Judge: Mark V. Mooney, Case: 10STCV33537, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 10STCV33537 Hearing Date: October 17, 2022 Dept: 68
TENTATIVE RULING: MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINTS
The claims in this case are based
on claimed violations of various California labor laws. They involve claims asserted under PAGA. On August 22, 2022, Defendants filed the
instant motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the joined Plaintiffs’
complaints. Plaintiffs do not oppose the
motion to compel arbitration as to their individual PAGA claims, but Plaintiffs
do oppose the motion to dismiss their representative PAGA claims. The Motion to Compel Arbitration of the
individual PAGA claims is GRANTED.
REPRESENTATIVE PAGA CLAIMS
Defendants have requested that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’
representative PAGA claims based on the recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS)
ruling in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana. Plaintiffs, in
opposition, have asked the Court to either deny Defendants’ request, or in the
alternative, issue a stay pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph
v. Uber Technologies.
Defendants request to dismiss
Plaintiffs’ representative PAGA claims is based on the Supreme Court’s ruling
in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana. In that case, SCOTUS opined
that
“PAGA provides no mechanism to enable
a court to adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has
been committed to a separate proceeding. Under PAGA's standing requirement, a
plaintiff can maintain non-individual PAGA claims in an action only by virtue
of also maintaining an individual claim in that action. See Cal. Lab. Code Ann.
§§ 2699(a), (c). When an employee's own dispute is pared away from a PAGA
action, the employee is no different from a member of the general public, and
PAGA does not allow such persons to maintain suit.” (Viking River Cruises,
Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906, 1925.)
Defendants maintain that because
Plaintiffs individual matters have been pared away as separate arbitration
proceedings, then they can no longer maintain their causes of action for
representative PAGA claims.
Plaintiffs’
main argument against this is based on the idea that SCOTUS may be wrong in its
interpretation of the standing aspect of PAGA claims, and that interpretation
of state laws ultimately rests with the highest court in the state. (Opposition
at pp. 4-5; citing Johnson v. Fankell (1997) 520 U.S. 911, 916.)
Plaintiffs point to a case in which the California Supreme Court found that
settlement and dismissal of individual claims did not cause an employee to lose
standing to pursue a PAGA claim because PAGA standing is based on violations
rather than damages. (See Kim v. Reins Int’l California, Inc. (2020) 9
Cal.5th 73, 80.)
Defendants
assert that this comes down to a matter of preemption. (Reply at pp. 5-6.)
Because the state statute, PAGA, conflicts with the FAA, then SCOTUS has the
final say on what happens. (See Perry v. Thomas (1987) 482 U.S. 483,
492-493.) While this is typically true, in J. Sotomayor’s concurrence to the
majority opinion, she notes that SCOTUS came to its conclusion based on its
understanding of California law and guidance from California state courts. (Viking
River Cruises, supra, 142 S.Ct. at 1925.) She further reasons that
California courts, in an appropriate case, could have the last word, or the
California legislature could modify the statutory standing under PAGA within
state and federal constitutional limits. (Id. at 1925-1926.) This bench officer thinks that Justice
Sotomayor got it right. Whether or not
there is standing under the California statute creating the cause of action is
a function of state law, not federal law.
We shall have to see if the California Supreme Court interprets PAGA as
did Justice Alito or reaches a contrary conclusion.
B.
Plaintiffs’ Request for a Stay
Plaintiffs have requested that this
Court issue a stay pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph
v. Uber Technologies, S274671. Plaintiffs cite the August 1, 2022 order
from the California Supreme Court granting review and ordering briefing in that
case which states
“The issue to be briefed and argued
is limited to the following: Whether 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.” (Opposition at p. 5.)
Defendants argue in response that
while the California Supreme Court has granted review, there is no anticipated
time for the review ruling to take place, nor is that case directly applicable
to the current case. (Reply at p. 9.) Further, Defendants argue that the FAA
would preempt any decision in Adolph as to this case. (Reply at p. 9.) However,
dismissing Plaintiffs’ representative PAGA claims prior to a decision in Adolph
may lead to unnecessary litigation.
Accordingly, this Court defers its
decision on a dismissal of Plaintiffs’ representative PAGA claims pending the
California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph.
Conclusion
Defendants’ motion to compel
arbitration as to the individual PAGA claims is GRANTED. The case is STAYED
pending arbitration of those matters. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1281.4, 1292.6.) Should
Adolph be decided and impact the proper procedure to follow, the parties
may seek to lift the stay. The Court
defers its decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ representative
PAGA claims pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph.