Judge Blaine K. Bowman, Case Number: 37-2023-00046612-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2023-00046612-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024

06/14/2024 08:30:00 AM C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00046612-CU-OE-CTL ORTUNO VS DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court addresses the evidentiary issues. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. In light of the ruling below, the court does not reach Plaintiff's evidentiary objections.

The court then rules as follows. Defendant Dunn-Edwards Corporation's motion to compel arbitration is DENIED.

In its notice of motion Dunn-Edwards states it seeks an order compelling Plaintiff 'to submit his non-severable individual claims under the California Private Attorneys Act ('PAGA') to binding arbitration.' However, in Dunn-Edwards' memorandum of points and authorities Dunn-Edwards acknowledges that Plaintiff's complaint does not allege an individual PAGA claim. The complaint begins as follows: 'COMES NOW Plaintiff MARCELINO ORTUNO ('Plaintiff'), in a Representative capacity only, . . . .' [Emphasis in original.] At paragraph 11 the complaint alleges: 'Plaintiff brings this action in a representative capacity on behalf of all current and former aggrieved employees . . . . ' Absent the complaint alleging an individual PAGA claim there is no basis to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's individual PAGA claim. Therefore, Dunn-Edwards' motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's individual PAGA claim is DENIED.

In its memorandum of points and authorities Dunn-Edwards asks the court to 1) compel Plaintiff to bring an individual PAGA claim and 2) stay the representative PAGA claim pending completion of the arbitration of Plaintiff's individual PAGA claim. Dunn-Edwards fails to provide any authority under which this court may compel Plaintiff to bring an individual PAGA claim. Absent arbitration of Plaintiff's individual PAGA claim, there is no basis to stay this matter pending completion of arbitration of Plaintiff's individual PAGA claim.

Dunn-Edwards goes on to argue that Plaintiff's attempt to pursue a representative-only PAGA claim, without also pursing an individual PAGA claim, is contrary to California law and contrary to Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 569 U.S. 639, 142 S.Ct. 1906, 213 L.Ed.2d 179. The court finds this issue is more properly suited to a pleading challenge. However, because the parties have briefed the issue, the court addresses the parties' arguments in the context of this motion to compel arbitration.

The court finds Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533 dispositive.

Balderas specifically holds that an employee who does not bring an individual PAGA claim against his/her employer may nevertheless bring a representative PAGA action for himself/herself and other employees of the company. Balderas, 320 Cal.Rptr.3d at 327. As in this case, the complaint in Balderas alleged: Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3100514 11 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ORTUNO VS DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION [IMAGED] 37-2023-00046612-CU-OE-CTL 'Ms. Balderas [plaintiff] is not suing in her individual capacity; she is proceeding herein solely under the PAGA, on behalf of the State of California for all aggrieved employees, including herself and other aggrieved employees.' Balderas, 320 Cal.Rptr.3d at 327. After first recognizing authority holding that the California Supreme Court is not bound by the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of California law, Balderas goes on.

The Adolph court concluded that the Viking River requirement of having to file an individual PAGA cause of action to achieve standing to file a representative PAGA suit was incorrect. There are only two requirements for PAGA standing. 'The plaintiff must allege that he or she is (1) 'someone 'who was employed by the alleged violator' ' and (2) someone ' 'against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.' ' ' (Adolph, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 1120, 310 Cal.Rptr.3d 668, 532 P.3d 682.) Balderas met the standing requirements. She alleged that she 1) was an 'aggrieved' employee of Fresh Start, and 2) was subject to one or more Fresh Start violations. . . . .

Fresh Start claims more is required for standing than what Balderas alleged. But our Supreme Court rejected this claim in Adolph. The court declined 'to impose additional requirements not found in the statute.' (Adolph, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 1120, 310 Cal.Rptr.3d 668, 532 P.3d 682.) 'A narrower construction of PAGA standing would 'thwart the Legislature's clear intent to deputize employees to pursue sanctions on the state's behalf.' ' (Id. at p. 1122, 310 Cal.Rptr.3d 668, 532 P.3d 682; see also Johnson v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 924, 281 Cal.Rptr.3d 478 [employee need not bring an individual claim against her employer to have standing to pursue a PAGA claim; it is sufficient to allege the employee suffered a Labor Code violation].) Balderas, 320 Cal.Rptr.3d at 329–330.

The court finds the complaint sufficiently alleges that Plaintiff was an aggrieved employee of, and employed by, Dunn-Edwards and that Plaintiff was subject to one or more Labor Code violations by Dunn-Edwards [Cplt. ¶ 11]. Under Balderas and the authorities cited therein, nothing else is required to establish standing.

The court is not persuaded by any of the arguments Dunn-Edwards raises in reply. Dunn-Edwards' statutory interpretation arguments are directly at odds with Balderas and the analysis in Adolph, Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73 and Johnson v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.

(2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 924, all of which allow a plaintiff who satisfies the standing requirements to pursue a representative-only PAGA claim. Dunn-Edwards' reliance on Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, abrogated by Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 [142 S.Ct. 1906, 213 L.Ed.2d 179] is misplaced. Preliminarily, Iskanian does not directly address the issue of whether a plaintiff may bring a representative-only PAGA claim. Moreover, Dunn-Edwards ignores the significant developments in the law since Iskanian. Dunn-Edwards argues that Balderas 'need not be followed' by this court. However, Dunn-Edwards fails to provide a persuasive reason why this court should disregard the binding precedent of Balderas.

In light of this ruling the court does not address the other issues the parties raise.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3100514 11 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ORTUNO VS DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION [IMAGED] 37-2023-00046612-CU-OE-CTL appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3100514 11