Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 21GDCV00587, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 21GDCV00587    Hearing Date: December 11, 2023    Dept: P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

ZAKIYA SUN ELLIS, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act;

                                    Plaintiff,

 

 v.

 

B&V ENTERPRISES, INC. DBA SUPER KING MARKETS, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

                                  Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)
)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 21GDCV00587

 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO LIFT STAY

 

Date:  December 11, 2023

Time:  8:30 a.m.

Dept.:  P

 

          I.        INTRODUCTION

          Plaintiff Zakiya Sun Ellis (Ellis) sues her employer on her own behalf and on behalf of other affected employees, under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Ellis alleges that her employer, B&V Enterprises, dba Super King Markets, failed to compensate her and other employees for hours worked, missed meal periods and rest breaks.

         

Before the Court is a motion by Ellis to lift the appellate stay currently in place in these proceedings. Ellis urges that (1) changes to CCP Section 1294 would support lifting the stay and (2) judicial efficiency and judicial control over dockets supports early application of CCP Section 1294 changes. Following the reasoning below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART.

 

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

CCP Section 1294 provides that an aggrieved party may appeal from an order denying a petition to compel arbitration. (CCP § 1294(a).) CCP Section 916(a) provides that “the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.”(CCP § 916(a).)

 

III.     ANALYSIS

          On October 10, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 365, which amends CCP Section 1294 to read that “Notwithstanding Section 916, the perfecting of such an appeal shall not automatically stay any proceedings in the trial court.” (SB 365, to be codified as CCP § 1294(a).) The new law takes effect January 1, 2024. Here, Ellis urges that the new law should be applied to this case before the January 1 effective date. (Motion, p. 2: 19-28.)

          However, Government Code Section 9600 provides that the effective date of a statute enacted at a regular session is January 1 of the following year. (CGC § 9600(a).) California Government Code Section  9600(b) provides exceptions to the general rule, but none apply here. (CGC § 9600(b).) The bill does not contain an urgency clause, which would make it effective immediately. Even assuming arguendo the truth of Ellis’ arguments that the instant case mirrors the reasons the Legislature enacted SB 365, the effective date of the law stands. (See 10/20/23 Minute Order [noting that SB 365 is not emergency legislation and denying Plaintiff’s ex parte application to apply SB 365 before its effective date], see also Opposition p. 3: 8-18.) The Court declines to apply statutory law before its effective date.

          Secondly, Ellis urges that she does not lose standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims even if B&V prevails on appeal and her individual PAGA claims are compelled to arbitration. (Motion, p. 10: 8-9, Amended Notice of Motion, p. 3: 22-26.) Ellis urges that CCP Section 916 only stays litigation on the merits of issues ‘affected by’ the denial of the motion that is appealed from. (Reply, p. 5: 9-15, citing Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189.) Varian Medical Systems notes that in order to determine if a proceeding is embraced in or affected by the appeal, “we must consider the appeal and its possible outcomes in relation to the proceeding and its possible results.” (Id.) Ellis then cites Adolph v. Uber for the proposition that non-individual (representative) claims under PAGA are not affected by whether or not individual PAGA claims are arbitrated. (Adolph v. Uber (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1114.) The Court is persuaded that, because the appeal of Judge Rosen’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration does not affect the non-individual claims, the motion to lift the stay should now be granted with respect to these claims.[1]

          The Court declines to impose sanctions on Plaintiff for bringing this motion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV.     CONCLUSION AND ORDER

          The motion to lift the stay is granted in part, with respect to the non-individual PAGA claims. The Court sets a further status conference for _____________, 2023.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

 

 

 

         

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

 


[1] B&V Enterprises does not address this argument in its opposition.