Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1573_8p6h.pdf
Page Number: 7

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 382, 327 P. 3d 129, 148 (2014).  Alt-
hough  the  statute’s  language  suggests  that  an  “aggrieved 
employee”  sues  “on  behalf  of  himself  or  herself  and  other 
current  or  former  employees,”  §2699(a),  California  prece-
dent holds that a PAGA suit is a “ ‘representative action’ ” 
in which the employee plaintiff sues as an “ ‘agent or proxy’ ” 
of the State.  Id., at 380, 327 P. 3d, at 147 (quoting Arias v. 
Superior  Court,  46  Cal.  4th  969,  986,  209  P. 3d  923,  933 
(2009)).

As  the  California  courts  conceive  of  it,  the  State  “is  al-
ways  the  real  party  in interest  in the  suit.”   Iskanian,  59 
Cal. 4th, at 382, 327 P. 3d, at 148.2  The primary function
of PAGA is to delegate a power to employees to assert “the 
same  legal  right  and  interest  as  state  law  enforcement 
agencies,” Arias, 46 Cal. 4th, at 986, 209 P. 3d, at 933.  In 
other words, the statute gives employees a right to assert 

—————— 

2 The extent to which PAGA plaintiffs truly act as agents of the State
rather than complete assignees is disputed.  See Magadia v. Wal-Mart 
Assocs., Inc., 999 F. 3d 668, 677 (CA9 2021) (holding that PAGA “lacks
the procedural controls necessary to ensure that California” retains “sub-
stantial  authority  over  the  case”  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted)). 
Agency requires control.  See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U. S. 693, 713 
(2013).  But apart from the exhaustion process, the statute does not fea-
ture any explicit control mechanisms, such as provisions authorizing the
State to intervene or requiring its approval of settlements. 

That  said,  California  precedent  strongly  suggests  that  the  State  re-
tains inherent authority to manage PAGA actions.  There is no other ob-
vious way to understand California precedent’s description of the State 
as the “real party in interest.”  See generally 1A Cal. Jur. 3d Actions §31
(real-party-in-interest status is based on ownership and control over the 
cause of action).  And a theory of total assignment appears inconsistent
with  the  fact  that  employees  have  no  assignable  interest  in  a  PAGA 
claim.  See Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Supe-
rior Court of Los Angeles Cty., 46 Cal. 4th 993, 1002, 209 P. 3d 937, 943 
(2009)  (Amalgamated  Transit);  see  also  Turrieta  v.  Lyft,  Inc.,  69  Cal. 
App.  5th  955,  972,  284  Cal.  Rptr.  3d  767,  780  (2021)  (The  employee’s 
“ability to file PAGA claims on behalf of the state does not convert the 
state’s interest into their own or render them real parties in interest”).
For purposes of this opinion, we assume that PAGA plaintiffs are agents.