Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV37772, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37772    Hearing Date: January 18, 2023    Dept: 68

Martin Avalos, et al. vs. PerkinElmer, Inc., et al., Case Number: 21STCV37772

Background and Analysis

            Plaintiffs Avalos and Castillo filed this one lawsuit against Defendants for claims related to their employment with Defendants. On July 5, 2022, a motion to compel arbitration was granted by the Court as to Plaintiff Castillo’s arbitrable claims, and the entire action was stayed pending arbitration of Plaintiff Castillo’s claims. (07-05-2022 Minute Order.)

            On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff Avalos filed a motion to lift stay as to his claims (though it may be better to characterize the motion to lift stay as a motion for reconsideration). This motion was based on Leenay v. Superior Court(2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 553 (Leenay), which stated that “Section 1281.4 [of the Code of Civil Procedure] does not authorize the court to stay a plaintiff’s action on the basis of a pending arbitration to which the plaintiff is not a party.” (Motion at pp. 3-4.). (That statement appears to be much broader in reach than the actual facts and discussion of the Court might suggest are the basis for the ruling.)

“In March 2021, Lowe's moved to stay the coordinated PAGA actions pending resolution of over 50 arbitration proceedings against Lowe's. The arbitration claimants were current or former employees at various Lowe's locations in California, and they brought their claims on an individual basis. *561 They alleged numerous wage and hour violations under the Labor Code, including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to reimburse for required expenses, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to pay wages due upon discharge or resignation. The group of arbitration claimants did not include Leenay or any of the other plaintiffs in the coordinated actions.” Leenay v. Superior Court (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 553, 560–561 [297 Cal.Rptr.3d 204, 208, 81 Cal.App.5th 553, 560–561]. (Bold Added.)

While Plaintiff Avalos is not a party to Plaintiff Castillo’s arbitration, this action is distinguished from Leenay because Plaintiff Avalos and Plaintiff Castillo made a choice to become co-plaintiffs in one singular case, and are not simply multiple plaintiffs in a coordinated proceeding with similar claims, none of whom were involved in the arbitrations, as was the case in Leenay.  Additionally, it is not clear that Leenay even applies because it is related to the CAA and not the FAA, which governs Plaintiff Castillo’s agreement.

            Having chosen to join his case with the Castillo’s case, Plaintiff Avalos is essentially asking that his part of the litigation be allowed to proceed independently of Plaintiff Castillo’s part of the litigation. If he had wished to have an independent case against Defendants, he could have filed a separate action. He did not do this. The stay pending arbitration of Plaintiff Castillo’s arbitrable claims is applicable to this one case, not just Plaintiff Castillo’s part of the single lawsuit.

In Leenay, because there were so many coordinated cases, the stay could have lasted indefinitely. Here, Plaintiff Avalos must only wait until Plaintiff Castillo’s arbitrable claims are arbitrated. Because Avalos and Castillo are co-plaintiffs, the case cannot proceed without both Plaintiffs.

            Plaintiff’s motion to lift stay is DENIED.