Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 20NWCV00603, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20NWCV00603    Hearing Date: December 20, 2022    Dept: SEC

ROBERTS v. SOLANTIC CORPORATION

CASE NO.:  20NWCV00603

HEARING:  12/20/22 @ 9:30 AM

JUDGE:  OLIVIA ROSALES

#1

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Solantic Corporation’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED as to the individual claims.  The representative claims are STAYED.

Moving party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Solantic Corporation moves to compel arbitration pursuant to CCP § 1281.2.

A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.  (CCP § 1281.) The court must grant the petition to compel arbitration unless it finds either: no written agreement to arbitrate exists; the right to compel arbitration has been waived; grounds exist for revocation of the agreement; or litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues.  (CCP § 1281.2.)

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint asserts a cause of action for PAGA violations.

The Court finds that Defendant has met the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. Plaintiff agreed “to submit to final and binding arbitration any and all claims and disputes that are related in any way to my employment or the termination of my employment.” (Walker Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. A.) She also confirmed that “to the extent permitted by law, I may not join any such claim or dispute with the dispute of another employee in a class, collective, representative or group action. Arbitration under the Fair Treatment Process is limited to individual disputes.” (Id.)

Based on the recent United States Supreme Court opinion in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S.Ct. 1906 (2022), Plaintiff’s individual claims are subject to binding arbitration.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Viking River held that a plaintiff loses standing to assert a representative PAGA claim once her own individual claims are compelled to arbitration.  (Viking River, supra, 142 S.Ct. at p. 1925.)  However, the California Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff retains standing even after their individual claims are settled. (Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 80.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that this action is distinguishable from Viking River because the agreement in this action does not contain a severance clause.  However, PAGA claims necessarily includes individual and representative components.  Severability was only an issue in Viking River because “[t]he agreement between Viking and Moriana purported to waive ‘representative’ PAGA claims… this provision was invalid if construed as a wholesale waiver of PAGA claims....But the severability clause in the agreement provides that if the waiver provision is invalid in some respect, any ‘portion’ of the waiver that remains valid must still be ‘enforced in arbitration.’”  (Viking River, 142
S. Ct. at 1924–25.)  “Based on this clause, Viking was entitled to enforce the agreement insofar as it mandated arbitration of Moriana’s individual PAGA claim.” (Id.)  Moreover, Plaintiff’s relies on unpublished trial court rulings in Carnes v. Salvation Army and Ely v. Walnut Creek Associates, which are not binding on this court.

Here, the Arbitration Agreement does not require waiver of any of the employee’s claims.  It requires employees to arbitrate their individual claims.

Because PAGA standing may be a state law issue, and the California Supreme Court is poised to hear this issue in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. S274671 (rev. granted July 20, 2022), this court will sever the representative claims from the individual claims, and stay the representative claims pending the arbitration of the individual claims and/or further instruction from the California Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to the individual claims.  The representative claims are STAYED.