Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV19898, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19898    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

            On 8/18/2023, Plaintiff Eduardo Valentin Cruz (Plaintiff), individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed suit against BJ’s Restaurant, Inc. (Defendant), alleging: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; (5) failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; (6) failure to timely pay final wages; (7) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (8) unfair business practices.

            On 2/8/2024, Defendant demurred to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Discussion

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint is time-barred, pursuant to the one-year statute of limitations set forth in CCP section 340(a).

Prior to filing an action under PAGA, and thus within one year of the alleged violation, the Plaintiff employee must satisfy the mandatory exhaustion requirements by sending notice of the claims to the Defendant employer and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). (See Cal. Labor Code § 2699.3.) The limitations period is tolled for up to 65 days during the mandatory exhaustion period as set forth in Labor Code Section 2699.3(a)(2)(A). Therefore, if an employee timely exhausts his administrative remedies, the limitations period in which to file a PAGA complaint is up to one year and 65 days.

Here, Plaintiff admits in his FAC that his employment with Defendant ended “August 27, 2022.” (FAC ¶ 9.) Moreover, Plaintiff contends that he exhausted his administrative remedies and gave notice to the LWDA and Defendant on August 18, 2023. (See FAC ¶ 26.) Based on the date of Plaintiff’s employment end date, Plaintiff had, at the latest, until October 31, 2023 (one year and 65 days after August 27, 2022) to properly and timely exhaust his administrative remedies and provide written notice to the LWDA and Defendant and to file his lawsuit to assert a PAGA claim. Critically, as evidenced by his FAC, Plaintiff did not file his PAGA claim until December 20, 2023, nearly two months after the one-year statute of limitations period had expired on October 31, 2023. (FAC ¶ 9.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that his claim is timely based on his filing of a Notice of PAGA claim letter and the “relation-back” doctrine.

As for the first contention (i.e., he provided timely notice to the LWDA and Defendant), Plaintiff does not cite to any authority that states that a plaintiff is considered to have timely filed his PAGA claim in court so long as the plaintiff provides written notice to the LWDA and/or the employer. (“This failure to cite pertinent legal authority is enough reason to reject the argument”) (Akins v. State of California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1, 50, 71 (contention waived by failure to cite legal authority).

As for the second contention, generally a plaintiff can only relate back their untimely filing from one PAGA claim to an earlier filed timely PAGA claim. Courts have found that the filing of a wage- hour complaint does not allow the relation back of an untimely filed PAGA claim based upon the same claims and theories. (See, e.g., Esparza v. Safeway, Inc., 36 Cal. App.5 42, 60-61 (plaintiff asserted a PAGA claim for the first time in a second amended complaint, filed two years after the original complaint. The Court of Appeal concluded that the PAGA claim had properly been struck by the trial court as untimely).

In opposition, Plaintiff cited cases like Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 824, 839 and Esparza v. Safeway, Inc. (2019) 36 Cal. App. 5th 42. Those cases concerned whether subsequently-filed LWDA notices related back to the earlier-filed notices or Complaint. However, here, the issue is not whether Plaintiff timely submitted notice to the LWDA, but whether or not Plaintiff failed to file his PAGA claim in Court within the one-year statute of limitations. Plaintiff cites to Esparza to argue that his untimely amended complaint should relate back to his original complaint because “the [original] complaint was preceded by timely notice to the LWDA.” (Esparza, supra, 36 Cal. App. 5th at p. 62.) However, in Esparza there was an earlier-filed PAGA claim asserted in an earlier-filed action. (Ibid.) Here, no such PAGA claim was ever asserted in Plaintiff’s original complaint, and, as stated, Plaintiff has offered no authority to show that a notice letter is sufficient to comply with the PAGA filing requirements. 

As noted by Defendant, “Plaintiff’s argument would effectively eviscerate any statute of limitations applicable to PAGA claims if there was any pending civil claim. Such a novel paradigm would effectively permit parties to assert PAGA claims in a LWDA notice but never file their PAGA claim in court until some indeterminate future time.” (Reply, 4: 3-7.)

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s claim appears time-barred on its face, and that Plaintiff has not shown he can rely on the relation-back doctrine to file a PAGA claim after its limitations period expires, where there was not an earlier-filed PAGA claim filed with the court.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is sustained, without leave to amend. 

It is so ordered.

Dated:  March    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.