Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2021-00038129-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 05, 2023

10/06/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00038129-CU-OE-CTL MORENO VS EAGLE FOODS LLC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The Court's Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to C.C.P. section 1008(c) of the Court's previous order dismissing Plaintiff's 'representative PAGA' claim is GRANTED.

Background On July 15, 2022, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and dismissed Plaintiff's representative claims brought under the Private Attorney General Act. (ROA 53 – Minute Order dated July 15, 2022.) On January 27, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the arbitration ruling as untimely and, on its own motion, moved to reconsider under C.C.P. section 1008(c).

(ROA 59 – Minute Order dated Jan. 27, 2023; ROA 70 – Minute Order dated March 28, 2023.) On July 17, 2023, and after the parties' submitted briefing on the Court's Motion for Reconsideration, the California Supreme Court decided Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., holding '[w]here a plaintiff has brought a PAGA action comprising individual and non-individual claims, an order compelling arbitration of the individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing as an aggrieved employee to litigate claims on behalf of other employees under PAGA.' (Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1114.) The Court continued the motion to allow the parties an opportunity to brief Adolph. (ROA 89 – Minute Order dated July 28, 2023.) Preliminary Matters Plaintiff's supplemental request for judicial notice is granted and notice will be taken to the extent permitted.

Plaintiff's supplemental reply request for judicial notice is granted and notice will be taken to the extent permitted.

Contrary to Defendants' argument, the court can still grant reconsideration as a judgment has not been entered. (See, Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 192 [trial courts may not rule on motions for reconsideration after entry of judgment].) The requirements of C.C.P. section 1008 are not jurisdictional and do not divest a court of its inherent power to correct its interim rulings.

(Magallanes v. Superior Court (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 878, 882.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3002540  42 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MORENO VS EAGLE FOODS LLC [E-FILE]  37-2021-00038129-CU-OE-CTL Discussion 'If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.' (C.C.P., § 1008(c).) Here, as discussed below, since the Court's July 15, 2022, order dismissing the representative (non-individual) PAGA claim, there has been a change of law that warrants the Court to reconsider the July 15 order.

The Court's July 15, 2022, order dismissing the representative (non-individual) PAGA claim relied on language in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1096. (ROA 53.) Although Viking River indicated the 'correct course' is to dismiss the remaining non-individual PAGA claims due to a lack of standing, both concurrences acknowledged this to be a question of state law. (See, Viking River, supra, 142 S.Ct. at p. 1925-26 (conc. opn. of Sotomayor, J.); id., at p. 1926 (conc. opn. in part of Barrett, J., Kavanaugh, J., Roberts, C.J.).) On July 17, 2023 in Adolph, supra, the California Supreme Court decided this state law question, concluding 'a plaintiff who files a PAGA action with individual and non-individual claims does not lose standing to litigate the non-individual claims in court simply because the individual claims have been ordered to arbitration.' (Adolph, supra, at p. 1104; see also, Barrera v. Apple American Group, LLC (2023) (Aug. 31, 2023, No. A165445) 2023 WL 5620678, at *13 (applying Adolph and concluding plaintiffs maintain standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims in court).) In light of Adolph and Barrera, dismissal of Plaintiff's representative claims is improper and they must be reinstated.

The Court will also stay the representative (non-individual) claim pending the outcome of the arbitration pursuant to C.C.P. section 1281.4. (Adolph, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 1123-24 (approving this manner of proceeding).) For these reasons, the Court's motion is GRANTED.

Concluding Orders The Court sets aside the July 15, 2022, order only to the extent it dismissed Plaintiff's representative PAGA claim.

Plaintiff's representative (non-individual) PAGA claim is reinstated.

Plaintiff's representative (non-individual) PAGA claim is stayed pending the outcome of Plaintiff's individual claim currently in arbitration.

The Status Conference set for October 6, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. remains on calendar.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the minute order will be the Court's final order.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3002540  42