Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 21STCV15994, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV15994    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 55

STIGER v. PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH                               21STCV15994

Hearing Date:  2/10/23,  Dept. 55

#4:   MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF PLAINTIFF’S INDIVIDUAL PAGA CLAIMS AND TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S NON-INDIVIDUAL, REPRESENTATIVE PAGA CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF OTHER EMPLOYEES.

 

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

 

MP:  Defendant AEROTEK SCIENTIFIC, LLC;  Joinder of defendants PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH and PROVIDENCE MEDICAL FOUNDATION.

RP:  Plaintiff

 

 

Summary

 

On 8/2/21, Plaintiff LATASHA STIGER filed a PAGA Complaint alleging that defendants did various wage-and-hour violations as to aggrieved employees. 

 

MP Positions

 

Moving party requests an order to compel arbitration of  Plaintiff’s PAGA claims, and to dismiss representative PAGA claims on behalf of other employees, on grounds including the following:

 

·         The parties’ arbitration agreement is subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, which strongly favors the enforceability of arbitration agreements according to their terms.

·         Because Plaintiff must arbitrate her individual PAGA claims, she lacks statutory standing to continue to maintain her non-individual, representative claims on behalf of other employees. Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. ___ [142 S.Ct. 1906, 1924–1925.

·         “[A] plaintiff can maintain non-individual PAGA claims in an action only by virtue of also maintaining an individual claim in that action,” given PAGA’s statutory standing requirement. (E.g., Kim v. Reins (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 88 [finding that California courts have uniformly “rejected efforts to split PAGA claims into individual and representative….”]).

·         The “correct course is to dismiss” these claims. (Id.)

 

 

RP Positions

 

Opposing party advocates staying, not dismissing, the PAGA claim, for reasons including the following:

 

·         In Viking River Cruises, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, in dicta, that a plaintiff lost standing to assert a representative PAGA claim once his individual PAGA claim was ordered to arbitration.

·         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.

·         The California Supreme Court in Kim v. Reins Int’l CA, Inc., 9 Cal.5th 73, 80 (2020) dealt with the issue of whether there is PAGA standing when individual Labor Code claims are dismissed. Kim’s reasoning is equally applicable to this situation, as it 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.

·         The California Supreme Court may address and resolve any questions regarding Viking River Cruises’ application to this matter, as reflected by its decision to review Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. S274671.

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The motion is granted. 

Plaintiff and defendants shall arbitrate the controversies between them, including the entire Complaint, in accordance with their agreement to arbitrate. 

This entire case is dismissed.

The Iskanian opinion correctly decided a PAGA waiver is unenforceable as to non-individual claims, without any FAA preemption, but arbitration can be compelled as to individual plaintiffs’ waived claims, and the remaining claims of representative actions should be dismissed, due to lack of standing upon plaintiffs’ removal from the action and into arbitration.  Viking River Cruises v. Moriana    (2022) 142 S. Ct. 1906, 1924-25  (opinion after granting petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California).  “The viability of nonindividual PAGA claims after the individual claims are compelled to arbitration is an open question for further exploration by California courts.”   Lewis v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 983, 1000 n. 8  (citing Gavriiloglou v. Prime Healthcare Management, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 595 (arbitration of individual PAGA claim does not preclude the employee from pursuing nonindividual PAGA claims.))

“California Supreme Court interpretation of federal law [is] binding when there is ‘no contrary United States Supreme Court decision’ on the issue….”  Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 498.  “On federal statutory issues, intermediate appellate courts in California are absolutely bound to follow the decisions of the California Supreme Court, unless the United States Supreme Court has decided the same question differently.”  Truly Nolen of Amer. v. Sup. Ct. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 487, 507.

There is a rule against PAGA waivers and predispute arbitration agreements, notwithstanding the Federal Arbitration Act.  Contreras v. Sup. Ct. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 461, 471-72.  See also  Winns v. Postmates Inc. (2021) 66 Cal. App. 5th 803, 815 n. 4  (California cases never overruled Iskanian, although the Viking opinion was then anticipated to address Ikanian).

A case can be dismissed on the grounds that all issues are susceptible to arbitration by agreement and plaintiff did not attempt to exhaust arbitration. 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 66 Cal. App. 4th 1199, 1208;  Charles J. Rounds Co. v. Joint Council of Teamsters (1971) 4 Cal.3d 888, 899. 

Finally, the Court exercises its discretion to decide and not delay the ruling pending a related decision--  Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. G059860, 2022 WL 1073583 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2022), rev. grt’d (July 20, 2022).  A trial court would not abuse discretion in delaying litigation pending an appeal of a case involving the same issues.  California Canning Mach. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 606, 608;  Reed v. Sup. Ct (2001) 92 Cal. App. 4th 448, 455.