Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV12160, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV12160    Hearing Date: September 11, 2023    Dept: 39

Juan Nolasco v. Lee Kum Kee (U.S.A.), Inc., et al.

Case No. 21STCV12160

Motion to Compel Arbitration

            Plaintiff Juan Nolasco (“Plaintiff”) filed this action under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) against Lee Kum Kee (U.S.A.) Inc. and Lee Kum Kee (USA) Foods, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”).  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 August 30, 2022, the Court ordered arbitration of Plaintiff’s “individual” claim.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated August 30, 2022.)  The Court continued the hearing on the motion to the extent Defendants sought to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s “non-individual” claim, pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104.  In that case, the Supreme Court has 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.) 

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s “non-individual” claim is denied. 

            2.         The Court stays Plaintiff’s “non-individual” claim pending arbitration of Plaintiff’s “individual” claim.

            3.         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.

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