Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV15907, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15907    Hearing Date: December 6, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

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

BACKGROUND

            This action arises out of an employment relationship.  Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges a cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).

On August 10, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration (the “Motion”) on the grounds that Plaintiff is required to resolve her individual PAGA claims in arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement (the “Agreement”) she entered into during her employment.  The Motion also requests that the Court stay the balance of the PAGA claim pending the conclusion of arbitration.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is to move the parties in an arbitrable dispute out of court and into arbitration as quickly and easily as possible.  (Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. (1983) 460 U.S. 1, 23.)  The FAA is consistent with the federal policy to ensure the enforceability, according to their terms, of private agreements to arbitrate.  (Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. (1995) 514 U.S. 52, 57.)  A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.  (CCP § 1281.)  California law, like federal law, favors enforcement of valid arbitration agreements.  (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 97.)  On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy unless grounds exist not to compel arbitration.  (CCP § 1281.2.) 

In support of the Motion, Moving Defendant provide evidence of the Agreement, which provides in part:

“Both I and the Company agree that any claim, dispute, and/or controversy

that I may have against the Company (or its owners, directors, officers, managers,

employees, or agents), or the Company may have against me, shall be submitted to and determined exclusively by binding arbitration under the Federal

Arbitration Act ("FAA"), in conformity with the procedures of the California

Arbitration Act (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. sec 1280 et seq., including section 1283.05

and all of the Act's other mandatory and permissive rights to discovery). The FAA

applies to this Agreement because the Company's business involves interstate

commerce.”  (See Declaration of Julie Bernard (“Bernard Decl.”) ¶ 13, Exhibit B.)

Plaintiff does not dispute the existence or validity of the Agreement, but argues that the Complaint is solely a representative PAGA action that is therefore not arbitrable.  Plaintiff’s argument misstates the nature of a PAGA claim, which authorizes aggrieved employees to recover a civil penalty on behalf of themselves and other current or former employees against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.  (See Lab. Code § 2699, subd. (g)(1) (emphasis added).)  Moreover, despite Plaintiff’s characterization of her claims, the Complaint alleges claims for damages for Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees.  (See, e.g., Complaint ¶ 37.) 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims are subject to arbitration under Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906, 1923-25.)  The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion and orders that Plaintiff’s individual claims be resolved in arbitration.  The Court STAYS the remainder of the action pending the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings.  The Court schedules a status conference on June 5, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in this department.  The parties are to submit a joint status report by May 29, 2024.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

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 6th day of December 2023