Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 23STCV10613, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10613    Hearing Date: September 21, 2023    Dept: 68

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Maribel Martinez vs. Infosys Limited, 23STCV10613

Moving Party: Defendant Infosys Limited

Motion

Defendant Infosys Limited (Defendant) filed this motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement between the parties. Defendant requests that Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims be compelled to arbitration and her representative/non-individual PAGA claims be stayed pending the arbitration. Plaintiff Maribel Martinez (Plaintiff) does not dispute that the agreement exists or that the arbitration agreement is enforceable. Instead, Plaintiff’s opposition hinges on whether a particular clause in the arbitration agreement would require both the individual and non-individual PAGA claims to be heard in court. Defendant disagrees with Plaintiff’s interpretation of the agreement.

            The following is the section of the agreement at issue:

(b) REPRESENTATIVE ACTION WAIVER. Infosys and Signer also hereby waive any right for any dispute to be brought, heard, decided, or arbitrated as a PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL REPRESENTATIVE ACTION (“Representative Action Waiver”). Nor shall the Arbitrator have any authority to hear or arbitrate any such dispute.

The Representative Action Waiver does not apply to any claim that Signer brings in arbitration as a private attorney general solely on his/her own behalf and not on behalf of or regarding others. The Representative Action Waiver shall be severable from this Agreement in any case in which there is a final judicial determination that the Representative Action Waiver is invalid, unenforceable, unconscionable, void or voidable. In such instances and where the claim is brought as a private attorney general, such private attorney general claim must be litigated in a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

(Polanowski Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiff argues that the Representative Action Waiver is invalid because a Plaintiff’s right to bring a representative/non-individual PAGA action is not waivable. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 383.) Because this is not waivable, Plaintiff argues that this section is severable and she may bring a representative/non-individual PAGA claim in court, not in arbitration. However, Plaintiff goes one step further and argues that this section also means that her individual PAGA claim must also be heard in Court rather than in arbitration. Her argument is based on the idea that severing the waiver section would mean excising the entire section.

            Defendant disagrees with Plaintiff’s interpretation. This section of the agreement has a sentence that states “The Representative Action Waiver does not apply to any claim that Signer brings in arbitration as a private attorney general solely on his/her own behalf and not on behalf of or regarding others.” Defendant argues that this statement means that the severability part of this section would only apply to Plaintiff’s representative claims, meaning that only those claims would be litigated in court, and Plaintiff’s individual claims would proceed in arbitration.

            The Court agrees with Defendant’s interpretation of the Representative Action Waiver section. The section includes a clear statement that the section does not apply to individual PAGA claims. Because the waiver provision must be severed pursuant to Iskanian, that means that Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims would proceed in arbitration and her representative/non-individual PAGA claims would be stayed pending arbitration and would be heard in court.

This outcome is allowable because of a recent California Supreme Court decision. Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104 held that when a Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims are compelled to arbitration, the Plaintiff’s representative/non-individual PAGA claims may still be stayed pending arbitration and litigated in court. Arbitrating the individual claims does not strip a plaintiff of standing to litigate non-individual claims in court.

Order

            Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims to arbitration is granted. Litigation of Plaintiff’s representative/non-individual PAGA claims is stayed pending arbitration.