Judge: David Sotelo, Case: 22STCV10155, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV10155 Hearing Date: October 14, 2022 Dept: 40
MOVING PARTY: Defendant King’s
Seafood Company, LLC.
Defendant brings an opposed Motion to Compel Warner’s Individual Arbitration and to
Dismiss Representative Claims in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Viking
River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S. Ct. 1906.
After review and as
discussed infra, the Court GRANTS as to arbitration of Warner’s individual
claims and (2) DENIES dismissal the Representative PAGA claims.
The latter claims
are instead STAYED pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings on
Plaintiff Warner’s individual claims against King’s and pending the outcome of
the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
The Court DECLINES to take Judicial Notice of (1) three
unrelated grants of Motions to Compel Arbitration in favor of King’s in this
Superior Court and in the San Diego Superior Court and (2) the Court of Appeal
for the Fourth Appellate District’s decision in Gavriiloglou v. Prime
Healthcare Mgmt. (2022) 2022 WL 3695606: the outcome of those proceedings is not relevant
to the disposition of the instant Motion.
In a Limited Opposition, Plaintiff Warner “agree[s] to
submit her individual claims to arbitration” but argues that her representative
PAGA claims should be stayed pursuant to Kim v. Reins International
California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73 and pending the California Supreme
Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2022) 2022 Cal.
LEXIS 4066 at *1. (Opp’n, 1:7-10 [Warner’s concession to arbitration of her
individual PAGA claims], 1:19-4:25 [standing arguments related to whether
dismissal is appropriate in relation to Warner’s representative PAGA claims,
including discussion of Kim, supra], 4:26-5:9 [request for stay considering
Adolph, supra].)
On Reply, King’s argues that “SCOTUS concluded that a
plaintiff lacks standing to pursue a representative PAGA claim if her
individual PAGA claim is compelled to arbitration” and that none of Warner’s
Opposition arguments to the contrary are availing. (Reply, 1:10-15 [quoted
language], 1:15-4:26 [arguments for why Opposition is incorrect as to dismissal
v. stay of representative PAGA claims].)
Based on King’s invocation of the parties’ arbitration agreement
and Warner’s agreement to submit her individual claims to arbitration, the
Court GRANTS this Motion to Compel Arbitration, in Part, insofar as it requests
that Warner’s individual PAGA claims be submitted to an arbiter.
Regarding dismissal of Warner’s representative PAGA claims,
the Court notes that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River
Cruises, supra, held that a plaintiff loses standing to assert a representative
PAGA claim once her own individual claims are compelled to arbitration. (Viking
River Cruises, supra, 142 S.Ct. at p. 1925; see Mot., 9:5-25.)
However, as argued by Plaintiff Warner, the California Supreme Court has held
that a plaintiff retains standing even after their individual claims are
settled. (Kim, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 80; see Opp’n, 4:5-23; cf. Reply,
1:26-2:27.)
Only an “aggrieved employee” has standing to sue under PAGA.
(Lab. Code, § 2699, subd. (a).) An “aggrieved employee” is defined as someone
“who was employed by the alleged violator” and “against whom one or more of the
alleged violations was committed.” (Lab. Code, § subd. (c).) This does not
require an employee to actually maintain a claim against the employer to have standing.
“The remedy for a Labor Code violation, through settlement or other means, is
distinct from the fact of the violation itself.” (Kim, supra, 9
Cal.5th at p. 84.) “The Legislature defined PAGA standing in terms of
violations, not injury. [Plaintiff] became an aggrieved employee, and had PAGA
standing, when one or more Labor Code violations were committed against [her].
(See § 2699(c).) Settlement [would] not nullify these violations.” (Ibid.)
By the same logic, arbitration of the individual claims would also not nullify
those violations.
Plaintiff’s Representative—PAGA—claims are STAYED pending
the arbitration of Warner’s individual claims.
King’s Seafood Company, LLC’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Individual
Arbitration is GRANTED. However, the request for Dismissal of the Representative
PAGA Claims is DENIED and those claims are STAYED pending the outcome of
arbitration proceedings on Warner’s individual claims against King’s Seafood
and the outcome of the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber
Technologies, Inc.