Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV30876, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30876    Hearing Date: May 17, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendant Propark America West, LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration of Individual PAGA Claim and Stay the Representative PAGA Claims

Defendant Propark America West, LLC moves to compel arbitration of plaintiff Nancy Benavides’s individual claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and moves to stay the representative PAGA claims.  (See Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639, 662-663 (Viking River); 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 the motion on two grounds.  First, she argues her first amended complaint (which she filed after defendant filed this motion) alleges only representative or non-individual claims, so there are no individual claims subject to arbitration under Viking River and Adolph.  (Opp., pp. 4-5.)  Second, she argues the parties’ arbitration agreement contains an unenforceable waiver of the right to bring a representative PAGA action and the agreement provides that a court is the exclusive forum for PAGA claims.  (Opp., pp. 5-7.) 

The parties’ agreement delegates to the arbitrator the power to rule on these gateway issues.  “Parties to an arbitration agreement may agree to delegate to the arbitrator, instead of a court, questions regarding the enforceability of the agreement.  [Citation.]  They ‘can agree to arbitrate almost any dispute—even a dispute over whether the underlying dispute is subject to arbitration.’ ”  (Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 231, 241.)  “There are two prerequisites for a delegation clause to be effective.  First, the language of the clause must be clear and unmistakable.  [Citation.]  Second, the delegation must not be revocable under state contract defenses such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.”  (Id. at p. 242.)

The parties’ agreement includes a clear and unmistakable delegation clause.  It provides, “[A]ny dispute whatsoever relating to the interpretation, validity, or performance of this Agreement shall be submitted to final binding arbitration.  If an arbitrator finds that a dispute is not covered by this Agreement, then the appropriate state or federal court will decide the claim.”  (Prevost Decl., Ex. J, p. 56.)  In plain language, this provision broadly requires the arbitrator to decide gateway issues of arbitrability, including whether a dispute is “covered by this Agreement.” 

Plaintiff does not demonstrate any basis for revoking the above provisions.  The party opposing arbitration “ ‘ “bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense.” ’ ”  (Kader v. Southern California Medical Center, Inc. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 214, 220-221.)  Plaintiff does not argue the delegation clause (or any part of the agreement) is revocable.  Plaintiff’s opposition does not address defendant’s delegation argument.

Disposition

            Defendant Propark America West, LLC’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim and stay representative PAGA claims is granted.  The court hereby orders plaintiff Nancy Benavides to arbitrate her disputes with defendant, including gateway issues of arbitrability and the scope of the arbitration agreement, but not including plaintiff’s representative PAGA claims.  The court hereby stays the entire action pending resolution of the arbitration proceeding.