Judge: Glenda Sanders, Case: 2021-01238445, Date: 2022-11-17 Tentative Ruling

In this PAGA-only action, Defendant Nutrition Corp., Inc. seeks to compel Plaintiff Dorian Gibson, Jesse Gibson and Wendy Carranza (collectively, Plaintiffs) to arbitrate their individual PAGA claims and to dismiss their non-individual PAGA claims.

Defendant presents evidence that each of the Plaintiffs signed an Arbitration Agreement at about the time they began their employment with Defendant. ROA 34, Valdiviezo Decl., ¶¶9-12 and Exs. A, B and C. The Arbitration Agreements apply to the disputes here. ROA 34, Exs. A, B and C, ¶2.

The Arbitration Agreement requires arbitration on an “individual basis”. ROA 34, Exs. A, B and C, ¶5. The Arbitration Agreements also contain a waiver of representative, collective and class actions. ROA 34, Exs. A, B and C, ¶3. However, the Arbitration Agreement excludes “any claim which cannot be subject to arbitration under applicable state or federal law or regulation” and do not “prohibit Employee from pursuing…a representative action under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).” ROA 34, Exs. A, B and C, ¶4.

Defendant has satisfied its burden of proof, and Plaintiffs do not oppose this Motion.

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to arbitrate their individual PAGA claims.

However, for the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES the request to dismiss the non-individual PAGA claims, without prejudice to Defendant raising the issue again when the arbitration on Plaintiffs’ individual claims concludes. 

The California Supreme Court has granted review in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, S274671, to answer the question “The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: Whether an aggrieved employee who has been compelled to arbitrate claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that are ‘premised on Labor Code violations actually sustained by’ the aggrieved employee [citation] maintains statutory standing to pursue ‘PAGA claims arising out of events involving other employees’ [citation] in court or in any other forum the parties agree is suitable.”

Were this Court to dismiss the representative PAGA claims only for Adolph to reach a different conclusion than that of the majority in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906, both judicial economy and the parties’ resources would be taxed by attempts to unwind the dismissal.

The Court orders that this matter is STAYED pending completion of the arbitration of the individual PAGA claims. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)

A status conference is scheduled for May 12, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., and the parties are ordered to file a joint status report not later than May 5, 2023.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.