Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00640, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21PSCV00640 Hearing Date: May 1, 2025 Dept: G
Plaintiff James Glessner of Case No. 24STCV13853’s
Motion for Consolidation
Respondent: Defendants Envision WC MB Auto, LLC; Envision Motors Holdings, LLC; Envision WC Toy Auto, LLC; Envision WC AU Auto, LLC; Envision WC CDJR Auto, LLC; Envision NWK Toy Auto, LLC; Envision Escondido Auto, LLC; and Envision CE LRJ Auto, LLC and Plaintiff Hakob Manoukian, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff James Glessner of Case No. 24STCV13853’s Motion for Consolidation is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This is a wage and hour action brought under Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Envision WC MB Auto, LLC; Envision Motors Holdings, LLC; Envision WC Toy Auto, LLC; Envision WC AU Auto, LLC; Envision WC CDJR Auto, LLC; Envision NWK Toy Auto, LLC; Envision Escondido Auto, LLC; and Envision CE LRJ Auto, LLC (collectively, Defendants) employed plaintiff Hakob Manoukian (Plaintiff) as an hourly non-exempt employee. On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees against Defendants and Does 1 through 50, alleging violations of Labor Code section 2698 et seq. for (1) failure to provide employment records, (2) failure to pay overtime/double time, (3) failure to provide meal and rest periods, (4) failure to pay minimum wages, (5) failure to keep accurate and provide itemized wage statements, (6) failure to pay reporting time, (7) failure to pay “split shift” premiums, (8) failure to timely pay wages during employment, (9) failure to timely pay wages upon termination, (10) failure to provide information required by the Wage Theft Prevention Act, (11) failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses and costs, and (12) failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.
On February 23, 2023, the court stayed the non-individual portions of Plaintiff’s PAGA claims. The court additionally stayed Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claims pending the arbitration of individual claims if Plaintiff retains standing to assert the representative claims.
On July 17, 2023, in Adolph v. Uber Technologies (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1123, the Supreme Court of California held that “where a plaintiff has filed a PAGA action comprised of individual and non-individual claims, an order compelling arbitration of individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing to litigate non-individual claims in court.”
On October 23, 2024, the court continued the stay to the next hearing date. On April 9, 2025, the court ordered the case to remain stayed in its entirety pending the next hearing date. The same day, the parties advised the court that they had settled on February 28, 2025, and were finalizing a long-form settlement agreement. (Def. Opp., p. 3:15-17.)
On April 1, 2025, plaintiff James Glessner of Case No. 24STCV13853 filed this present motion. The hearing is set for May 1, 2025. An order to show cause re: dismissal is scheduled for July 17, 2025.
ANALYSIS
Glessner of Case No. 24STCV13853 moves to consolidate this present case with Mercado v. Envision Motors Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 23PSCV02903, and Glessner v. Envision EDH MB Auto LLC, et al., Case No. 24STCV13853. The court denies this motion due to the current stay.
Legal Standard
If a court grants a motion to compel arbitration of an action, the court shall stay the action at the request of the party involved. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.) The purpose of the stay is to halt all judicial proceedings related to the arbitrable issues until the arbitration is resolved. (Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1153, quoting Federal Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1374.) The trial court retains limited jurisdiction during the stay, such as appointing arbitrators, granting provisional remedies, and confirming, correcting, or vacating the arbitration award. (Aronow v. Superior Court (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 865, 873, quoting MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 658-659.) Any other judicial acts are generally unauthorized unless the court lifts the stay. (Ibid.)
Application
Glessner of Case No. 24STCV13853 moves to consolidate this present case with two others but does not move to lift the current stay. (Motion, pp. 3:1-7:24.) On April 9, 2025, the court ordered this case to remain stayed in its entirety pending the next hearing date. (04/09/2025 Min. Order, p. 1.) This status has not changed.
Since the court has not lifted the stay and Glessner of Case No. 24STCV13853 does not move to lift the stay, the motion is premature and unauthorized. For this reason, the court DENIES the motion.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Glessner of Case No. 24STCV13853’s motion for consolidation is DENIED.