Opinion ID: 6496285
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Right to Appeal the Approval of the PAGA

Text: Settlement Because Neverson’s motion to intervene was properly denied, she never became a party to the PAGA action. And as a non-party to this action, she has no right to appeal the district court’s approval of the PAGA settlement. See Peck, 25 F.4th at 1128. Neverson argues that she has a right to appeal the settlement because “the weight of California authority supports non-parties having a substantive right to intervene in overlapping PAGA suits.” As an initial matter, we note that two of the three California state cases Neverson cites are consistent with this opinion. See Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc., 284 Cal. Rptr. 3d 767, 778 (Ct. App. 2021) (affirming the trial court’s denial of intervention and finding that the proposed intervenors had no right to appeal the approval of the PAGA settlement); Uribe v. Crown Bldg. Maint., 285 Cal. Rptr. 3d 759, 770–72 (Ct. App. 2021), as amended (Oct. 26, 2021) (allowing an intervenor to challenge a PAGA settlement on appeal where the trial court granted intervention and that decision to allow intervention was not challenged on appeal). And to the extent that Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc., 287 Cal. Rptr. 3d 107 (Ct. App. 2021), is inconsistent with our holding here, we note that Moniz involved the application of California procedural rules while we apply federal procedural rules in this case. Compare id. at 121 (“For purposes of appellate standing, an unnamed party may become a party to an action through intervention (Code Civ. Proc., § 387) or by filing an appealable motion to set aside and vacate the judgment.” (emphasis added)), with Robert Ito Farm, Inc. v. Cnty. of Maui, 842 F.3d 681, CALLAHAN V. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING CMTIES. 21 687 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] prospective intervenor does not become a party to the suit unless and until he is allowed to intervene.”). The well-settled rule in federal court, as we noted in Peck, is that “only parties to a lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment[.]” 25 F.4th at 1126 (quoting Volkhoff, 945 F.3d at 1241). Though we have occasionally allowed a non-party to appeal when “‘exceptional circumstances’ warrant a departure from this general rule,” id. at 1129 (citation omitted), Neverson does not argue that such circumstances are present here. Because Neverson lacks the right to appeal the PAGA settlement, we dismiss her appeal of the settlement approval and do not consider whether the district court abused its discretion in approving the settlement. See Peck, 25 F.4th at 1128.