Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV02480, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02480    Hearing Date: September 7, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Cacique Foods, LLC moves for an order staying the present action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.4 as well as the Court’s inherent power to stay proceedings.

Defendant’s motion to stay is GRANTED.

Background

          Plaintiff Raymond LaPierre (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on February 6, 2023 against Defendant Cacique Foods, LLC (“Defendant”) alleging 16 causes of action for individual wage and hour violations, a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), retaliation and wrongful termination.

          On April 21, 2023, Defendant filed its answer.

Thereafter, on April 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) without court order, alleging only a representative claim for PAGA penalties under California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204 and/or 204b, 210, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1174, 1174.5, 1194, 1197, 1198, 2802.

Judicial Notice

The court may take judicial notice of “official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States,” “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States,” and “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code § 452, subds. (c), (d), and (h).) 

          Defendant requests the Court to take judicial notice of the following documents: (1) the copy of the complaint entitled Ismael Arrieta Rodriguez v. Cacique Foods, LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STCV33354, filed October 12, 2022 (“Rodriguez Action”); (2) the complaint filed in this action; and (3) the FAC filed in this action. (See RJN, Exhs. 1-3.)

          The Court grants judicial notice of the existence of these documents pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d). (See 6 Witkin, California Procedure, 4th Edition, 2000, Proceedings Without Trial, § 210, p.622. [“A Court may take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, but can only take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in such documents as orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments.”].)

Legal Standard

          Trial judges have inherent powers to manage and fashion procedures to control litigation to insure the orderly administration of justice. (Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376-79; see also Code Civ. Proc. §§ 128(a)(3) [“Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers.”] and (a)(5) [“Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: To control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining thereto.”])  Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.”  (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.)

Discussion

          Stay Pursuant to the Rule of Exclusive Concurrent Jurisdiction

          Defendant argues that stay is warranted under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction because this action was filed after the Rodriguez Action, which both concern representative PAGA claims.

“Under the rule of¿exclusive¿concurrent¿jurisdiction, ‘when two [California] superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved in litigation, the first to assume jurisdiction has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter and all¿parties involved until such time as all necessarily related matters have been resolved.’” (People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 769-70 quoting Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 786-87.) “The rule is based upon the public policies of avoiding conflicts that might arise between courts if they were free to make contradictory decisions or awards relating to the same controversy, and preventing vexatious litigation and multiplicity of suits.” (Garamendi, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at 770.) Priority of jurisdiction usually resides in the tribunal where process is first served.  (California Union Ins. Co. v. Trinity River Land Co. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 104, 109.) “Since the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction and the statutory plea in abatement are mandatory and not discretionary judicial actions, these issues should be raised by demurrer where the issue appears on the face of the complaint and by answer where factual issues must be resolved.” (People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 771 (“Garamendi”).)

Here, Defendants argue that a stay is appropriate because the instant action and the Rodriguez Action involve similar claims and issues arising from Defendant’s alleged Labor Code violations. (Motion at pg. 4; RJN, Exhs. 1, 3.) Additionally, Defendant asserts that the parties are substantially similar because it is named as the defendant in both cases.  (Motion at pg. 5.) Furthermore, Defendant asserts that it would be unfairly burdened to defend two actions that are similar in kind. (Ibid.) Thus, Defendant reasons that to allow both actions to proceed risks duplicative litigation. (Id. at pp. 5-6.) Consequently, Defendant contends that a stay would advance public interest. (Id. at pg. 6.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the present action is not the same as the Rodriguez Action because he has alleged different theories of liabilities in this action that are not addressed in latter. (Opposition at pg. 3.) For instance, Plaintiff states that he seeks PAGA penalties based on Defendant’s alleged failure to reimburse business expenses under Labor Code § 2802 as well as its alleged failure to keep accurate payroll records pursuant to Labor Code §§ 1174 and 1174.5. (Ibid.) Thus, because these representative PAGA actions are not identical, Plaintiff argues that a stay is not appropriate. (Ibid., relying on Shaw v. Superior Court (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 245.) Moreover, Plaintiff argues that the stay would be prejudicial and harmful to interests of the State, the aggrieved employees and himself and that there is no recognized harm to Defendant if both proceedings continued. (Id. at pp. 5-7.) Lastly, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has waive its right to seek a stay pursuant to the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction because it was not raised in a demurrer. (Id. at pg. 8.)

