Shams v. Revature LLC

Background

The court reviewed the parties’ joint status report and said it needed more information before proceeding with Lelyla Shams’s non-individual representative claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Earlier briefing and orders had focused on whether Shams had statutory standing to bring those claims under state law.

Article III standing

The court explained that Article III standing—a federal constitutional requirement for bringing a case in federal court—must be examined separately from statutory standing. The court cited Ninth Circuit decisions stating that a plaintiff must show an actual or imminent injury that is concrete and particularized, that the injury was caused by the challenged conduct, and that a favorable decision would redress the injury. Standing must continue throughout the litigation, and state law cannot expand or reduce federal jurisdiction.

The court noted that the Ninth Circuit previously held that a plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring representative PAGA claims for meal-break violations because he had not personally suffered the alleged injury. The court also discussed a more recent Ninth Circuit decision that recognized statutory standing but sent the case back for a separate Article III standing inquiry, describing the issue as open.

Order

The court ordered Shams to file a further brief establishing Article III standing over the non-individual representative PAGA claims by May 17, 2024. Revature may respond by May 24, 2024. Judge Nathanael M. Cousins continued the case-management conference from May 8 to May 29, 2024, at 11:30 a.m. by Zoom. The court stated that it would send the case back to Santa Clara County Superior Court if it determined that Article III standing was lacking. The order did not decide whether Shams has standing.