Judge: Randolph M. Hammock, Case: 24STCV03807, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03807    Hearing Date: August 21, 2024    Dept: 49

Luz Bautista v. Eastwest Proto, Inc., dba Lifeline Ambulance


PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Eastwest Proto, Inc., dba Lifeline Ambulance

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Luz Bautista brings this action under PAGA based on Defendant Lifeline Ambulance’s alleged Labor Code violations. 

Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate her individual PAGA claims. No opposition was filed. 

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED AS MOOT.

Defendant to give notice, unless waived.  

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Arbitration

1. Legal Standard

“[T]he petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence . . . .”  (Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284).  “In determining whether an arbitration agreement applies to a specific dispute, the court may examine only the agreement itself and the complaint filed by the party refusing arbitration [citation]. The court should attempt to give effect to the parties' intentions, in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual language and the circumstances under which the agreement was made.”  (Weeks v. Crow (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 350, 353).  “Doubts as to whether an arbitration clause applies to a particular dispute are to be resolved in favor of sending the parties to arbitration. The court should order them to arbitrate unless it is clear that the arbitration clause cannot be interpreted to cover the dispute.”  (California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n v. State (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 198, 205).  

“[A] party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. [Citation.] In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court's discretion, to reach a final determination.”  (Giuliano v. Inland Empire Personnel, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284).

“If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies. . . .”  (CCP § 1281.4.)

2. Analysis

On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed her Complaint asserting 16 causes of action under the Labor Code, PAGA, and the UCL. (See Complaint, generally.) In response, Defendant filed a petition to compel binding arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual claims and an order staying the representative PAGA claim. (See 07/01/2024 Petition.) Rather than oppose the motion, on August 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint which includes only a single cause of action under PAGA. (See FAC, generally.)

In the single cause of action in the FAC, Plaintiff states that she seeks “only those penalties that are required to be shared with the LWDA as Plaintiff is not seeking individual penalties/victim specific relief or underpaid wages for herself or other employees under this specific PAGA cause of action.” (FAC ¶ 31 [emphasis added].) In other words, the action appears purely “representative” in that Plaintiff brings the action as a representative of the state based on alleged code violations sustained by other employees—but not herself. (See Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639, 648–49.) 

The representative PAGA claim is not subject to arbitration, as Defendant concedes in its motion. Thus, because the arbitrable portions of the Complaint have been dismissed by the filing of the FAC, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   August 21, 2024 ___________________________________
Randolph M. Hammock
Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.