Judge Matthew C. Braner, Case Number: 37-2023-00046776-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00046776-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024

05/03/2024 09:00:00 AM C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00046776-CU-OE-CTL AMAYA VS BIOFILM INC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Biofilm, Inc.'s motion to stay is GRANTED.

Preliminary Matters First, Federal law does not apply to this court's decision whether to exercise its discretion to stay Plaintiff's non-individual PAGA claim. Regardless of whether the Federal Arbitration Act applies to the parties' contract containing the arbitration provision, state procedural rules govern state court action so long as they do not defeat the rights granted by Congress. (Muao v. Grosvenor Properties (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091-92.) Here, the only right granted by Congress is the automatic stay of arbitrable issues pending completion of arbitration. (9 U.S.C., � 3.) Non-arbitrable issues (like Plaintiff's non-individual PAGA claim) are subject only to discretionary stays arising from the inherent power of courts, as explained in Federal case law. (See, e.g., Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd. (9th Cir. 1979) 593 F.2d 857, 863 [non-arbitrable FLSA claim not subject to automatic stay set forth in 9 U.S.C. � 3, but 'sound reasons may exist in the case to support the district court's determination to stay the action under the powers to control its own docket and to provide for the prompt and efficient determination of the cases pending before it.'].) Second, although Plaintiff's opposition mistakenly relies on Federal discretionary stay authority, it is timely. In a footnote in its reply, Defendant argues Plaintiff ran afoul of Code of Civil Procedure sections 1013(c) and 1005(c) by serving the opposition via express mail on April 22, 2024. But these sections do not support the inference Defendant would have the court draw, which is that an opposition served by mail must be filed and served at least eleven court days before the hearing (nine plus two pursuant to CCP � 1013), instead of the nine required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).

More importantly, subdivision (b) could not be any clearer: 'Section 1013, which extends the time within which a right may be exercised or an act may be done, does not apply to a notice of motion, papers opposing a motion, or reply papers governed by this section.' (Code Civ. Proc., � 1005, subd. (b), underlining added.) A Discretionary Stay is Appropriate The parties previously stipulated to dismiss Plaintiff Daniel Amaya's class claims and to arbitrate his individual wage and hour claims and his individual PAGA claim. (ROA #16.) Defendant now asks this court to exercise its discretion to stay Plaintiff's non-individual PAGA claim until arbitration of his individual claims has been completed. This court's practice when granting a motion to compel arbitration of a plaintiff's individual PAGA claim is to stay the non-individual claim pending completion of arbitration.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3079282 20 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: AMAYA VS BIOFILM INC [E-FILE] 37-2023-00046776-CU-OE-CTL Although the parties stipulated to arbitration, the court sees no reason (and Plaintiff has not provided a sufficient reason) to depart from that practice in this case.

First, a discretionary stay is consistent with the California Supreme Court's endorsement of a discretionary stay under similar circumstances so that the arbitrator can determine whether the plaintiff is an aggrieved employee. (Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1123-24; see also Code Civ. Proc., � 1281.4 ['If the issue which is the controversy subject to arbitration is severable, the stay may be with respect to that issue only.'], underlining added.) Second, it avoids the potential for conflicting rulings, given the related and potentially overlapping legal and factual issues, and prevents disruption of the arbitration proceedings. (See, e.g., Coast Plaza Doctors Hosp. v. Blue Cross of California (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 677, 693.) Third, it balances the relative harms to each side. Neither Plaintiff nor the State will be unduly prejudiced by awaiting completion of arbitration, given the early status of this case and the limited nature of the arbitration. Conversely, Defendant could be substantially prejudiced if it is forced to proceed with expensive, time-consuming class-like litigation, and the arbitrator later finds that Plaintiff is not an aggrieved employee. Finally, a discretionary stay does not impede, and likely encourages, early resolution of the case via settlement. This type of case is frequently resolved via settlement, and if the arbitrator determines Plaintiff is an aggrieved employee, Defendant will be well positioned to assess its potential liability and proceed with early settlement negotiations.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion for a discretionary stay is granted. Plaintiff's non-individual PAGA claim is stayed pending completion of arbitration.

The case management conference will be vacated, and a status conference will be set for November 1, 2024, at 10:45 a.m. in this department.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3079282 20