Judge Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case Number: 24STCP00388, Date: 2024-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 24STCP00388, Date: 2024-06-11 Tentative Ruling

*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Case Number: 24STCP00388 Hearing Date: June 11, 2024 Dept: 25

Hearing Date: Tuesday, June 11, 2024

Case Name: DKN HOTEL, LLC, and NK INVESTMENTS, LP v. ANA MALDONADO

Case No.: 24STCP00388

Petition: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Moving Parties: Petitioners DKN Hotel, LLC and NK Investments, LP

Responding Party: Respondent Ana Maldanado

Notice: OK

Recommended Ruling: The Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2024, Petitioners DKN Hotel, LLC and NK Investments, LP (“Petitioners”) commenced this action by filing the instant Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (the “Petition”) against Respondent Ana Maldonado (“Respondent”).

On February 7, 2024, Petitioners filed a Notice of Hearing on Petition and Proof of Service, indicating that they served Respondent with the notice of hearing.

On February 8, 2024, Respondent filed her opposition (in the form of her counsel’s declaration).

As of June 8, 2024, no reply has been filed.

MOVING PARTIES’ POSITION

On October 30, 2020, Respondent filed a Complaint in the Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino (the “Underlying Action”), alleging claims against Petitioners for (1) retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (3) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA; (5) wrongful constructive termination in violation of FEHA; (6) violation of Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512 (Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks); (7) violation of Labor Code § 226(a) (inaccurate wage statements); (8) violation of Labor Code §§ 200-204 (waiting time penalties); (9) violation of Labor Code §§ 2698 et seq. (“PAGA”); and (10) violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

On March 5, 2021, the San Bernardino Superior Court ordered the parties to arbitrate Respondent’s individual claims and stayed the PAGA claim (i.e., the ninth cause of action).

Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 (which Petitioners refer to as Moriana v. Viking River Cruises), Petitioners filed a motion to compel in the Underlying Action, asking the San Bernardino Superior Court to issue an order compelling Respondent’s individual PAGA claim to arbitration along with other individual claims.

On November 15, 2022, the San Bernardino Superior Court granted the Petitioners’ motion to compel the Respondent’s individual PAGA claim to arbitration and stayed the representative PAGA claim.

On December 19, 2023, the arbitrator issued a Final Award, holding that Respondent had proved that she was denied 25 timely meal breaks, but failed to prove any of her other claims.

This Petition followed.

Petitioners seek an order confirming the Final Award.

OPPOSITION

As an opposition, the Respondent filed a declaration with Ronald L. Zambrano (her counsel). Counsel testifies that the San Bernardino Superior Court already has jurisdiction over this matter because it stayed the PAGA representative claim.

REPLY

None.

ANALYSIS

I. PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

A. Legal Standard

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm … the award. The petition shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration ….” Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.

“The petition … shall: ¶ (a) Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement. ¶ (b) Set forth names of the arbitrators. ¶ (c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.” Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.

“If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made … unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.” Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.

Any response to the petition must be filed and served within 10 days after service of the petition. Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.

B. Discussion

The Court finds it proper to deny the Petition. As Respondent argues and Petitioners concede, the Underlying Action is pending with the San Bernardino Superior Court, and that court has jurisdiction over the pending representative PAGA claim. Petitioners have not submitted what authority, if any, would allow the Los Angeles Superior Court to hear and decide this Petition.

Accordingly, the Petition as is before the Los Angeles Superior Court is denied.

II. CONCLUSION

Petitioners DKN Hotel, LLC and NK Investments, LP’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is DENIED.

The Moving party is ordered to give notice and to attach a copy of the Court's Tentative Ruling, as an exhibit “A” to said notice, as the final order of the Court.