Castillo: Post-2024 PAGA Claims Could Proceed Without an Individual Penalty Claim

A worker’s choice to seek PAGA penalties only for violations involving coworkers did not require arbitration of a personal penalty claim he had not brought. In Castillo v. Belkorp AG, No. F090527 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2026), the Fifth District affirmed denial of the employer’s motion to compel arbitration. The court applied the post-2024 statute and distinguished the worker’s standing from the claims he chose to pursue.

The published Fifth District opinion supplies the court’s interpretation of amended PAGA. It followed CRST, Galarsa and Balderas, rather than the compulsory-both-components approach in Leeper and Williams. The opinion describes the split and the Supreme Court’s grants of review as of October 23. Pages 8–16.

Both types of PAGA claims seek penalties for the state

Castillo worked as a service technician from May 2021 through January 2024. His December 2020 onboarding agreement required individual arbitration and waived class or collective proceedings. After a November 2024 LWDA notice and the statutory waiting period, he filed a single-count, nonindividual-only PAGA complaint in February 2025. The trial court denied arbitration on September 5, 2025. The November notice brought the case within the amended statute. Pages 2–7.

PAGA permits an employee meeting statutory requirements to seek civil penalties as a proxy for the state. An individual PAGA claim concerns violations suffered by that employee; a nonindividual claim concerns violations involving other employees. Both remain state-enforcement claims. An individual PAGA claim is not simply another name for the worker’s private claim for unpaid wages. Pages 5–11.

Castillo brought only nonindividual PAGA claims. Belkorp argued that he could not proceed without an individual component and that arbitration was therefore required. The appeal concerned that proposed procedural route, not a decision that Belkorp had committed the alleged Labor Code violations.

The court read the statute to permit the narrower choice of claims

The employer relied on statutory language referring to penalties on behalf of the employee “and” other current or former employees. The court considered that language with the statute’s permissive terms, its enforcement purpose, related decisions and the 2024 amendments. It rejected the argument that every PAGA complaint must seek both categories of penalties. Pages 11–24.

The court treated “and” in section 2699(a) as an inclusive permission: Permission to seek both categories includes permission to choose a lesser category. It applied the reasoning of CRST and Civil Code section 3536—the greater contains the less—alongside PAGA’s enforcement purpose. It rejected Leeper’s contrary reading of the text and legislative history. Eligibility to act for the state remained a separate question from the penalties requested. Pages 11–16.

The 2024 standing requirements still mattered

Labor Code section 2699(c)(1), as amended, requires the plaintiff to have personally suffered each alleged violation within the one-year limitations period under Code of Civil Procedure section 340. Footnote 15 explains that the amendment abrogated the broader standing rule in Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 745. The amendment governs who qualifies as an aggrieved employee; it does not require that employee to request both categories of penalties. Pages 16, 24–27.

The complaint still asserts that the plaintiff personally suffered the listed violations. In footnote 10, the court rejected Belkorp’s claim that foregoing personal penalties admitted the opposite. Footnote 8 reserved the complaint’s pleading adequacy for a demurrer rather than deciding it on the arbitration motion. Pages 16, 19.

The existing arbitration cases did not require a missing claim to be added

The court distinguished Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana and Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., which involved both individual and nonindividual components. Those decisions addressed division between forums and the effect of individual arbitration on continuing standing. They did not require every plaintiff to assert both categories in the first place. Pages 24–29.

Because Castillo had brought only nonindividual claims, there was no individual PAGA claim for the court to compel under the employer’s proposed approach. The court also rejected a separate arbitration proceeding directed only at standing. Footnote 11.

Affirmance left liability for later proceedings

The court affirmed denial of the motion to compel, leaving the action to proceed in court. Its ruling separates the plaintiff’s personally suffered violations, the penalties sought and the claim an agreement can send to arbitration. Liability remains to be adjudicated in the continuing action.

Our guide to matching PAGA allegations to a worker’s own records addresses the first question. The complaint, LWDA notice, work records and complete arbitration agreement should be reviewed together before treating Castillo as an answer to a different procedural posture or statutory version.