California Appeals Court Finds So-Called “Headless” PAGA Claims Permissible

In July of 2025, a California appellate court found that so-called “headless” PAGA claims are permissible (CRST Expedited Inc. v. Superior Court of Fresno County). It is an important decision, though the California Supreme Court may eventually need to weigh in on the matter. At Sloat Law Group, APC, we are committed to empowering our clients with legal knowledge. Here, our California employment attorney for employers provides a guide to the key things to know about this case.

Case Review: CRST Expedited Inc. v. Superior Court of Fresno County

The Facts

Espiridion Sanchez alleged nine categories of California Labor Code violations in a PAGA action he filed in Fresno County Superior Court in 2019. A PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act) claim is a type of lawsuit under California law that allows employees to step into the shoes of the state and sue their employer for Labor Code violations on behalf of themselves and other “aggrieved” employees.

Notably, in this case, the employment law claim was initially on behalf of himself and other employees. However, after the United States Supreme Court’s Viking River decision, Mr. Sanchez voluntarily dismissed his individual wage and hour claims in 2024 strategically, so they would not be decided in an arbitration. That meant that his lawsuit was seeking damages only for other employees, and he was no longer “aggrieved”.  This dismissal left in the action only the so‑called “headless” PAGA claim that sought penalties for the employer’s violations against other employees. As a result, the employer filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit through a petition for writ of mandate.

The Legal Issue

At issue was whether pre‑July 2024 PAGA language authorizing a civil action “on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees” permits a so-called “headless” PAGA action. More specifically: the court was tasked with answering:

• Does an employee who abandons his own individual claim still have standing to pursue representative penalties on behalf of others?

The Decision 

On July 7, 2025, the California Fifth District Court of Appeal denied CRST’s writ petition and decided the issue in the affirmative. In other words, it ruled against the employer and allowed Sanchez to continue to represent the other employees in the litigation. To achieve this result, the appellate court found the statute ambiguous and interpreted “and” (as in the employee bringing the action on behalf of themselves and other employees) as inclusive and disjunctive. It interpreted “and” to mean “and/or.” It is a distinction that matters because it permits headless PAGA actions under the pre‑reform statutory text.

The Next Steps

Employers in the Fifth District (Counties of Fresno, Kern, Madera, Kings, Merced, Stanislaus, Tulare, etc.) must assume that headless PAGA actions remain viable under pre‑July 2024 law. However, the decision conflicts with other decisions out of California’s Second District, and the issue is currently being appealed to the state’s supreme court. It is likely that the California Supreme Court will need to resolve the state-level circuit split on this issue.

Consult With Our California Employment Lawyer for Employers Today

At Sloat Law Group, APC, our California employment lawyer has deep experience representing employers across the state. If you have any questions about defending a PAGA claim, please do not hesitate to contact us today for a fully confidential consultation. We provide employment law representation to employers in Coachella Valley, Riverside County, and throughout California.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2025/f088569.html