Judge: Randall J. Sherman, Case: 2022-01255364, Date: 2022-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Defendants Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. and Yamaha Motor Finance Corporation, U.S.A.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss Representative Claims and Stay All Civil Court Proceedings is granted in part and denied in part.  Plaintiff’s individual claims as set forth in her 1st-8th causes of action are ordered to arbitration.  Plaintiff’s class claims and PAGA claims are ordered stayed pending completion of the arbitration.  The Case Management Conference set for January 13, 2023 is ordered off calendar.  A Post-Arbitration Review Hearing is set for May 26, 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 by Stipulation and Order before the hearing or in their Joint Status Report if arbitration is not yet complete.

The court concludes that there exists a valid agreement to arbitrate the individual claims asserted by plaintiff and that no grounds exist to bar enforcement of the agreement.  CCP §1281.2.  Based on Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela (2019) 139 S. Ct. 1407, 1416-17, class-wide arbitration is not proper because the arbitration agreement does not authorize class arbitration.  The Federal Arbitration Act applies because defendants are engaged in interstate commerce, and the agreement provides that it is governed by the FAA.  Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 840.  Both the Federal Arbitration Act and California law provide for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration.  9 U.S.C. §3; CCP §1281.4.

Defendants have met their burden on reply under the analysis set forth in Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal. App. 5th 158, 165, to demonstrate the authenticity of plaintiff’s electronic signature.  The declaration of Nichole Czerniuk presents sufficient evidence to establish the steps plaintiff was required to take to electronically sign the agreement on the estaff365 portal, that unique logins and passwords known only to plaintiff were required to affix the electronic signature, and that an electronic audit trail was generated.  It is for this court, not an arbitrator, to decide if plaintiff entered into an agreement in the first place.

The non-signatory defendant moving parties may invoke the arbitration clause to compel the signatory plaintiff to arbitrate her claims because the causes of action against the nonsignatories are intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.  The doctrine applies here because plaintiff’s claims are based on the same facts and are inherently inseparable from potentially arbitrable claims against CoWorx Staffing Services, the signatory employer.  Garcia v. Pexco, LLC (2017) 11 Cal. App. 5th 782, 785-86.  Thus, plaintiff must arbitrate her individual claims that are part of her class claims.

However, plaintiff’s PAGA claims are not subject to arbitration.  Paragraph 9 of the parties’ Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate provides: “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 agreed that representative actions would not be arbitrated.  However, 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).  As a result, there is no agreement to arbitrate any of plaintiff’s PAGA claims.

To the extent defendants contend that the arbitrability of plaintiff’s PAGA claims should be delegated to the arbitrator for decision, that same paragraph 9 of the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate also provides: “Any question or dispute concerning the scope or validity of this paragraph shall be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction and not the arbitrator.”  Thus, it is for this court to decide that the parties’ arbitration agreement does not cover any of plaintiff’s PAGA claims in this lawsuit.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.