Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00032587-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 11, 2024

01/12/2024  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00032587-CU-OE-CTL CERVANTES VS TEKSYSTEMS GLOBAL SERVICES LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 10/12/2023

The motion to stay plaintiff's non-individual PAGA claims is GRANTED.

A. Defendant's request for judicial notice is granted. Evid. Code § 452(c), (d). However, '[t]aking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning.' Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 374.

B. Defendant's evidentiary objections are overruled.

C. As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether the Federal Arbitration Act ('FAA') or the California Arbitration Act ('CAA') governs the motion. '[I]f a contract involves interstate commerce, the FAA's substantive provision (9 U.S.C. § 2) applies to the arbitration.' Valencia v. Smyth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 153, 173-74. By contrast, 'the FAA's procedural provisions do not apply in state court unless the parties expressly adopt them.' Id. at 177.

In this case, the arbitration agreement states that it is 'governed by the FAA and, to the extent not inconsistent with or preempted by the FAA, by the laws of the state of California without regard to principles of conflicts of law.' This is not an express adoption of the FAA's procedural provisions. Thus, California procedural law governs the court's analysis of the instant motion.

D. Turning to the merits, Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 requires the court to stay an action when an issue involved in the action has been ordered to arbitration. Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.

However, '[i]f the issue which is the controversy subject to arbitration is severable, the stay may be with respect to that issue only.' Id. A trial court may exercise its discretion to stay non-individual PAGA claims pending the outcome of an arbitration pursuant to section 1281.4. Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1123.

Here, the court elects to exercise its discretion and stay plaintiff's non-individual PAGA claims. The court is persuaded that a stay is in the best interests of all involved, as it will avoid the possibility of inconsistent results.

Relying on Leenay v. Superior Court (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 553, plaintiff argues that section 1281.4 does not apply. The court disagrees. Unlike this case, the plaintiffs in Leenay were not parties to arbitration proceedings pending against the moving defendant. Thus, their lawsuits could not be stayed pursuant to section 1281.4. Plaintiff has not cited any authority extending Leenay to PAGA cases where the only nonparty to the arbitration agreement is the LWDA. The court declines to consider Cano v. Infinite Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3059256  54 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CERVANTES VS TEKSYSTEMS GLOBAL SERVICES LLC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00032587-CU-OE-CTL Velocity Automotive, Inc., as it is a trial court ruling. 'Trial court decisions are not precedents binding on other courts under the principle of stare decisis.' Harrott v. County of Kings (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1138, 1148.

Accordingly, the motion is granted. Plaintiff's non-individual PAGA claims are hereby ordered stayed while the arbitration of plaintiff's individual PAGA claims is conducted. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4; see also Adolph, 14 Cal.5th at 1123. The CMC set for today (ROA 26) is hereby vacated. An arbitration status conference will be held on October 4, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in Dept. 72.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3059256  54