Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2022-00005175-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 18, 2023

09/21/2023  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) 37-2022-00005175-CU-OE-CTL SOTO VS STINE ENTERPRISES INC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 08/25/2023

The Motion ROA # 42) of Plaintiffs Juan Soto and Fernanda Funes ('Plaintiffs') for reinstatement of Plaintiffs' representative action under the California Private Attorney General Act ('PAGA') based on the Court's September 30, 2022 Minute Order, is GRANTED. Code Civ. Proc. 1008(c).

The reinstated representative action is stayed pending completion of arbitration of the individual claims.

Plaintiffs' Request (ROA # 45) for judicial notice is GRANTED.

Defendant's argument that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this Motion lacks merit. Contrary to Defendant's argument, a judgment has not been filed. Instead, the September 30, 2022 ruling constitutes an order dismissing the representative action with the following caveat: 'Plaintiffs can apply to this Court to reinstate this action should new case authority arise before a judgment is entered in this action.' In essence, this Court reserved jurisdiction to re-visit this issue.

Even assuming this Motion is not a timely application of section 1008(a), subsection (c) provides: 'If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.' Also, section 1008 does not limit the Court's ability to reconsider its previous interim orders on its own motion. Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 1094, 1096, 1097.

In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S. Ct. 1906, the United States Supreme Court held that a former employer was entitled to enforce an arbitration agreement insofar as it mandated arbitration of a former employee's individual PAGA claims, and that a former employee lacked statutory standing to maintain her representative PAGA claims. Once the employee's individual PAGA claim was properly sent to arbitration, the lower court would have to dismiss the 'non-individual PAGA claims' because, without her own PAGA claim, 'the employee is no different from a member of the general public, and PAGA does not allow such persons to maintain suit.' Id. However, the recent California Supreme Court decision in Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 1104, disagreed with the Viking River holding with regards to statutory standing of representative PAGA claims. 'Because '[t]he highest court of each State ... remains 'the final arbiter of what is state law'' (Montana v. Wyoming (2011) 563 U. S. 368, 378, fn. 5, 131 S. Ct. 1765, 179 L. Ed.2d 799), we are not bound by the high court's interpretation of California law. (See Viking River, 596 U. S. at 1925) (conc.

opn. of Sotomayor, J.) ['Of course, if this Court's understanding of state law is wrong, California courts, in an appropriate case, will have the last word.'].)' Adolph, 14 Cal. 5th at 1119.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3004320 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SOTO VS STINE ENTERPRISES INC [E-FILE]  37-2022-00005175-CU-OE-CTL In Adolph, the California Supreme Court held that, '[w]here 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.' Id. at 1114.

The opinion in Adolph constitutes a change of law that warrants the Court to reconsider the prior order dismissing the representative action.

The Court will set trial and related dates at the hearing of this Motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3004320