Judge: Michael T. Smyth, Case: 37-2019-00068188-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 18, 2024

04/19/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-67 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael T. Smyth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00068188-CU-OE-CTL GARCIA VS OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

As a tentative, the court finds that the agreement is sufficiently authenticated and not unconscionable.

The court will hear from the parties as to whether there is any individual PAGA claim to compel to arbitration.

On one hand, the court is inclined to agree that there are no individual PAGA claims to compel to arbitration if Plaintiff states that they are not seeking any penalties, damages, or other remedy for any Labor Code violation that actually occurred as to Plaintiff. For example, if Plaintiff is eventually successful in obtaining penalties for the alleged Labor Code violations, no penalties would be available in this lawsuit for Labor Code violations that occurred as to Plaintiff even if it is proven that they occurred.

On the other hand, Labor Code section 2699(a) states that the action is to 'be . . . brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees.' Initially, Plaintiff's complaint seemingly complied with this requirement as it states in several places that he was seeking penalties on behalf of himself. (See Compl., ¶¶ 30-31 ['As California Labor Code Section 2699 provides for civil penalties recoverable by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees by and through Labor Code section 2699.3, and as Plaintiff has complied with all pre-filing requirements, Plaintiff may recover these penalties'], 36-37 [same], 43-44 [same], 49-50 [same], 55-56 [same], 61-62 [same].) But Plaintiff now denies that he is seeking any individual penalties creating a different question: is Plaintiff's complaint compliant with the Labor Code's requirement that a PAGA claim 'be . . . brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees'? In Adolph, the court discussed the argument that a PAGA action must be brought on behalf of both Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees but did not expressly rule on it. Our Supreme Court stated that 'even if we were to agree with Uber's reading of the statute, Adolph would have standing' because there, Adolph was still considered to be bringing the action on behalf of both themselves and other aggrieved employees, even if those portions were split between arbitration and court. (Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1126.) In our case, however, Plaintiff is attempting to only bring the action on behalf of other current or former employees and not himself.

The court will hear from the parties.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3092120  13