Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV00276, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00276    Hearing Date: August 24, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 6, 2023, Plaintiff Mario Trigueros, as an “aggrieved employee,” filed this action against Defendant Valley Vista Services Inc., asserting a single cause of action for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) due to Defendant’s violations of the Labor Code.

On February 14, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the action.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is denied as irrelevant.

When seeking to compel arbitration of a plaintiff’s claims, the defendant must allege the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.  (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.)  The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the agreement.  (Ibid.)  After the Court determines that an agreement to arbitrate exists, it then considers objections to its enforceability.  (Ibid.)  The Court must grant a petition to compel arbitration unless the defendant has waived the right to compel arbitration or if there are grounds to revoke the arbitration agreement.  (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

The parties agree that Plaintiff signed a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims on November 15, 2023.  (Perez Decl., Ex. A [“Arbitration Agreement”].)  Through the Arbitration Agreement, “both you and the Company agree to arbitrate any and all disputes, claims, or controversies (‘claim’) that the Company may have against you or that you may have against the Company which could be brought in a court arising out of your relationship with the Company,” including claims under the Labor Code.  (Arbitration Agreement at pp. 1-2, § A.)

The Arbitration Agreement contains a Class/Collective Action Waiver:  “The Parties agree that all claims must be pursued on an individual basis only.  By signing this Agreement, you waive your right to commence, or be a party to, any class, representative or collective claims or to bring jointly with any other person any claim against the Company, except as provided in the paragraph below.”  (Arbitration Agreement at p. 3, § B.)  Such a waiver is invalid when it is a wholesale waiver of PAGA claims.  (Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906, 1924-1925 (Viking River).) 

The Arbitration Agreement also contains a severability clause:  “[A]ny determination as to the enforceability of the class/collective and/or representative action waiver shall be made solely by a court.  If the prohibition against class/collective and/or representative actions is deemed unlawful, then such action shall proceed forward in court as a potential class, collective and/or representative action.”  (Arbitration Agreement at p. 3, § C.)  Because the prohibition against representative actions is unlawful, the representative action must proceed in court, not in arbitration.

Defendant argues that the Class/Collective Action Waiver applies only to Plaintiff’s non-individual PAGA claims, and Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim remains subject to arbitration.  (Motion at p. 12.)

“PAGA actions are ‘representative’ in that they are brought by employees acting as representatives—that is, as agents or proxies—of the State.  But PAGA claims are also called ‘representative’ when they are predicated on code violations sustained by other employees.  In the first sense, ‘“every PAGA action is . . .  representative”’ and ‘[t]here is no individual component to a PAGA action,’ [citation], because every PAGA claim is asserted in a representative capacity.  But when the word ‘representative’ is used in the second way, it makes sense to distinguish ‘individual’ PAGA claims, which are premised on Labor Code violations actually sustained by the plaintiff, from ‘representative’ (or perhaps quasi-representative) PAGA claims arising out of events involving other employees.”  (Viking River, supra, 142 S.Ct. at p. 1916.)

Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff has “individual” claims premised on Labor Code violations actually sustained by him, they are still “representative” claims brought as an agent or proxy of the state.  (See ibid.)  And because the Court deems the prohibition against representative actions unlawful, the Arbitration Agreement provides that the action should proceed in court.

The motion to compel arbitration is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 24th day of August 2023