Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV35204, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV35204 Hearing Date: March 24, 2023 Dept: 55
ANGULO
v. TOWN
& COUNTRY EVENT RENTALS, INC. , 22STCV35204
Hearing Date: 3/24/23,
Dept. 55.
#4: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS.
Notice: Okay
Opposition
MP:
Defendant
RP:
Plaintiff
Summary
On 11/4/22, Plaintiff LIDIA ANGULO filed a PAGA Complaint
alleging that Defendant committed various wage-and-hour violations, including
failures to pay all wages due, to provide meal and rest breaks, to provide accurate
wage statements.
MP
Positions
Moving party requests an order compelling Plaintiff’s
Complaint into arbitration, staying this action, and dismissing the
representative claims, on grounds including the following:
·
Individual PAGA claims can be compelled to
arbitration and once compelled, PAGA claims brought on behalf of other
individuals must be dismissed. Viking
River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906.
·
Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant
Town and Country Event Rentals, Inc., executed a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate
Disputes by which she agreed to submit all claims arising out of her employment
to individual, binding arbitration before JAMS.
·
The Arbitration Agreement requires
Plaintiff to assert her individual claims to arbitration and expressly waives
collective actions and representative claims.
·
The Arbitration Agreement between
Plaintiff and T&C is subject to the FAA.
·
The arbitrator has sole authority to
determine questions of arbitrability, because the parties clearly and
unmistakably delegated this determination in the Agreement, by incorporating
the JAMS Rules. (Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th
547, 557).
·
The Arbitration Agreement is not
unconscionable, because instead it satisfies the Armendariz case factors.
RP Positions
Opposing party advocates denying, or staying as to the
PAGA claims, on bases including the following:
·
The waiver of representative action is unenforceable. In Viking River, the U.S.
Supreme Court affirmed the holding in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC
(2014) 59 Cal.4th 348.
·
The Viking River decision, with respect to
PAGA's standing requirement, wrongly determined state policy and interfered
with LWDA and with a California court decision, as the PAGA standing
requirement was addressed by the California Supreme Court in Kim v. Reins International
California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73.
·
Pursuant to recent opinions in Piplack and
Galarsa, the Court should allow Plaintiff
to proceed with the PAGA Representative Action in Court, while
arbitrating her individual PAGA claim,
or stay the action pending the ruling from the California Supreme Court
in the Adolph case.
Tentative
Ruling
The motion is granted.
Plaintiff and Defendant 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 nevertheless 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). But see Piplack v. In-N-Out Burgers (2023) _
Cal.App.5th _, _, 2023 WL 2384502, at *2 (“plaintiffs retain
standing to pursue representative PAGA claims in court even if their individual
PAGA claims are compelled to arbitration.”);
Galarsa v. Dolgen California, LLC (2023) _ Cal.App.5th _, _, 2023
WL 2212196, at *8 (“a plaintiff's PAGA
standing does not evaporate when an employer chooses to enforce an arbitration
agreement.”).
“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.)) Where there is a split of authority, trial
courts have discretion to choose between the decisions. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v.
Sup. Ct. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456. Where there is a split of authority, “[a]s a
practical matter, a superior court ordinarily will follow an appellate opinion
emanating from its own district even though it is not bound to do so.” McCallum v. McCallum (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 308, 316 n.4.
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 by the California Supreme Court--
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.
*IF ALL PARTIES SUBMIT ON THE COURT’S TENTATIVE
RULING, PLEASE CALL 213-633-0655*