLC, 223 F. Supp. 3d 949 (N.D. Cal. 2017). “ertime wages due; (4) failed to provide accurate wage statements to employees as required by California Labor Code section 226; (5) failed to provide reimbursement for work related expenses as required by Labor Code § 2802; and, (6) failed to provide off-duty meal periods and to…”

McKenzie v. Fed. Express Corp., 765 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (C.D. Cal. 2011). “See Cal.Lab.Code § 2699.5. a. McKenzie Does Not Need to Prove Injury Pursuant to Labor Code Section 226(e) to Recover Under PAGA Here, FedEx argues that McKenzie’s PAGA claim fails because she has not proven injury as required under Labor Code Section 226(e).”

Thomas v. Home Depot USA Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “See Cal. Lab.Code § 2698(a)(f), 2699.3(a), 2699.”

Turner v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (N.D. Cal. 2012). “Particularly, the Court agrees that the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAG Act” or “PAGA”), which covers the statutory claims at issue here, see Cal. Labor Code § 2699.5 , indicates a legislative emphasis on private enforcement of the Labor Code that would be undercut by a…”

Natalie Tomco v. Prada USA Corp., 484 F. App'x 99 (9th Cir. 2012). “See Cal. Labor Code § 2699.5 . Because we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Tomco’s § 1102.”

Tielemans v. Aegion Energy Servs. CA6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 5× “Among other things, both CBAs included mandatory arbitration provisions, which state: “[A]ll employee disputes concerning violations of, or arising under Wage Order 16 (except as noted in the immediately preceding paragraph), the California Labor Code Sections identified in…”

Eliazar Olea v. Teichert Pipelines, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 4× “Here, the CBAs are “clear and unmistakable” because they specifically identify Wage Order 16, “the California Labor Code Sections identified in California Labor Code section 2699.5,” and “Labor Code section 2698, et seq.”

Arthur Gutierrez v. Anning-Johnson Co. (C.D. Cal. 2023). · cites it 3× “Cal. Lab. Code § 2699.5 , which is expressly referenced in the May 2021 Amendment, includes numerous sections within the California Labor Code, including 201, 202, 203, 226 (paragraphs 1 through 5, 7, and 9 of subdivision (a)), 226.”

Jaquez v. Site Saf. Traffic Saf. & Signs (E.D. Cal. 2023). · cites it 3× “the California Labor 9 Code Sections identified in California Labor Code Section 2699.5 as amended, the 10 California Private Attorney General Act (Labor Code Section 2698, et.”

Hunt v. Golden Sate Boring & Pipe Jacking CA4/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “’ [¶] In addition to Contractual Disputes that may be brought by the Union as described above, all employee disputes concerning violations of, or arising under Wage Order 16 (except as noted in the immediately preceding paragraph), the California Labor Code Sections identified…”

Show all 20 citing cases →

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.