Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 21STCV27298, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

This action arises out of an employment relationship. Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) asserts a representative claim for violations of the Labor Code pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).

On July 29, 2022, Moving Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that during Plaintiff’s employment, he signed a binding arbitration agreement that required the adjudication of his individual claims. The Court denied the motion holding that the parties did not agree to arbitrate the PAGA claims (the “Arbitration Order”). On October 26, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal from the Arbitration Order, and this case has been stayed pursuant to that appeal, which remains pending as of the date of this hearing.

On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Lift Stay (the “Motion”). Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion on April 26, 2024 and Plaintiff filed a reply on May 2, 2024.

Plaintiff has filed a Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) as to five (5) orders in other cases: four issued by judges of the Alameda County Superior Court and one issued by a judge in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Defendant has opposed the granting of Plaintiff’s RJN. While the Court takes judicial notice of these orders pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d), these orders have no precedential value for this Court.

Defendant has filed an RJN as to two documents from the file in this case. It is unnecessary to request judicial notice of matters within this Court’s own file in the instant case.

Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1294, subdivision (a) provides that an aggrieved party may appeal from:¿

(a) An order dismissing or denying a petition to compel arbitration. Notwithstanding Section 916, the perfecting of such an appeal shall not automatically stay any proceedings in the trial court during the pendency of the appeal.¿

(a) Except as provided in Sections 917.1 to 917.9, inclusive, and in Section 116.810, the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.

(b) When there is a stay of proceedings other than the enforcement of the judgment, the trial court shall have jurisdiction of proceedings related to the enforcement of the judgment as well as any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order appealed from.

Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court lifting the stay on this case resulting from Defendant’s appeal of the Arbitration Order on the grounds that: (1) recent changes to CCP section 1294(a) grant the Court discretion to lift the stay while the appeal is perfected; (2) lifting the stay would not prejudice Defendant; and (3) Plaintiff, the aggrieved employees and the State of California continue to endure ongoing prejudice while the stay is imposed.

Plaintiff contends that Senate Bill 365 amends CCP section 1294 to allow for the proceedings to continue while an appeal is perfected. Plaintiff argues that based on the legislative history of the amendment, the purpose of SB 365 was to prevent corporate defendants from abusing the automatic stay when appealing a denied motion to compel arbitration.

In opposition, Defendant asserts that pursuant to CCP 1281.4, an appellate stay must not be lifted while there are overlapping issues between individual PAGA claims and the representative PAGA claim. Defendant further argues that the latest enactment of SB 365 should not be given retroactive application.

In fact, CCP section 1281.4 does not apply here because that statute only applies when a motion to compel arbitration has been granted, not when it has been denied. When a motion to compel arbitration has been denied, such as in the instant case, CCP section 1294 applies.

The Court agrees that SB 365 does grant trial courts discretion in implementing a stay; however, without a clear expression of intent by the legislature, the Court cannot retroactively apply the current enactment of CCP 1294(a). (Myers v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 828, 840–841.) In McClung v. Employment Development Dept. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 467, the California Supreme Court held that absent express legislative intent, laws are applied prospectively only. (Id. 34 Cal.4th at 476.)

Plaintiff does not provide any legislative history that shows that the legislature expressly intended for SB 365 to be retroactively applied. Therefore, the Court declines to apply SB 365 retroactively. Moreover, even if it had the authority to exercise its discretion to lift the stay pending perfection of the appeal from the Arbitration Order, which it does not, the Court would not exercise its discretion to do so.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court