Manageability as the New Contested Terrain: A Defense Framework for § 2699(p)
Thesis
Section 2699(l) is the most consequential procedural reform in the 2024 PAGA package. Unlike the cure mechanism — which requires affirmative employer action within a narrow window — manageability operates as a structural limitation on the scope of claims that can proceed to trial. It authorizes evidence and claim-scope limitations so a claim can be effectively tried. It does not impose Rule 23 prerequisites.
The defense bar has not yet developed a unified approach to manageability motions. This strategy note proposes a framework.
The Statutory Standard and the Class Certification Analogy
Section 2699(p) provides: “The superior court may limit the evidence to be presented at trial or otherwise limit the scope of any claim filed pursuant to this part to ensure that the claim can be effectively tried.” Section 2699(q) separately preserves consolidation and coordination of overlapping claims. Neither provision contains the phrase “criteria similar to” class certification.
For defense practice, the analogy creates both opportunity and risk.
The opportunity. Class-action trial-planning experience can help counsel demonstrate individualized factual disputes and propose manageable methods of proof. The request should be grounded in the express statutory authority and the evidence needed to try the actual PAGA claims.
The doctrinal boundary. Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2024) 15 Cal.5th 582 held that courts lack inherent authority to strike PAGA claims for unmanageability and rejected importing class-action manageability prerequisites. The later statute expressly authorizes evidence and scope limits. A defense motion should seek a supported statutory limit rather than assume that a failed class-certification showing automatically defeats a PAGA claim.
Framework: Three Categories of Manageability Arguments
Category 1 — Individualized Inquiry Claims
The strongest manageability arguments arise where the alleged violations require employee-by-employee proof. Meal and rest break claims are the paradigmatic example: whether a particular employee was denied a compliant break often depends on individual circumstances — the employee's specific schedule, their supervisor's practices, whether the employee voluntarily waived the break.
When a claim covers many employees, locations, shifts, or supervisors, counsel should identify the actual variations that affect proof and explain why the proposed trial plan fails to address them. Declarations, payroll records, and policy evidence should support a specific limitation rather than an assertion that size alone makes the claim untriable.
Category 2 — Multi-Location, Multi-Policy Claims
Claims spanning business locations with materially different practices can create proof problems. Fifty locations do not necessarily mean fifty distinct policies; counsel must establish which relevant practices differ and why those differences matter. A targeted scope or evidence proposal is stronger when it addresses proven variation rather than headcount alone.
Defense counsel should identify and document operational differences across locations. Organizational charts, site-specific policy manuals, and declarations from regional managers all support the argument that a unified trial is unmanageable.
Category 3 — Temporal Complexity
Different governing regimes can complicate overlapping actions, but the reform’s applicability generally turns on the action and notice dates specified in § 2699(v), not automatically on each violation’s date. Counsel should identify the applicable law and any overlapping pre-reform action before seeking coordination or separate trial treatment.
Defense counsel should highlight the temporal line and argue for separate treatment of pre- and post-reform claims.
Procedural Timing
Manageability should be raised early — ideally at the Early Evaluation Conference under § 2699.3(f). Waiting for a dispositive motion stage allows the case to develop complexity that itself becomes an argument against manageability limitations. The EEC is the statutory mechanism for putting scope limitations on the table before either side has invested heavily in discovery.
At early evaluation, counsel should present an evidence-supported account of the disputed claims and proposed resolution. If judicial scope limitations are needed, seek them from the court through an appropriate case-management request; a confidential EEC submission is not itself a dispositive ruling.
The value of the provision depends on a concrete trial proposal. Show which proof cannot be tried effectively as proposed, what narrower evidence or claim scope will solve the problem, and how that approach permits adjudication of the remaining claims.
The framework proposed here — individualized inquiries, multi-location complexity, and temporal issues — covers the majority of wage-and-hour PAGA claims. Defense counsel should begin incorporating manageability analysis into their initial case assessments and raising the issue at the earliest procedural opportunity.
The practical objective is an order that permits an effective trial on a defined record. A carefully supported request under § 2699(p), together with coordination under § 2699(q) where appropriate, gives the court a workable alternative to an unsupported dismissal request.
Sources
Labor Code § 2699 · Labor Code § 2699.3 · AB 2288, chaptered bill · SB 92, chaptered bill.
Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Supreme Court opinion, especially pages 2–3 and 32–33.
Arthur Karadzhyan, Manageability as the New Contested Terrain: A Defense Framework for § 2699(p), The PAGA Review (February 15, 2026), https://pagareview.com/manageability-defense-framework.