Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV12113, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV12113    Hearing Date: September 12, 2022    Dept: 39

Joaquin Del Cid, Jr. v. Jonathan Club

Case No. 20STCV12113

Motion to Compel Arbitration

            Plaintiff Joaquin Del Cid, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) against the Jonathan Club (“Defendant”).  Defendants move to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim under Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906.

            This case is governed by the third arbitration agreement, which Plaintiff signed on October 24, 2006.  This agreement states that “this Acknowledgment supersedes all previous agreements and representations, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subjects covered in this Acknowledgment.”  (Declaration of Hiromi Oki, Exh. #3, p. 2.)  Therefore, this arbitration agreement controls.

            Plaintiff argues that PAGA claims are not covered by this arbitration agreement.  The Court disagrees.  The arbitration agreement expressly covers “claims based on any federal, state, or local law, statute, or regulation.”  (Id., Exh. #3, p. 1.)  This covers the California Labor Code and PAGA claims.         

            Plaintiff does not dispute that the Federal Arbitration Act applies to this case.  Therefore, based upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, the Court grants the motion with respect to Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim.  However, the Court continues the hearing on Defendant’s motion to the extent it seeks to dismiss the representative PAGA claim.  The U.S. Supreme Court held that there is no standing to pursue such claims following arbitration of an individual PAGA claim: “A plaintiff has standing to maintain non-individual PAGA claims in an action only by virtue of also maintaining an individual claim in that action.  As a result, [a plaintiff] would lack statutory standing to maintain her non-individual claims in court, and the correct course was to dismiss her remaining claims.”  (Id., p. 1913.)  The California Supreme Court has held that an employee may maintain a representative PAGA action even if his individual claims have been resolved.  (Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 84-85.)  Defendants cite no California cases following the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana addressing this issue.  The Court anticipates there will be guidance from any decision by the California Supreme Court in Adolph v. Uber Technologies.  

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim is granted. 

            2.         The Court stays the case pending arbitration of the individual claim.

            3.         The Court advances and vacates all motions hearing dates, as well as the final status conference and trial dates. 

            4.         The Court sets an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Arbitration) for April 10, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. 

            5.         The Court continues the hearing on Defendant’s motion, to the extent it seeks dismissal of the representative PAGA claim, to April 10, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.

            6.         The parties may file a stipulation and proposed order, or an ex parte application, to advance the hearing if necessary (i.e., based on any decision by the California Supreme Court in Adolph v. Uber Technologies). 

            7.         Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.