Dimon v. County of Los Angeles

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Filed 9/30/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR VI DIMON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, B202409 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC365770) (Peter D. Lichtman, Judge) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] Defendant and Respondent. THE COURT:* It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 16, 2008, be modified as follows: On page 4, footnote 5 should be changed to read as follows: Section 2699 is part of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). (Labor Code, § 2698.) The cause of action for civil penalties is derivative of plaintiff s claim that the County violated section 512. PAGA was adopted to empower aggrieved employees, acting as private attorneys general, to seek civil penalties for Labor Code violations, penalties which previously could be assessed only by state agencies. (Dunlap v. Superior Court (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 330, 336.) There is no change in the judgment. *EPSTEIN, P. J. WILLHITE, J. MANELLA, J.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.