Judge Lon F. Hurwitz, Case 2021-01191506 2022-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lon F. Hurwitz, Case: 2021-01191506, Date: 2022-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Defendants Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc. and Simplified Staffing Labor Solutions, LLC move to modify the Court’s 01-21-22 order compelling arbitration (ROA 76). For the reasons set forth below, the Court rules as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to modify is DENIED.

2. On its own motion, the Court has reconsidered the prior order compelling arbitration and will order Plaintiff Francisca Macias to arbitrate the individual portion of her PAGA claim.

3. The remainder of this action shall remain stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration.

As an initial matter, Defendants fail to articulate or identify a basis for the requested relief, stating only that it is based on “conform[ing] to the Federal Arbitration Act as definitely (sic) interpreted by…Viking River” and the Court’s “inherent powers.” (Mot. at 2.) Procedurally, it appears Defendants actually seek reconsideration of the order compelling arbitration and/or renewal of their prior motion to compel arbitration. Accordingly, the Court will first undertake that analysis.

Motions for reconsideration and/or renewal are governed by CCP § 1008 which provides, in pertinent part: 

“(a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. 

…

(e) This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.”

Here, the Department Clerk served notice of the Court’s order compelling arbitration on 01-28-22. (ROA 77.) The present motion was not filed until 08-05-22. (ROA 80.) Accordingly, as Plaintiff points out, albeit for different reasons, the Court is without jurisdiction to consider this procedurally defective motion and it is DENIED.

The Court may, however, reconsider and modify its prior orders on its own motion even though the relevant order was made by a different judge. (In re Marriage of Nicholas (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 1566, 1577–78 [“a trial court retains the authority to alter or amend its own rulings in the same case, whether made by the same judge or by his or her predecessor” [citing Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094)].) Any other restriction “would directly and materially impair and defeat the court's most basic functions, exercising its discretion to rule upon controversies between the parties and ensuring the orderly administration of justice.” (Le Francois, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1104.) As the parties have fully briefed the issues and it appears arbitration proceedings have not yet begun, the Court will reconsider its order compelling arbitration.

It is undisputed the Arbitration Agreement requires “mandatory, binding arbitration of all disputes, for all employees” and “covers all disputes relating to or arising out of or in connection with employment at the Company or the termination of that employment.” (Escobedo Decl. Ex. A at 1.)

In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906, the United States Supreme Court overruled Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 to the extent its holding was preempted by the FAA and concluded that (1) a PAGA claim could be split into “individual” and “representative” portions, and (2) the individual portion could be compelled to arbitration.

Plaintiff argues Viking River does not apply because it was not law when the agreement was executed and Iskanian prohibited claim-splitting. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff cites no authority for the contention that the law is forever fixed at the time of execution and the Court is aware of no such authority. Viking River’s holding, which expressly permits PAGA claim splitting, is a statement of what the FAA has always meant in its interplay with PAGA claims. (See Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 312–313 (1994) [“A judicial construction of a statute is an authoritative statement of what the statute meant before as well as after the decision of the case giving rise to that construction.”].) This interpretation also avoids the unreasonable requirement for the Court to apply bad law.

Accordingly, under Viking River Cruises, Plaintiff may be compelled to arbitrate the individual portion of the PAGA claim and the Court will order it.

Mandatory Stay

Under the FAA and the California Arbitration Act, this case must be stayed pending completion of Plaintiff’s arbitration. (9 U.S.C. § 3; CCP § 1281.4.)

While Defendant urges dismissal of the non-individual PAGA claim, this contention ignores the fact that the California Supreme Court in Adolph v. Uber Technologies will answer the question “[w]hether an aggrieved employee who has been compelled to arbitrate claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that are ‘premised on Labor Code violations actually sustained by’ the aggrieved employee [citation] maintains statutory standing to pursue ‘PAGA claims arising out of events involving other employees’ [citation] in court or in any other forum the parties agree is suitable.” Dismissal is therefore inappropriate.

The non-individual portion of the PAGA claim will therefore remain stayed without prejudice to Defendants renewing the issue when the individual arbitration concludes.