Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1573_8p6h.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

claims for relief and are preclusive as to all claims the class
could have brought, Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Rich-
mond,  467  U. S.  867,  874  (1984),  “class  representatives 
must at all times adequately represent absent class mem-
bers, and absent [class] members must be afforded notice, 
an  opportunity  to  be  heard,  and  a  right  to  opt  out  of  the 
class.”  Concepcion, 563 U. S., at 349.  And to “ensur[e] that
the named plaintiffs are appropriate representatives of the
class  whose  claims  they  wish  to  litigate,”  the  adjudicator 
must decide questions of numerosity, commonality, typical-
ity, and adequacy of representation.  Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 
v. Dukes, 564 U. S. 338, 349 (2011).

PAGA  actions  also  permit  the  adjudication  of  multiple 
claims in a single suit, but their structure is entirely differ-
ent.  A class-action plaintiff can raise a multitude of claims
because he or she represents a multitude of absent individ-
uals; a PAGA plaintiff, by contrast, represents a single prin-
cipal, the LWDA, that has a multitude of claims.  As a result 
of  this  structural  difference,  PAGA  suits  exhibit  virtually
none of the procedural characteristics of class actions.  The 
plaintiff does not represent a class of injured individuals, so
there  is  no  need  for  certification.    PAGA  judgments  are
binding only with respect to the State’s claims, and are not 
binding on nonparty employees as to any individually held 
claims.  Arias, 46 Cal. 4th, at 986, 209 P. 3d, at 933–934. 
This obviates the need to consider adequacy of representa-
tion, numerosity, commonality, or typicality.  And although 
the statute gives other affected employees a future interest 
in the penalties awarded in an action, that interest does not 
make  those  employees  “parties”  in  any  of  the  senses  in 
which absent class members are, see Devlin v. Scardelletti, 
536 U. S. 1 (2002), or give those employees anything more 
than an inchoate interest in litigation proceeds.  See Ver-
mont  Agency  of  Natural  Resources  v.  United  States  ex rel. 
Stevens, 529 U. S. 765, 773 (2000) (The “ ‘right’ ” to a share