Judge: Randall J. Sherman, Case: 2021-01232212, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Landsea Homes Corporation’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted in part and denied in part.  The motion is granted in that plaintiff’s PAGA claims based on violations allegedly suffered by plaintiff herself are ordered to arbitration.  The motion is denied in that plaintiff’s PAGA claims based on violations allegedly suffered by other employees will not be dismissed, but will be stayed pending completion of the arbitration and pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. S274671.  Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is denied as irrelevant.  Zucchet v. Galardi (2014) 229 Cal. App. 4th 1466, 1474 n.5.  The Stay Review Hearing set for today is ordered off calendar.  A Post-Arbitration Review Hearing is set for June 9, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.  The parties must file a Joint Status Report at least a week before the hearing, and may request a continuance if arbitration is not yet complete.

Plaintiff does not dispute that there exists a valid agreement to arbitrate the PAGA claims asserted by plaintiff and that no grounds exist to bar enforcement of the agreement.  CCP §1281.2.  Plaintiff concedes that her PAGA claims based on violations she suffered must be arbitrated under Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S. Ct. 1906, and argues simply that her PAGA claims based on violations allegedly suffered by other employees should be stayed pending completion of the arbitration and pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. S274671, rather than be dismissed.

The court agrees with plaintiff that her PAGA claims based on violations allegedly suffered by other employees should be stayed pending the arbitration and pending Adolph v. Uber.  Although the lead opinion in Viking River Cruises concluded that a plaintiff lacks standing to bring non-individual PAGA claims, and that those claims should be dismissed, that conclusion is not controlling, and the California Supreme Court is set to decide that very issue in Adolph v. Uber.  The more prudent course is for this court to await that decision.

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