Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV12113, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV12113    Hearing Date: September 11, 2023    Dept: 39

Jonathan Del Cid, Jr. v. Jonathan Club

Case No. 20STCV12113

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Motion to Strike

Motion to Dismiss

            Plaintiff Jonathan Del Cid, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) against the Jonathan Club (“Defendant”).  There is no dispute that Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement that covers wage and hour claims under the Labor Code.  Nor is there any dispute that the agreement is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act.

            On September 12, 2022, the Court ordered arbitration of Plaintiff’s “individual” claim.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated September 12, 2022.)  The Court continued all other motions, pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104.  The Supreme Court has now held: “Where a plaintiff has brought a PAGA action comprising individual and non-individual claims, an order compelling arbitration of the individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing as an aggrieved employee to litigate claims on behalf of other employees under PAGA.”  (Id., p. 1114.)  This claim is not subject to Plaintiff’s arbitration agreement.  (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 379.)  Therefore, there is no basis to dismiss Plaintiff’s “non-individual” PAGA claim under Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S.Ct. 1906 (2022). 

            Defendant moves for a judgment on the pleadings based upon the insufficiency of Plaintiff’s notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (the “LWDA”).  The notice states that Plaintiff intends to file a complaint on behalf of himself and similarly aggrieved employees.  Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that there are 100 or more similarly-situated employees, which Plaintiff defines as security guards or security officers.  The notice discusses the potential violations and the legal basis for those violations.  As such, the notice is sufficient, and Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.

            Defendant also moves to strike the PAGA claim under Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 746, 765, arguing that the representative PAGA claim would be “unmanageable.”  Defendants argue that Plaintiff has no evidence supporting his representative PAGA claim and that Plaintiff admitted that he does not intend to pursue a representative PAGA claim.  These issues are better raised on a motion for summary judgment.

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Defendant’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings is denied.

            2.         Defendant’s motion to strike is denied. 

            3.         Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.

            4.         The Court continues the Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Arbitration) to June 24, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.  The Court orders Plaintiff’s counsel to file a status report on or before June 10, 2024, concerning the status of the arbitration.  The Court provides notice: If Plaintiff’s counsel does not file a status report and appear at the hearing, either remotely or in-person, absent good cause, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice.

            5.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.