Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV38459, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: July 27, 2022

Case Name: Adams v. Pacific Villa, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 20STCV37260

Matter: Motions to Compel Arbitration (4x)

Moving Party: Defendants Pacific Villa, Inc., Glendora Grand, Inc., Centinela Grand, 

Inc., and Century Villa, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Tenesshua Adams, Kimberly Garcia, Jorge Dussan, and Maria 

Diaz

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motions are granted in part.  

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is a PAGA action.  Defendants Pacific Villa, Inc., Glendora Grand, Inc., Centinela Grand, Inc., and Century Villa, Inc. seek to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ individual PAGA claims and dismissal of Plaintiffs’ representative PAGA claims.  Defendants’ request is premised on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906.

Plaintiffs Tenesshua Adams, Kimberly Garcia, Jorge Dussan, and Maria Diaz do not oppose arbitration, but rather argue that their representative PAGA claims should not be dismissed.  Plaintiffs argue that this is an issue of California law and Kim v. Reins Int'l California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73 is to the contrary.  

In Viking River, it was held that once individual PAGA claims are arbitrated, representative PAGA claims should be dismissed due to lack of standing: “PAGA provides no mechanism to enable a court to adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has been committed to a separate proceeding. Under PAGA's standing requirement, a plaintiff can maintain non-individual PAGA claims in an action only by virtue of also maintaining an individual claim in that action. See Cal. Lab. Code Ann. §§ 2699(a), (c). When an employee's own dispute is pared away from a PAGA action, the employee is no different from a member of the general public, and PAGA does not allow such persons to maintain suit. See Kim, 9 Cal.5th at 90, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 769, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d, 459 P.3d at 1133 (‘PAGA's standing requirement was meant to be a departure from the “general public” ... standing originally allowed’ under other California statutes). As a result, Moriana lacks statutory standing to continue to maintain her non-individual claims in court, and the correct course is to dismiss her remaining claims.”  (Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906, 1925.)

However, as noted by Justice Sotomayor, “if this Court's understanding of state law is wrong, California courts, in an appropriate case, will have the last word.”  Indeed, it is beyond dispute that state courts have ultimate authority in interpreting state statutes.  

It is true that Kim v. Reins Int'l California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73 dealt specifically with the issue of whether there is PAGA standing when individual Labor Code claims are dismissed/settled, while this case relates to arbitration of an individual PAGA claim.  Nonetheless, the Court finds Kim’s reasoning equally applicable to this situation as it is not apparent how arbitrating one’s individual PAGA claim would any more diminish one’s status as an “aggrieved employee” than dismissing one’s Labor Code claims.  Indeed, an aggrieved employee “means any person who was employed by the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.”  (Lab. Code § 2699(c).)  Arbitrating the individual PAGA claims does not change (1) Plaintiffs’ employment history or (2) the fact that various violations were allegedly committed against the Plaintiffs.  Respectfully, Viking River fails to provide any persuasive analysis on the standing issue, and the Court will not follow Viking River on that issue.

In sum, the Motions to Compel Arbitration are granted in part.  Plaintiffs’ individual PAGA claims will be arbitrated, but the representative PAGA claims will not be dismissed.  The action is stayed.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.)  The Requests for Judicial Notice are granted.  

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.