Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 20STCV04836, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV04836 Hearing Date: March 18, 2025 Dept: 68
Dept.
68
Date:
3-18-25
Case:
20STCV04836
Trial
Date: Not Set
LIFT STAY
MOVING
PARTY: Plaintiff, Manuel Reyes
RESPONDING
PARTY: Defendants, Aerotek, Inc., et al.
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Motion
to Lift Stay
SUMMARY
OF ACTION
On
February 6, 2020, Plaintiff Manuel filed an 11 cause of action wage and hour,
wrongful termination and violation of Business and Professions Code complaint,
which included a cause of action identified as Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA). On April 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed a single cause of action PAGA
complaint. On May 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second amended PAGA complaint
without any apparent order or stipulation allowing for leave. On August 17,
2020, Defendants Dispending Dynamic International and Aerotek, Inc. answered
the “third” amended complaint. On September 9, 2020, the court entered the
stipulation to file the third amended complaint. On September 16, 2020,
Plaintiff filed the third amended PAGA complaint.
On
October 25, 2022, the court granted the Aerotek motion to compel arbitration as
to the individual cause of action, deferred consideration of dismissal of the
representative PAGA pending either resolution of the individual PAGA claims or
the California Supreme Court ruling on Adolph v. Uber Technologies, and stayed
the entire case.
RULING: Denied without
Prejudice.
Plaintiff
Manuel Reyes moves to lift the stay in order to proceed with the representative
PAGA claims, in that the subject representative claims are not subject to
arbitration review. Defendant Dispending Dynamics International, Inc. (DDD) filed
an opposition on grounds that in the dismissal of the individual PAGA claims in
arbitration, said dismissal impacts the right to proceed on any representative
PAGA claims as an “aggrieved employee.” At a minimum, DDD requests the court
address the motion to confirm the arbitration award before allowing Plaintiff a
renewed opportunity to proceed on said claims. Defendant Aerotek, Inc. (Aero)
also opposes the motion on grounds of waiting for confirmation of the
arbitration award. Like DDD, Aero challenges the right to proceed on the
representative PAGA claim as an individually barred Plaintiff. The court
electronic filing system shows no reply on file at the time of the tentative
ruling publication cutoff.
“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.
“If an
application has been made to a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this
State or not, for an order to arbitrate a controversy which is an issue
involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State and
such application is undetermined, 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 the application for an order to arbitrate is
determined and, if arbitration of such controversy is ordered, until an
arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such
earlier time as the court specifies.
“If the
issue which is the controversy subject to arbitration is severable, the stay
may be with respect to that issue only.”
(Code
Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)
Plaintiff
relies on the discretionary standard interpreted by a court requiring a trial
to “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.”
(MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 660.) The MKJA court
held that a stay should remain intact pending full resolution of the
arbitration, unless an action is potentially “severable,” meaning said arbitrable
issue is removed from the scope of arbitration. (Id. at pp. 660-661.) On
this basis Plaintiff invites the court to essentially preemptively consider the
impact of the “procedural dismissal” to the action based by the arbitrator on
the as yet addressed motion to confirm the arbitration order.
The
PAGA claim in the third amended complaint is identified as a representative
action only, with no individual claim. On May 1, 2023, the arbitrator dismissed
any individual PAGA claim held by Plaintiff on grounds of the statute of
limitations. [Declaration of Harout Messrelian, ¶ 3 Ex. 1: Final Award.]
Plaintiff cites the most recent case law regarding the state of PAGA claims
following the Viking River Cruises v. Mariana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 and
Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104 cases. The Second
Appellate District now recognizes the right of an individual to bring a
representative PAGA action even if the named plaintiff lacks an individual
claim. (Balderas
v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533, 539 accord Adolph v. Uber
Technologies, Inc.,
supra, 14 Cal.5th
at p. 1120.)
While it is represented Plaintiff submitted no opposition to
the petition to confirm the arbitration award, the court docket only shows a
motion to confirm arbitration award currently scheduled for May 28, 2025. [See
Declaration of Nicole Roysdon, ¶ 10.] Whether Plaintiff elects to file an
opposition to the “motion,” never objected to the arbitrator order, or
improperly delayed opposing the petition to confirm the arbitration order remains
for consideration at the May 28, 2025, hearing date. The court declines to
offer any advisory opinion on a motion not before the court.
The court therefore finds no basis for a lift of the stay at
this time. “Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings
in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995)
33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489; see OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141 [“[A] court ordinarily has
inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will
accommodate the ends of justice”]; Cooper
v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 55 Cal.2d 291, 301; Bailey v. Fosca Oil Co.
(1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 813, 817.)
Given the state of the pending arbitration award, and the
potential required considerations said order will warrant, the court defers
consideration unless and until a review of the arbitrator’s award is complete
and an order entered. The court declines to engage in a premature review of the
impacts for the expedient convenience of Plaintiff. The court will consider a
limited lift of the stay for purposes of considering the motion to confirm
arbitration as entirely consistent within the meaning of Code of Civil
Procedure section 1281.4, which may or may not lead to the lifting of the stay
of the entire action at that time. Should the court lift the stay to the entire
action at the time, however, nothing in consideration of the motion for order
confirming the arbitration award will necessarily, once again, invite
consideration of the right to proceed or not proceed with the aggrieved party
claims as presented by Plaintiff. In other words, the court will rule on the
motion to compel arbitration and the stay, as a form of necessity, but any
challenge to the status of Plaintiff may still require a later filed motion
actually providing notice of a request to either dismiss the claim, with an
opposition allowing it to proceed under PAGA guidelines.
The
motion to lift the stay is therefore DENIED without prejudice pending the May
28, 2025, motion to confirm the arbitration award.
The motion to confirm arbitration award remains scheduled
for May 28, 2025.
Plaintiff to provide notice.