Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV05884, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05884    Hearing Date: October 5, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On March 16, 2023, Plaintiff Vanessa Huerta, as an “aggrieved employee,” filed this action against Defendant Alal LLC, 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 July 14, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the action.

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 an Arbitration Agreement with her New Hire Online Onboarding.  (Flores Decl. ¶¶ 4-6 & Exs. A-B.)  Through the Arbitration Agreement, “The Company and Employee agree that any dispute, claim, or complaint that relates in any way to the Parties’ employment relationship . . . shall be submitted to binding arbitration.”  (Arbitration Agreement ¶ 2.)  The Arbitration Agreement expressly does not cover “claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2014.”  (Arbitration Agreement ¶ 4(c).)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s PAGA claims are asserted individually and in a representative capacity.  (Motion at p. 6.)  According to Defendant, “when read in the context of the rest of the Agreement, Section 4(c) evinces a clear intent to extend only to representative PAGA claims, and it does not purport to cover all claims under PAGA.  The result is that the representative PAGA claims are excluded from arbitration, while the individual PAGA claims are required to be arbitrated.”  (Motion at pp. 7-8.)  Defendant also argues that Covered Claims include “claims for overtime, unpaid wages, and claims involving meal and rest breaks” (Arbitration Agreement ¶ 3), and “[t]hese are precisely the claims Plaintiff is bringing individually as a PAGA action here.”  (Reply at p. 5.)

The Arbitration Agreement could not be more clear:  “Claims not covered also include claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2014.”  There is no distinction between representative and individual PAGA claims; all claims under PAGA are not covered by the Arbitration Agreement.  And the Complaint could not be more clear:  “PLAINTIFF does not seek to recover anything other than penalties as permitted by California Labor Code § 2699. To the extent that statutory violations are mentioned for wage violations, PLAINTIFF does not seek underlying general and/or special damages for those violations, but simply the civil penalties permitted by California Labor Code § 2699.”  (Complaint ¶ 1.)  Plaintiff is not asserting damages claims for overtime, unpaid wages, and breaks.

Because the Arbitration Agreement expressly excludes all PAGA claims, 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 5th day of October 2023