Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Kim: Settling Individual Labor Code Claims Does Not Eliminate PAGA Standing

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 15, 2026

Kim v. Reins International California addressed whether a worker lost Private Attorneys General Act standing after accepting an offer to settle and dismiss his individual wage-and-hour causes of action.

PAGA uses a statutory standing definition

An aggrieved employee is a person employed by the alleged violator against whom one or more Labor Code violations was committed. The statute does not require an unresolved individual damages claim at every stage of the representative action.

Settlement did not erase the alleged violation

Resolving the employee’s private claims did not undo his employment or the alleged Labor Code violations. The settlement compensated individual claims but did not transfer the state’s distinct interest in civil-penalty enforcement.

The PAGA claim belongs to a different remedial structure

A PAGA plaintiff acts as the state’s authorized representative, and most recovered penalties are allocated as the statute directs. The employee’s release of private relief therefore did not automatically extinguish the representative enforcement claim.

The dismissal was reversed

The court held that Kim retained standing and reversed the judgment dismissing the action. Later PAGA amendments and arbitration decisions must be considered for current procedure, but the opinion’s statutory-standing analysis remains essential.

Key takeaways

• Separate private Labor Code remedies from PAGA civil penalties.
• Examine the settlement and release language carefully.
• Determine whether the plaintiff satisfies PAGA’s statutory definition.
• Apply current PAGA amendments and arbitration precedent to present procedure.