While this request is not made on demurrer, this relief was sought soon after Plaintiff filed his FAC. As a result, the Court finds that Defendant did not waive its right to seek a stay pursuant to the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, “PAGA does not foreclose separate but similar actions by different employees against the same employer.” (Julian v. Glenair, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 853, 873).  “PAGA thus permits the state – through the LWDA – to designate more than one employee to act as its agent in a dispute with a particular employer.” (Id.). Therefore, it was previously understood that applying exclusive concurrent jurisdiction in this context is contrary to the intent of the California State Legislature, which expressly permits multiple agents to pursue PAGA litigation. It is for this reason that multiple federal authorities have rejected a “first-to-file” bar for PAGA claims. (See Gonzalez v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC (E.D.Cal. Aug. 1, 2018, No. 16-cv-01891-DAD-JLT) 2018 WL 3689564, at *4; Tan v. GrubHub, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2016) 171 F.Supp.3d 998, 1011-1013 [cited in Julian]; O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D.Cal. Feb. 4, 2016, Nos. 13-cv-03826-EMC, 14-cv-5200-EMC, 15-cv-3667-EMC) 2016 WL 11556426, at *1.) 

However, in a more recent case, the California Court of Appeal in Shaw v. The Superior Court reasoned that there is a circumstance where a court may stay a subsequent PAGA representative action. Specifically, it reasoned that a court has the “power to stay a subsequent PAGA representative suit that is wholly subsumed by a prior PAGA representative suit—i.e., where the second suit alleges the same Labor Code violations based on the same facts and theories as the prior suit. . . .” (Shaw v. Superior Court (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 245, .) The Shaw Court further articulated that:

“While the Legislature sought to maximize code enforcement and deter future violations, we do not discern an intent in PAGA to waste judicial resources, encourage a multiplicity of duplicative suits, and prohibit courts from staying suits that might otherwise lead to inconsistent results. PAGA and the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction rule can rationally coexist, and so they must.”

(Ibid.)

To the extent that the present action raises two additional legal theories that are not addressed in the Rodriguez Action, the Court does not find this fact to be dispositive. An aggrieved employee under PAGA can sue for violations that were not committed against him. (See Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 745, 753-754.) Therefore, the plaintiff in the Rodrguez Action could assert these additional claims or theories, whether by amending his complaint or otherwise.  (See also People Ex Rel. Garamendi, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 770, quotation omitted [“the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction does not require absolute identity of parties, causes of action or remedies sought in the initial and subsequent actions”] .)

Nothing demonstrates that these two cases are factually different enough preclude the exercise of the rule of concurrent jurisdiction. The risk of conflicting rulings between the two actions is a real possibility. Moreover, it would be an extreme waste of judicial resources if both actions were permitted to proceed when they overlap almost entirely except for  two additional legal theories, especially ones that can be raised in the earlier case. Furthermore, the purpose of a PAGA action is for the State’s benefit, not the individual plaintiff. (See Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986.) Any risk to the State or the aggrieved employees is eliminated or mitigated because of the Rodriguez Action.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for stay pursuant to rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction.

          Stay Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.4

          Defendant also argues that that a stay should be instituted pending the completion of arbitration of Plaintiff’s arbitrated claims. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 provides as follows: 

If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, 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 of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 contemplates that a court action will be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration where the issue raised in the court action and the issue subject to arbitration are the same.

          Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has submitted a demand for arbitration for the following claims: Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code, §1102.5, Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code, §6310, Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, and Violation of Business & Professions Code, §17200. (Motion at pg. 3, Lynch Decl. ¶5, Exh. A.) Defendant reasons that there is a risk of overlap with these arbitrated claims and Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claim because the arbitration may impact the present action. (Motion at pg. 7.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that there is no overlap because the wage and hour related claims raised in connection with the representative PAGA action is not implicated by the arbitration. (Opposition at pg. 8.) In reply, Defendant clarifies that, at this juncture, it is unclear whether this arbitration will concern Plaintiff’s wage and hour related claims and there is potential that the arbitration will reveal that Plaintiff is not an aggrieved employee for purposes of pursuing a representative PAGA action. (Reply at pp. 2, 4-5.)

Because there is a potential for overlap of issues subject to the PAGA action and the arbitrated claims, a stay is warranted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.4. (See Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal. App. 4th 947, 966 [“Because the issues subject to litigation under the PAGA might overlap those that are subject to arbitration of Franco's individual claims, the trial court must order an appropriate stay of trial court proceedings.].)

The Court therefore GRANTS the motion to stay on this basis as well.