Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV26935, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

This is a consolidated employment and labor action. In this case, plaintiff Ingrid Rodriguez asserts a single cause of action for PAGA Representative Action for Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code Section 2698 against her former employer, defendant Medix Staffing Solutions, Inc., and PATH. The operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) was filed on July 25, 2024.

On September 30, 2024, defendant Medix Staffing Solutions, Inc. (hereafter, Defendant), filed its Answer to the FAC. Defendant pleaded an affirmative defense based on the existence of an arbitration agreement.

On December 3, 2024, Defendant filed this Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Pending Action.

California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), including a presumption in favor of arbitrability. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971-72.) Under both the FAA and California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract. (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.) The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, the party opposing the petition then bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to demonstrate that there should be no enforcement of the agreement, and the trial court sits as a trier of fact to reach a final determination on the issue. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, the court can compel parties to an arbitration agreement to arbitrate their dispute.

Defendant moves to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pursuant to an arbitration agreement signed by the parties. Plaintiff concedes there is an arbitration agreement but argues her representative PAGA claim cannot be compelled to arbitration. Plaintiff is correct. Representative, or non-individual PAGA claims cannot be compelled to arbitration. (See Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1118-19 [recognizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 left intact the California Supreme Court’s holding in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 that an agreement which compels waiver of Labor Code claims on behalf of other employees was unenforceable].)

However, Plaintiff does not address the recently decided case, Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. (2024) 328 Cal.Rptr.3d 632 (Leeper), which bears a striking similarity to the facts in this case. In Leeper, the plaintiff brought a PAGA action styled as a non-individual/representative claim. Defendant moved to compel arbitration. Leeper argued her action could not be compelled to arbitration because she did not include an individual PAGA claim. The trial court agreed with Leeper and denied arbitration. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that under the unambiguous language of the PAGA statute, “any PAGA action necessarily includes both an individual PAGA claim and a representative PAGA claim.” (Leeper, 328 Cal.Rptr.3d at p. 637.)

Like Leeper, Plaintiff purportedly brings a non-individual/representative PAGA action. Pursuant to Leeper, Plaintiff has asserted an individual PAGA claim by virtue of bringing the PAGA action. If the arbitration agreement covers Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim, Plaintiff cannot avoid arbitration. Accordingly, the court proceeds to determine whether the arbitration agreement directs arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim.

Plaintiff was employed by Medix Staffing Solutions as a Case Manager to work on assignment at Defendant PATH on or about March 27, 2023.¿ (Complaint, ¶ 20.)¿ As part of Plaintiff’s employment application, Plaintiff signed an Arbitration Agreement wherein she agreed to arbitrate any claims that arose out of her employment with Defendant.¿ (Mrumlinksi Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 1.)¿ The Agreement is between Plaintiff and Medix Staffing Solutions, LLC.¿ (Id.)¿ Pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement, Plaintiff and Medix Staffing Solutions, LLC agreed to mutual binding arbitration.¿ (Id.) Specifically, Plaintiff and Defendant voluntarily agreed that:¿¿

This Agreement is intended to be as broad as legally permissible, and, except as it otherwise provides, this Agreement applies to any and all disputes that may arise between Employee (sometimes “you” or “your”) and COMPANY, including without limitation any dispute arising out of or related to Employee’s application, employment and/or separation of employment with COMPANY, and survives after the employment relationship ends. This Agreement applies to a covered dispute, past, present, or future, that COMPANY may have against Employee or that Employee may have against: (1) COMPANY; (2) COMPANY’s parent companies, subsidiaries, related companies and affiliates and d/b/as; (3) its and their officers, directors, shareholders, owners, members, employees, managers or agents (in their capacity as such or otherwise); (4) COMPANY’s benefit plans or the plans’ sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, affiliates or agents; and (5) clients or customers for whose benefits Employee performs services. It is understood and agreed by the COMPANY and the Employee that clients and customers of the COMPANY, including without limitation their officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns and affiliates, are intended to be third party beneficiaries to this Agreement and are entitled to enforce this Agreement accordingly. Each and all of the entities or individuals listed in (1) through (5) of the preceding clause can enforce this Agreement.

Moreover, the Agreement covers Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims. The Agreement states:

CALIFORNIA PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT ("PAGA") INDIVIDUAL ACTION REQUIREMENT. The COMPANY and you agree to arbitrate PAGA claims on an individual basis only. Therefore, any claim by you under PAGA to recover unpaid wages, penalties, or other individual relief must be arbitrated under this Agreement. The Arbitrator is without authority to preside over any PAGA claim by you on behalf of any other person or other claim joined by or consolidated with another person's or entity's PAGA claim. This PAGA Individual Action Requirement clause will be severable from this Agreement if there is a final judicial determination that it is invalid, unenforceable, unconscionable, void or voidable. In such case, the PAGA action must be brought and litigated in a civil court of competent jurisdiction—not in arbitration—but the portion of the PAGA Individual Action Requirement that is enforceable will be enforced in arbitration.

There is no question Plaintiff has asserted an individual PAGA claim and further, that the Agreement covers those claims. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim and a stay of proceedings until the conclusion of arbitration.

Accordingly, the motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED. The action is stayed as to all parties pending the conclusion of the arbitration.¿ The court sets a post-arbitration status conference for June 30, 2025 at 9:00 a.m.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court