Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 20STCV03227 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV03227, Date: 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV03227 Hearing Date: November 21, 2022 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: November 21, 2022 TRIAL DATE: March 21, 2023

CASE: James Legare v. Lebo Automotive, Inc.

CASE NO.: 20STCV03227

RULING ON STAY OF PLAINTIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE PAGA CLAIMS PENDING ARBITRATION OF INDIVIDUAL PAGA CLAIM

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Lebo Automotive, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 11/16/22

CASE HISTORY:

· 01/27/20: Complaint filed.

· 04/17/20: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a PAGA action for wage and hour violations.

Following the Court’s September 19, 2022 order granting Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration with respect to Plaintiff’s individual claims, the Court ordered briefing on the question of whether the Court should stay litigation of Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claims.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claims are ordered STAYED pending resolution of the California Supreme Court case Adolph v. Uber Technologies, S274671. All hearings on this matter are advanced and placed off-calendar.

The Court sets a hearing on the status of Adolph v. Uber Technologies for May 22, 2022, at 9:00 AM.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claims should be stayed pending resolution of Plaintiff’s individual claims.

Defendant sets forth three bases for its argument. First, Defendant contends that, under both the Federal Arbitration Act and the California Arbitration Act, which govern the operative arbitration agreement, the case must be stayed pending completion of Plaintiff’s arbitration. (See 9 U.S.C. § 3; Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.) Defendant’s second basis is that the California Supreme Court granted review recently in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, S274671, to address whether an aggrieved employee maintains standing to pursue non-individual PAGA claims once an individual PAGA claim has been committed to a separate proceeding. Defendant contends that judicial economy and the parties’ resources would best be served by waiting for the California Supreme Court’s ruling on this question. Finally, Defendant argues that possible findings by the arbitrator may affect the underlying claims by potentially affecting Plaintiff’s status as an aggrieved employee or by making determinations regarding Defendant’s wage and hour policies that may be binding on the Court.

Defendant did not brief the issues of whether the aggrieved parties’ right to engage in discovery under the Code of Civil Procedure weakens the reasons for a stay and the extent to which the arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual claims will have a collateral estoppel effect on his standing to bring the representative claims in this lawsuit, as requested by the Court in its September 19 order. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not file a responsive brief to this motion as ordered by the Court in its September 19, 2022 ruling.

Nevertheless, the Court is persuaded by Defendant’s arguments. In particular, the Court agrees with Defendant that judicial economy and the parties’ resources would best be served by awaiting the opinion of the California Supreme Court in Adolph. The Court’s ruling on the Motion to Compel Arbitration directly and necessarily addressed the issue of whether Plaintiff had standing to maintain his representative claims once his individual claims were compelled to arbitration. As the Supreme Court is now poised to provide new precedent on this issue, the Court concurs that the proper approach is to preserve the status quo with respect to Plaintiff’s representative claims until the issue of standing is resolved by Adolph.

CONCLUSION:

The Court sets a hearing on the status of Adolph v. Uber Technologies for May 22, 2022, at 9:00 AM.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2022 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.