Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV33084, Date: 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV33084    Hearing Date: January 11, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants (“Moving Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failure to pay compensation due upon separation; and (7) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200.

On December 25, 2022, Moving Defendants filed a motion to consolidate arbitrations (the “Motion”).  The Motion seeks to consolidate the arbitration proceedings in this action with three other arbitration proceedings for the purposes of discovery and motion practice.[1]

DISCUSSION

California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1281.3 provides: “A party to an arbitration agreement may petition the court to consolidate separate arbitration proceedings, and the court may order consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings when: 

1.     Separate arbitration agreements or proceedings exist between the same parties; or one party is a party to a separate arbitration agreement or proceeding with a third party; and 

2.     The disputes arise from the same transactions or series of related transactions; and 

3.     There is common issue or issues of law or fact creating the possibility of conflicting rulings by more than one arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. 

If all of the applicable arbitration agreements name the same arbitrator, arbitration panel, or arbitration tribunal, the court, if it orders consolidation, shall order all matters to be heard before the arbitrator, panel, or tribunal agreed to by the parties.  If the applicable arbitration agreements name separate arbitrators, panels, or tribunals, the court, if it orders consolidation, shall, in the absence of an agreed method of selection by all parties to the consolidated arbitration, appoint an arbitrator in accord with the procedures set forth in Section 1281.6.  In the event that the arbitration agreements in consolidated proceedings contain inconsistent provisions, the court shall resolve such conflicts and determine the rights and duties of the various parties to achieve substantial justice under all the circumstances. 

The court may exercise its discretion under this section to deny consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings or to consolidate separate arbitration proceedings only as to certain issues, leaving other issues to be resolved in separate proceedings. 

This section shall not be applicable to an agreement to arbitrate disputes as to the professional negligence of a health care provider made pursuant to Section 1295.”  (CCP § 1281.3.)

Moving Defendants contend that consolidation is proper because the Plaintiffs in all four actions are asserting substantially similar claims and all signed the same arbitration agreement (the “Arbitration Agreement”).  (See Declaration of Henry H. Bahk (“Bahk Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4.)^[2]  All four Plaintiffs have served identical interrogatories on Moving Defendants.  (Bahk Decl. ¶ 6.)

The Arbitration Agreements Plaintiffs signed contain a provision stating:

 “To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Parties agree that they shall not join or consolidate claims submitted for arbitration under this Agreement with those of any other persons, and that no form of class, collective, or representative action shall be maintained without the mutual consent of the Parties. Notwithstanding any rules adopted by the arbitration company above that may provide otherwise, any dispute over the validity, effect, or enforceability of the provisions of this paragraph, including whether the arbitration may proceed as class, collective, or representative action, shall be for a court of law and not an arbitrator to decide.”  (Declaration of Sang H. Park (“Park Decl.”), Exhibits A-D at ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff indicates that the arbitration proceedings have different discovery schedules and different evidentiary hearing dates.  (See Park Decl. ¶¶ 5-9.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares that each of the four arbitrations commenced after Moving Defendants stipulated that the arbitration would be conducted in separate proceedings.  (Park Decl. ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff has not consented to consolidate arbitrations.  (Park Decl. ¶ 4.) 

In their Reply, Moving Defendants argue that the Arbitration Agreements do not preclude consolidation for the limited purpose of discovery and motion practice.  The Arbitration Agreements state, however, that a collective action may only proceed with the consent of all parties, which is not present here.  The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.  If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person.  The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.  This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

         Dated this 11th day of January 2023