Judge: Randall J. Sherman, Case: 2021-01204377, Date: 2022-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Crossmark, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration of Plaintiff’s Individual PAGA Claim and Dismiss Non-Individual PAGA Claims is denied.  Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is denied.  Defendant’s Objections to Evidence are sustained as to #1-4 and 8 (an exhibit which defendant itself offers), and overruled as to #5-7.

Section 1 of the parties’ Mutual Arbitration Agreement provides for final and binding arbitration of all legal disputes and claims between defendant and plaintiff, “on behalf of herself as well as her heirs, spouses, successors, assigns, and agents”.  The arbitration clause does not cover representative claims, however, and PAGA claims are representative claims, not individual claims.  Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal. 4th 348, 360, 378, 387.  Even PAGA claims for violations suffered by the plaintiff herself are representative claims.  Id. at 394 (concurring opinion).  Section 6 of the parties’ Agreement begins with the following language, in bold lettering: “The Arbitrator is prohibited from consolidating the claims of others into one proceeding, to the maximum extent permitted by law.  This means an arbitrator shall hear only individual claims and is prohibited from fashioning a proceeding as a class, collective, representative, joint, or group action or awarding relief to a group of claimants or employees in one proceeding, to the maximum extent permitted by law.”  Thus, the parties’ agreement does not call for the arbitration of PAGA claims, compelling the denial of this motion.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.