Judge Kenneth J. Medel, Case 37-2023-00023685-CU-OE-CTL 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2023-00023685-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 29, 2024

03/01/2024 09:30:00 AM C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00023685-CU-OE-CTL ROGERS VS PACIFICA COMPANIES LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 07/14/2023

The motion (ROA # 9) of defendants PACIFICA COMPANIES LLC, PACIFICA HOSTS, INC., OASIS OUTSOURCING, LLC and PROSPECT HOSPITALITY LP for an order: (1) that plaintiff submit the individual PAGA claim to arbitration; (2) dismissing plaintiff's nonindividual, representative PAGA claim; and (3) dismissing the entire case is DENIED.

The recent California Supreme Court decision in Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 1104, disagreed with the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S.

639. '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.

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. In addition, the opinion reaffirms that an arbitration agreement cannot constitute a waiver of the right to pursue a representative action on behalf of the state. Id. Even assuming the 'Employee Acknowledgments' agreement attached to the declaration of Luis Torres as 'Exhibit 8' is a valid agreement, the PAGA representative action nonetheless survives and will not be compelled to arbitration given the opinion in Adolph. Unlike in Adolph, this action alleges only a representative PAGA claim, and does not include an individual claim. See Complaint at page 1, lines 1-2 and the Prayer for Relief. Therefore, there is no claim that can be compelled to arbitration.

Defendants argue plaintiff's status as an 'aggrieved employee' must be adjudicated through binding arbitration because this status constitutes an 'individual claim.' This argument lacks merit. Defendants' argument conflates the notion of a separate claim versus the elements of a single claim. To have PAGA standing, a plaintiff must be an 'aggrieved employee.' Lab. Code, § 2699(a). 'For purposes of this part, 'aggrieved employee' means any person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.' Id. at (c). The prerequisite of standing is an element of the PAGA representative action. It does not constitute a separate claim. The Adolph opinion did not hold (and no other authority has been cited) that one element of a PAGA representative claim can be adjudicated through arbitration, while the remaining elements are addressed in a state court.

Instead, the opinion discussed the procedural mechanism by which the 'aggrieved employee' element is Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3083965 35 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: ROGERS VS PACIFICA COMPANIES LLC [IMAGED] 37-2023-00023685-CU-OE-CTL established via a final judgment in the arbitration of the individual claim and subsequently a trial court 'would give effect to that finding.' (E.g., collateral estoppel.) Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., supra at 1123-1124.

Given the analysis set forth above, this Court does not address plaintiff's other opposition arguments (e.g., sufficiency of the notice, validity of the agreement, whether defendants are parties to the agreement and unconscionability).

Plaintiff's objections (1-2) to the declaration of Brooke S. Hammond are OVERRULED.

Plaintiff's 'general' and 'specific' objections (1-24) to the declaration of Luis Torres are OVERRULED.

Plaintiff's 'general' and 'specific' objections (1-6) to the declaration of Summer Shoemaker are OVERRULED.

Defendants' evidentiary objections (1-7) to the declaration of Karoline D. Kitlowski are SUSTAINED.

Defendants' evidentiary objections (1-3) to the declaration of Amada Rogers are OVERRULED.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3083965 35