Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2021-00019535-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 15, 2024

05/17/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00019535-CU-OE-CTL YOUNG VS AXOS FINANCIAL INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 03/28/2024

The Motion (ROA # 104) of Plaintiff Terrance Young ('Plaintiff') for an order to lift the stay of proceedings, is DENIED.

'If a court ... has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.' Code Civ. Proc. 1281.4.

The purpose of this stay is to protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until arbitration is resolved. MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal. App. 4th 643, 658.

In the absence of a stay, the continuation of the proceedings in the trial court disrupts the arbitration proceedings and can render them ineffective. Id. However, 'a trial court possesses some amount of discretion to lift a stay imposed pursuant to section 1281.4, prior to the completion of an ordered arbitration.' Id. at 660.

The Court has discretion to lift a stay prior to the completion of arbitration only under circumstances in which lifting the stay would not frustrate the arbitrator's jurisdiction. Id. For example, if an issue in litigation subject to a stay is removed from the litigation (e.g., through an amended complaint), or the arbitrable controversy is removed from the arbitration (e.g., through agreement of the parties) such that the arbitrator's jurisdiction would not be frustrated by the litigation, there would be no reason for a stay of the litigation to remain in effect. Id. at 660, 661.

'Where a plaintiff has brought a PAGA action comprising individual and non-individual claims, an order compelling arbitration of the individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing as an aggrieved employee to litigate claims on behalf of other employees under PAGA.' Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 1104, 1114.

This opinion continues: 'First, Uber contends that unless Adolph's non-individual claims are dismissed, his PAGA action will run afoul of Viking River because he will be permitted to relitigate whether he is an aggrieved employee Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3108982 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  YOUNG VS AXOS FINANCIAL INC [IMAGED]  37-2021-00019535-CU-OE-CTL in court to establish standing even if he has agreed to resolve that issue in arbitration as part of his individual PAGA claim.

In response, Adolph explains that his PAGA action could proceed in the following manner if he were ordered to arbitrate his individual PAGA claim: First, the trial court may exercise its discretion to stay the non-individual claims pending the outcome of the arbitration pursuant to section 1281.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Following the arbitrator's decision, any party may petition the court to confirm or vacate the arbitration award under section 1285 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the arbitrator determines that Adolph is an aggrieved employee in the process of adjudicating his individual PAGA claim, that determination, if confirmed and reduced to a final judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.4), would be binding on the court, and Adolph would continue to have standing to litigate his nonindividual claims. If the arbitrator determines that Adolph is not an aggrieved employee and the court confirms that determination and reduces it to a final judgment, the court would give effect to that finding, and Adolph could no longer prosecute his non-individual claims due to lack of standing. (See Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of California (2023) 88 Cal. App. 5th 65, 76 – 82.) Uber makes no convincing argument why this manner of proceeding would be impractical or would require relitigating Adolph's status as an aggrieved employee in the context of his non-individual claims, and we see no basis for Uber's concern. In any event, Viking River makes clear that in cases where the FAA applies, no such re-litigation may occur. (Viking River, supra, 596 U. S. at pp. –––– – –––– [142 S.

Ct. at pp. 1923 – 1925].)' Id. at 1123, 1124.

'In the interest of preventing re-litigation of any issues that may overlap with claims subject to arbitration, including Longboy's status as an aggrieved employee, the Court stays this action pending the outcome of the individual arbitration proceedings. See 9 U. S. C. § 3; Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 1281.4; Adolph, 14 Cal. 5th at 1124-25.' Longboy v. Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC (N. D. Cal., Feb. 23, 2024, No. 23-CV-01248-AMO) 2024 WL 815550, at *12.

This Motion is denied because Plaintiff has not set forth any facts demonstrating that this is an unusual case where it would be proper to concurrently litigate both the individual and representative claims in two different forums. Continuing the existing stay of the representative action makes more sense.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3108982