Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV30025, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30025    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff Asia Thompson filed this PAGA action against Defendants La Petite Academy Inc. and Learning Care Group (MI), Inc.

            On January 25, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration as to Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims but deferred ruling on Defendants’ request to dismiss the representative PAGA claims pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104. The Court stayed the representative PAGA claims. The Supreme Court subsequently ruled in Adolph that a plaintiff does not lose standing to pursue representative claims simply because her individual claims are compelled to arbitration. Plaintiff thereafter sought to continue litigation on her representative claims.

            On December 15, 2023, Defendants filed the instant motion to maintain the stay as to the representative PAGA claims after Plaintiff attempted to conduct discovery on those claims. Plaintiff filed her opposition on January 17, 2024. Defendants filed their reply on January 24, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

 “If a court . . . has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court . . . the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.) Additionally, “[c]ourts have inherent authority to control their own calendars and dockets . . . .” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 267.) This includes “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.)

DISCUSSION

Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff propounded discovery and attempted to continue litigating the representative PAGA claims even though the stay has not been lifted. This represents a violation of the Court’s order on the motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff only argues after the fact, in her opposition to this motion, that “the Court should lift the stay.” (See Opp. 3:5-8.) However, Plaintiff should have filed a separate motion to lift the stay before propounding discovery in the first place. In any case, for the reasons articulated below, the Court agrees with Defendant that the stay should remain in place.    

“[T]he trial court may exercise its discretion to stay the non-individual claims pending the outcome of the arbitration.” (Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1123.) Such a stay is warranted because an arbitrator’s findings may have preclusive effect on the litigation of the representative claims, particularly on the issue of Plaintiff’s standing as an “aggrieved employee.” (See id. at p. 1124; see also Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of California (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 65, 77-78.) “Because the issues subject to litigation under the PAGA might overlap those that are subject to arbitration of [Plaintiff’s] individual claims, the trial court must order an appropriate stay of trial court proceedings.” (Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 947, 966.) “The stay's purpose is to preserve the status quo until the arbitration is resolved, preventing any continuing trial court proceedings from disrupting and rendering ineffective the arbitrator's jurisdiction to decide the issues that are subject to arbitration.” (Ibid.)

Here, a stay is justified to prevent duplicative litigation and inconsistent findings. Because the individual and representative claims arise from similar alleged violations, there will be numerous overlapping issues of law and fact, including Plaintiff’s standing as an “aggrieved employee.” As Defendants point out, the findings in arbitration may have a dispositive effect on Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claims. Although the representative claims cannot be dismissed outright simply because the individual claims are compelled to arbitration, the representative claims should still be stayed for the foregoing reasons.  

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion to stay is GRANTED. Litigation on the representative PAGA claims remains stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.