Judge Armen Tamzarian, Case Number: 23STCV02348, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV02348, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02348 Hearing Date: October 20, 2023 Dept: 52

Defendant Little Brothers Bakery, LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

Defendant Little Brothers Bakery, LLC moves to compel arbitration of all individual claims by plaintiff Gustavo Guillen Orozco and to stay the remaining representative PAGA cause of action. (See Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. –––– [142 S.Ct. 1906], 213 L.Ed.2d 179; Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1113-1114 (Adolph) [discussing arbitrable “individual” PAGA claims and nonarbitrable representative or “non-individual” claims].)

Plaintiff opposes this motion only as to staying the remaining non-individual PAGA claims. Defendant argues the court must stay those claims under both the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and California Arbitration Act (CAA). Plaintiff argues the court is not required to stay the non-individual claims. But plaintiff does not argue or provide any authority that the court cannot stay the non-individual claims.

The court does not reach the issue of whether it is required to stay the non-individual PAGA claims. It instead exercises its discretion to issue a stay. “When a case includes arbitrable and nonarbitrable issues, the issues may be adjudicated in different forums while remaining part of the same action.” (Adolph, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 1124.) “[T]he cause remains one action, parts of which may be stayed pending completion of the arbitration.” (Ibid.)

Under the CAA, courts “may order arbitration among the parties who have agreed to arbitration and stay the pending court action or special proceeding pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding.” (CCP § 1281.2.) In other circumstances, when a court “has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State,” the court “shall … stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate.” (CCP § 1281.4.)

Under the FAA, courts must stay an action where “the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under” an arbitration “agreement.” (9 U.S.C § 3.) It is not clear, however, that this provision applies to proceedings in state court. (Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University (1989) 489 U.S. 468, 477, fn. 6 [noting the United States Supreme Court has not held this provision applies to state court proceedings]; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 410 [holding “section 4 of the USAA does not apply in California court” but not deciding whether section 3 applies].)

Independent of the CAA and FAA, courts have inherent authority to stay proceedings. (Landis v. North American Co. (1936) 299 U.S. 248, 254 [“the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”]; Nederlandse Erts-Tankersmaatschappij, N.V. v. Isbrandtsen Co. (2nd Cir. 1964) 339 F.2d 440, 441 [no authority under 9 U.S.C. § 3 to stay action, but stay permitted under district court’s inherent power to control its docket]; Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489 [“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency”].) Even assuming the CAA and FAA neither require nor authorize the court to stay the representative PAGA claims, the court would exercise its inherent authority to issue a stay.

Plaintiff argues the court should not stay the non-individual PAGA claims because he could have filed two separate actions: one for his individual claims under the Labor Code and a second for the PAGA claims. But plaintiff’s opposition acknowledges that does not mean the court would be unable to stay the PAGA claims. Plaintiff argues, “Defendant might seek to combine the two actions under Code of Civ. Proc. §378 (joinder of parties), and then seek a stay under §1281.4, however, that is likely unworkable given the individual action is proceeding under the rules of arbitration and under that jurisdiction.” (Opp., p. 3.) The court finds staying the non-individual PAGA claims is workable. It exercises its discretion to do so.

Disposition

Defendant Little Brothers Bakery, LLC’s motion to compel arbitration is granted. Plaintiff Gustavo Guillen Orozco is hereby ordered to arbitrate his individual PAGA claims and his second through 11th causes of action against defendant Little Brothers Bakery, LLC. The court hereby stays the entire action pending the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding.