Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV27027, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27027    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.  Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.  If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

            This is a PAGA action based upon hospital Defendants’ alleged health and safety violations in the workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Defendants HCA Healthcare, Inc. and Far West Division, Inc. move to stay this action pending the resolution of another PAGA action against Defendant employers.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants HCA Healthcare, Inc. and Far West Division, Inc.’s motion to stay this action pending the resolution of Jona Stocker v. HCA Health Services of California, Inc. et al., LASC Case No. 21STCV12638 is DENIED. 

ANALYSIS

Motion To Stay

Defendants HCA Healthcare, Inc. and Far West Division, Inc. move to stay this action pending the resolution of another PAGA action against Defendant employers, Jona Stocker v. HCA Health Services of California, Inc. et al., LASC Case No. 21STCV12638 (the Stocker Action).

            Defendants expressly do not invoke the doctrines of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction or a plea in abatement. Thus, the Court does not address Plaintiff’s arguments as to these issues.

            Defendants move for an order staying or dismissing this PAGA action pursuant to CCP § 404.1. (See Notice of Motion, Page 1:13-15.) However, this code section deals with coordination of civil actions.

Coordination of civil actions sharing a common question of fact or law is appropriate if one judge hearing all of the actions for all purposes in a selected site or sites will promote the ends of justice taking into account whether the common question of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation; the convenience of parties, witnesses, and counsel; the relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel; the efficient utilization of judicial facilities and manpower; the calendar of the courts; the disadvantages of duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders, or judgments; and, the likelihood of settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be denied.

     (Civ. Proc. Code § 404.1.)

            However, Defendant acknowledges that it is not seeking coordination of this action with the Stocker action. As such, § 404.1 is not relevant to this motion. In the Reply, Defendants appeal to the Court’s inherent authority to control proceedings before it.

            “Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.)

            The Court sets forth the following relevant litigation timeline:

¿         Jhonna Porter v. West Hills Hospital, LASC Case No. 21STCV27027

¿         07/22/21: Complaint filed.

¿         02/23/22: First Amended Complaint filed.

¿         03/28/22: Far West Division, Inc. substituted in as Doe 1.

¿         08/05/22: HCA Far West dismissed without prejudice.

¿         10/18/22: Defendant West Hills Hospital’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s PAGA claim asserting violations of CAL-OSHA in the 1AC is granted as to the portions specified in the October 18, 2022 minute order. 

Following the Court’s October 18, 2022 ruling on the motion to strike, the only remaining viable theory set forth in the operative First Amended Complaint is Count One for Workplace Pay Violations, against Defendants West Hills Hospital and HCA Healthcare, Inc. This count is based upon the allegation that Defendants have failed to provide required and adequate breaks to Plaintiff and other aggrieved California employees required to work through the COVID pandemic. (1AC, ¶ 34.)

Plaintiff alleges that she and other aggrieved employees were not paid for time needed to don and doff PPE and/or for breaks due to understaffing. (Id.) The relevant period of employment for Plaintiff and the other aggrieve California employees employed by Defendants is from December 1, 2019 to the present. (1AC, ¶ 16.) This is naturally limited further by the dates when PPE was actually utilized by the aggrieved employees due to the COVID pandemic.

However, the Stocker action (discussed below) does not address unpaid time spent donning and doffing PPE, and for missed breaks due to understaffing during the COVID pandemic, to the extent this might be conceptually distinct from any other missed breaks. It is conceivable that these type of break violations might be distinct from those in Stocker, because if shifts were understaffed during the COVID pandemic, this would go to whether there was a uniform policy or practice which has the effect of making it likely that non-exempt employees would miss rest/meal breaks because they were required to be available for work during those periods:

[A]n employer may be liable even when it makes rest and meal breaks available to nonexempt employees, if it also requires them to be available for work during those periods. (See Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1104 [56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 880, 155 P.3d 284] [requirement to provide rest/meal periods implies that employee will “be free of the employer's control during the meal period”]; see also Sotelo, supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 654 [a class may establish  [*1001]  liability “by proving a uniform policy or practice by the employer that has the effect on the group of making it likely that group members will … miss rest/meal breaks”].)

(Dailey v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 974, 1000-01 [bold emphasis added].)

¿         Jona Stocker v. HCA Health Services of California, Inc. v. West Hills Hospital, et al. LASC Case No. 21STCV12683.

¿         04/02/21: Complaint filed.

¿         10/18/21: First Amended Complaint filed.

¿         09/14/22: HCA Healthcare substituted in as Doe 1; HCA – Hospital Corporation of America substituted in as Doe 2.

The operative First Amended Complaint in Stocker asserts causes of action against Defendants HCA Health Services of California, Inc., West Hills Hospital, HCA Healthcare and HCA – Hospital Corporation of America for: (1) failure to pay wages; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to permit rest breaks; (4) failure to pay all wages due within the required time and upon separation of employment; (5) failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (6) violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 1700, et seq.; and (7) enforcement of the PAGA, Labor Code §§ 2698, et seq.

As noted above, the Stocker action does not address unpaid time spent donning and doffing PPE, and for missed breaks due to understaffing during the COVID pandemic. Moreover, it appears that the period of recovery on behalf of aggrieved employees for purposes of the PAGA claim is from September 4, 2020 to the date of class certification. (Stocker 1AC, ¶ 18.)

¿         Jona Stocker v. HCA Health Services of California, et al., LASC Case No. 21STCV24524

¿         07/02/21: Complaint filed.

¿         10/05/21: Entire action dismissed without prejudice.

¿         10/19/21: Order granting request for dismissal of PAGA claim without prejudice entered.

            The PAGA Complaint in this action sought to recover civil penalties for failure to receive minimum and overtime wages, for missed meal and rest breaks for which the additional hour of pay was not compensated, for failure to timely pay wages upon separation of employment, and for failure to provide accurate wage statements . (Stocker PAGA Complaint, ¶¶ 22 – 26.) The relevant time period was not alleged in that Complaint. However, the Complaint was dismissed in October 2021, and thus is not relevant for purposes of this motion to stay.

            In that Defendant is expressly relying on the Court’s inherent discretion to order a stay of this action to avoid inconsistent judgments and conserver judicial resources, the Court exercises its discretion to deny such a stay. As noted above, the instant PAGA action seeks to recover for unpaid time spent donning and doffing PPE, and for missed breaks due to understaffing during the COVID pandemic, which are not addressed in the Stocker action, Case No. 21STCV12683. As such, while there is some overlap between this action and the Stocker action, there is not a complete overlap.

Further, there is no trial date set in that case and, indeed, must proceed through the arduous class certification process, and a class certification motion has not even been filed in that action. On the other hand, because class certification is not a part of this PAGA action, which is limited in scope as discussed above, it will most likely reach trial before Stocker. To the extent that judgment is entered in this action in favor of Plaintiff, such recovery can be carved out of the Stocker action, or the court can utilize some other provision to avoid double recovery.

            As such, the motion to stay this action is DENIED.