Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV18405, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18405    Hearing Date: October 4, 2023    Dept: 74

Ricardo Torres v. Lancaster Hospital Corporation

Motion to Compel Arbitration

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

TENTATIVE RULING

            The court grants this motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Ricardo Torres’s non-PAGA claims and individual PAGA claims. In addition, the court will stay Plaintiff’s representative, non-individual PAGA claims pending the arbitrator’s ruling of his individual PAGA claims and non-PAGA claims.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff Ricardo Torres (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Lancaster Hospital Corporation (Defendant).

            The complaint alleges the following causes of action: failure to compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay wages owed every pay period; failure to give rest breaks; failure to give meal breaks; failure to provide personnel records; Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA); failure to pay wages when employment ends; and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

            On September 2, 2022, Defendant filed this motion to compel arbitration.

DISCUSSION

            In support of its motion, Defendant provides the arbitration agreement, which Plaintiff signed on November 18, 2019. (Fernandez Decl., ¶ 6; Ex. A.) This evidence suggests a valid agreement is in place. Defendant further contends that the court should order Plaintiff’s non-PAGA claims and individual PAGA claims to arbitration. Additionally, Defendant makes the case that the court should dismiss Plaintiff’s representative, non-individual PAGA claims for lack of standing. In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906, 1924-1925 (Viking), the Supreme Court held that private arbitration agreements cannot effectuate a wholesale waiver of PAGA claims. But the Supreme Court also held that an employee who has entered an enforceable arbitration agreement may be compelled to arbitrate his individual PAGA claims. (Ibid.)

            Plaintiff in turn argues the court should deny this motion and find the agreement unenforceable because the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not apply. As Defendant notes, though, the agreement states the FAA governs it. (Fernandez Decl., ¶ 6; Ex. A, § 1; Victrola 89, LLC v. Jaman Properties 8, LLC (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 337, 347-348 [holding that FAA governed enforcement of arbitration agreement because agreement expressly provided as much].) Alternatively, Plaintiff argues the court should not dismiss his representative, non-individual PAGA claims. Since the parties filed their supporting papers, the California Supreme Court held that “[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 v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1128.) Accordingly, the court will stay Plaintiff’s non-individual PAGA claims pending the arbitrator’s ruling of his individual PAGA claims and non-PAGA claims.

CONCLUSION

                Based on the foregoing, the court grants Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s non-PAGA claims and individual PAGA claims. The court denies Defendant’s request to dismiss Plaintiff’s non-individual PAGA claims; instead, the court stays the non-individual PAGA claims pending the arbitration’s outcome.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.