On November 19, 2025, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, issued a published decision in Brown v. Dave & Buster's of California, affirming the dismissal of a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action brought by a former employee against her employer. The court held that a prior settlement in a related PAGA action released the plaintiff's claims and that her subsequent lawsuit alleging substantially identical claims was barred by claim preclusion, a legal doctrine that prevents parties from relitigating claims that have already been decided by a court in a final judgment.
In this era of runaway PAGA litigation, several California employers are facing multiple or serial PAGA claims alleging the same or substantially the same allegations, and this case provides needed support to help ensure that PAGA claims that are settled and released will be effective in barring later-filed claims for the same claim period.
Quick Hits
- On November 19, 2025, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a PAGA action in Brown v. Dave & Buster's of California, Inc., holding that a prior settlement barred the plaintiff's claims under the doctrine of claim preclusion.
- The court found that the settlement in a 2019 action, which covered the same alleged Labor Code violations, constituted a final judgment on the merits and involved the same parties or those in privity.
- The court emphasized that substantial compliance with PAGA's pre-filing notice requirements is sufficient, and minor technical defects do not defeat claim preclusion.
Background
Lauren Brown, a former employee of Dave & Buster's of California, Inc., filed a representative PAGA action in June 2019, alleging violations of various Labor Code provisions, including failure to provide meal and rest periods, vacation pay, wage statements, and off-the-clock work. Dave and Buster's had previously faced multiple PAGA actions from other employees, including an earlier-filed case that ultimately resulted in a global settlement (Andrade v. Dave & Buster's Management Corp., Inc.) covering the same alleged violations and the same employer entities.
The trial court found Brown's case to be "substantially identical" to the earlier action and stayed proceedings to avoid conflicting rulings. Following approval of the Andrade settlement, which included a release of claims for all aggrieved employees and covered the same Labor Code violations, Dave and Buster's moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the settlement barred Brown's claims under the doctrine of claim preclusion.
Key Holdings
Claim Preclusion Applies to PAGA Claims Released in Prior Settlement. The appellate court affirmed that claim preclusion barred Brown's PAGA claims. The Andrade settlement constituted a final judgment on the merits, involved the same parties or those in privity, and encompassed the same causes of action. The court emphasized that PAGA's statutory scheme is designed to promote judicial economy by requiring all claims based on the same alleged violations to be resolved in a single action.
Substantial Compliance With PAGA's Pre-Filing Notice Requirement. Brown argued that the prior settlement should not bar her claims because the earlier plaintiff (Jessica Andrade) failed to strictly comply with PAGA's sixty-five-day waiting period for amended claims before filing her operative complaint. The court rejected this argument, finding that Andrade's notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) substantially complied with statutory requirements and fulfilled the purpose of affording the agency an opportunity to investigate.
No Standing for Post-Settlement Violations. The court also rejected Brown's argument that she had standing to pursue claims for violations occurring after the date of the prior settlement, noting that her employment had ended years before and that PAGA standing does not extend to violations occurring after the plaintiff's employment.
Judicial Approval and Agency Acceptance. The court observed that the LWDA was notified of the settlement and did not oppose it, and that the trial court's approval of the settlement was valid and binding. The Supreme Court of California has rejected efforts by subsequent PAGA plaintiffs to object to settlements reached by other aggrieved employees acting on the state's behalf.
Key Takeaways
PAGA settlements that release claims for all aggrieved employees and are judicially approved will bar subsequent representative actions based on the same alleged Labor Code violations.
Substantial compliance with PAGA's pre-filing notice requirements is sufficient; minor technical defects, such as filing an amended complaint before the expiration of the sixty-five-day waiting period, do not defeat claim preclusion.
PAGA plaintiffs lack standing to pursue claims for violations occurring after their employment ends or after a prior settlement has been approved.
Judicial review will defer to the administrative record and the terms of the prior settlement, and subsequent plaintiffs cannot relitigate released claims or object to approved settlements.
The Brown decision underscores the importance of comprehensive settlement agreements in PAGA actions and the significant preclusive effect such settlements have on future representative claims arising from the same alleged violations. Employers facing multiple PAGA actions may want to ensure that settlements are properly noticed, encompass all relevant claims, and are judicially approved to achieve finality and avoid duplicative litigation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
