Judge: Mark V. Mooney, Case: 20STCV10112, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV10112    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: 68

LUISA RAMIREZ v. CHARTWELL STAFFING SERVICES INC., et al.

20STCV10112

TENTATIVE RULING: RE THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO COMPEL ARBITRATION and JOINDER:    

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims. The Court GRANTS Defendant American International Industries joinder to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims as a third-party.

The Court DENIES the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s non-individual, or representative, PAGA claims and STAYS proceedings pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case Number S274671.

Judicial Notice

Plaintiff asks the Court to take to take judicial notice of seven recent Superior Court of California rulings considering motions to compel arbitration after Viking River.  Plaintiff desires to have this Court receive the benefit of the thinking of other Superior Court judges regarding the issue before this Court.

“While courts take judicial notice of public records, they do not take notice of matters stated therein.” (Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375 (citing Love v. Wolf (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 378, 403.) “When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretations of the document are disputable.” (StorMedia Inc. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, fn. 9 (citing Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 374).)

The Supreme Court noted in People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 268 [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 396, 841 P.2d 897, 916]:

“Defendant requests us to take judicial notice of the record filed in the Court of Appeal in People v. Superior Court (Rowland), supra, 194 Cal.App.3d 11, 239 Cal.Rptr. 257. We may, of course, “take judicial notice” (Evid.Code, § 459, subd. (a)) of the “[r]ecords of ... any court of this state” (id., § 452, subd. (d)). We fail to see—and certainly, defendant fails to show—the relevance of the subject record. From all that appears, the court did not make any determination in light thereof. “Because ... no evidence is admissible except relevant evidence, it is reasonable to hold that judicial notice, which is a substitute for formal proof of a matter by evidence, cannot be taken of any matter that is irrelevant....” (2 Jefferson, Cal.Evidence Benchbook (2d ed. 1982) Judicial Notice, § 47.1, p. 1749.) Consequently, we deny the request.”

The other Superior Court decisions are not citable authority.  Accordingly, since judicially noticing the existence of the other court decisions provides nothing relevant to the Court, the Court DENIES the request for judicial notice.

Discussion

Defendant Chartwell Staffing Services, Inc. (“Chartwell”) seeks to compel Plaintiff Luisa Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) to arbitrate her individual PAGA claims and moves the court to dismiss Plaintiff’s non-individual PAGA claims for lack of standing. Defendant American International Industries (“AII”) seeks to likewise compel arbitration as a third-party. Plaintiff concedes that she is bound to arbitrate her individual PAGA claims under her agreement.  This case is controlled by the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. [2022 U.S. LEXIS 2940] (“Viking River”).  That decision mandates that the individual PAGA claims are subject to arbitration, as the parties acknowledge.  Hence the Court shall not dwell on the issue of the arbitration of the individual PAGA claims.  That motion shall be GRANTED, and the Joinder GRANTED.

The only issue remaining is the question of what to do with the representative PAGA claims.  Plaintiff opposes arbitration of her non-individual PAGA claims. Defendant requests that the representative claims be dismissed, although in the alternative Defendant asks the Court to stay Plaintiff’s non-individual PAGA claims pending the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case Number S274671.

In Viking River the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that once Moriana was compelled to arbitrate her individual claim, she would lack standing to pursue the nonindividual PAGA claim because she was no longer an aggrieved employee under Labor Code section 2699, subdivisions (a) and (c). (Id. at *34-35.)  However, while the determination of the arbitrability of the individual PAGA claims turns on construction of federal law, the standing of an individual to litigate representative PAGA claims turns on state law.  This Court is not bound by the analysis of the United States Supreme Court interpreting California law on standing under PAGA.  That question is to be determined by the California Supreme Court.

“In assessing standing, California courts are not bound by the ‘case or controversy’ requirement of article III of the United States Constitution . . . .” (Bilafer v. Bilafer (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 363, 370; Grosset v. Wenaas (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1100, 1117, fn. 13 [“Article III of the federal Constitution imposes a ‘case-or-controversy limitation on federal court jurisdiction,’ requiring ‘ “the party requesting standing [to allege] ‘such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues.’ ” ’ [Citation.] There is no similar requirement in our state Constitution.”]; see Cal. Const., art. VI, § 10 [trial courts have jurisdiction in “all other causes” brought before it]; National Paint & Coatings Assn. v. State of California (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 753, 761 [rejecting federal cases for the standing requirement and stating that the California Constitution “contains no ‘case or controversy’ requirement.”].)

In fact, as the parties acknowledge the specific question of whether plaintiffs have standing to maintain representative PAGA claims is currently pending before the California Supreme Court in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Accordingly, Defendant Chartwell’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s non-individual PAGA claims is DENIED. Proceedings are stayed pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph.

Defendant AII as Third-Party

Defendant AII contends that it has the right as a third-party to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate her claims against AII. Plaintiff does not appear to dispute this.

The arbitration agreement, in relevant part reads:

“Agreement to Arbitrate Disputes. In the event of any controversy, claim, or dispute arising from, related to, or having any relationship or connection whatsoever with the employment of, or the association between, the employee signing below (“Employee”) and Chartwell Staffing Services, Inc., including its co-employers, present and former partners, owners, shareholders, officers, managers, employees, agents, employee benefit and health plans, as well as parent entities, successor entities, related entities, and subsidiaries (together “Chartwell”), Employee and Chartwell (together the “Parties”) agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration…” (Conti Decl., Ex. B ¶ 1.)

Here, the arbitration agreement clearly articulates that “[Plaintiff] and Chartwell Staffing Services, including its… agents…parent entities…and subsidiaries…agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration.” (Ibid.) Thus, Defendant AII, as the agent and parent entity of Chartwell Staffing Services, is entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement with respect to Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims. However, the same analysis as above applies to Plaintiff’s non-individual PAGA claims.

Accordingly, Defendant American International Industries joinder to Defendant Chartwell Staffing Services motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims is GRANTED. But Defendant American International Industries joinder to Defendant Chartwell Staffing Services motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s non-individual PAGA claims is DENIED. Proceedings are stayed pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case Number S274671.