Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV27868, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27868    Hearing Date: May 8, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion of Rochelle Sterling dba Beverly Hills Plaza Hotel & Spa to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings; Joinder Therein of Donald T. Sterling.

BACKGROUND

JUANA PARADA (“Plaintiff”) brings this case against ROCHELLE STERLING and DONALD STERLING dba BEVERLY HILLS PLAZA HOTEL & SPA (“Defendants”) alleging individual wage and hour claims and PAGA penalties.

Defendants bring a motion and joinder to compel arbitration and stay Plaintiff’s non-individual representative PAGA claim pending the outcome of the arbitration. Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual claims but does oppose Defendants’ request to stay the non-individual PAGA portion of the case pending the outcome of the arbitration.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[W]here a plaintiff has filed a PAGA action comprised of individual and non-individual claims, an order compelling arbitration of individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing to litigate non-individual claims in court.” Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1123.

ANALYSIS

Where issues of a PAGA Complaint might overlap with issues subject to arbitration of individual claims, trial courts must decide whether an appropriate stay of the non-individual PAGA claims is warranted under the circumstances. Barrera v. Apple Am. Grp. LLC (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 63, 95. See also Leenay v. Superior Court (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 553, 571 (“under a correct interpretation of [Code of Civil Procedure] section 1281.4, the trial court is not authorized to stay her action on the basis of a nonparty’s arbitration claim. That is the rule for all actions, but it is important particularly in PAGA actions, which are law enforcement actions on behalf of the state.”)

Leenay, supra, relying on Jarbo v. Hanlee Auto Group (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 539, 557, distinguishably addressed staying a case involving no plaintiff and no defendant as being parties to an arbitration agreement. The opinion is not a split of authority, but factually distinguishable.

Here, the individual Plaintiff and Defendants are parties to an arbitration agreement. Additionally, the FAC makes clear that the issues of Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees greatly overlap. For instance, the pleading states, “Defendants systematically failed to pay applicable minimum and overtime wages to Plaintiff and other aggrieved non-exempt employees….”  FAC. ¶ 14.

Therefore, the Court determines that a stay of the non-individual claims is warranted.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted. Plaintiff and Defendants shall arbitrate the controversies between them. 

The non-individual representative PAGA portion of the First Amended Complaint is stayed until such arbitration has been completed.

The Court will set a post-arbitration status conference at the hearing.