Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2022-00050579-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPT.:
EVENT DATE:
EVENT TIME:
HALL OF JUSTICE
TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 10, 2023
08/11/2023 01:30:00 PM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor
CASE NO.:
CASE CATEGORY:
EVENT TYPE:
CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:
Civil - Unlimited Other employment Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00050579-CU-OE-CTL JONES VS PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES - ALVARADO LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 06/30/2023
Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Arbitration Jones v. Prime HealthCare Services – Alvarado LLC, Case No. 2022-50579 August 11, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.
This PAGA case arises out of plaintiffs' non-exempt employment at defendant's hospital from 2019 to the present. Plaintiffs filed this representative action challenging defendant's wage and hour practices in December of 2022. Plaintiffs were not prompt about effecting service, and the CMC had to be continued. ROA 11-12.
Presently, defendant seeks an order compelling plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims pursuant to the agreements they entered when defendant hired them. ROA 21-27. There is no opposition.
The case is also set for a continued CMC. ROA 18-19.
2. Applicable Standards.
A. A party to an arbitration agreement may seek a court order compelling the parties to arbitrate a dispute covered by the agreement. Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2. 'The party seeking to compel arbitration has the burden of proving the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance any fact necessary to its defense.' Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1157. The court must grant the petition to compel arbitration unless it finds: (1) no written agreement to arbitrate exists; or (2) the right to compel arbitration has been waived; or (3) grounds exist for revocation of arbitration (e.g., unconscionability, fraud in the inducement, or illegality); or (4) litigation is pending that may render the arbitration unnecessary or create conflicting rulings on common issues. Code Civ. Proc.
§ 1281.2.
B. Nearly two decades ago, the California Legislature enacted PAGA in response to widespread violations of the Labor Code and significant underenforcement of those laws. Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) __ Cal.5th __, 2023 WL 4553702, at *3. By its terms, PAGA authorizes any Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
2992100 34 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: JONES VS PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES - ALVARADO LLC 37-2022-00050579-CU-OE-CTL 'aggrieved employee' to initiate an action against a former employer 'on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees' to obtain civil penalties that previously could have been recovered only by the State in an LWDA enforcement action. Lab. Code Ann. § 2699(a).
In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, the California Supreme Court held that a predispute categorical waiver of the right to bring a PAGA action is unenforceable. Id. at 382-83. The Court also found unenforceable an agreement that, while providing for arbitration of alleged Labor Code violations sustained by the plaintiff employee (i.e., individual claims), compels waiver of claims on behalf of other employees (i.e., non-individual claims). Id. at 384.
Following Iskanian, various California appellate courts held that employers may not require employees to 'split' PAGA actions in a manner that puts individual and non-individual components into bifurcated proceedings. This was the state of the law until June 15, 2022, when the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act ('FAA') preempts the rule of Iskanian insofar as it precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate. Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 1906, 1924-25. Thus, Viking River requires enforcement of agreements to arbitrate a PAGA plaintiff's individual claims if the agreement is covered by the FAA.
After Viking River, it was unclear whether an aggrieved employee who had been compelled to arbitrate his or her individual claims under PAGA maintained statutory standing to pursue the non-individual claims in court. Last month, the California Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative, holding that 'an order compelling arbitration of individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing to litigate non-individual claims in court.' Adolph, 2023 WL 4553702, at *8.
3. Request for Judicial Notice.
Defendant seeks judicial notice of the JAMS arbitration rules. ROA 23. Judicial notice is taken as requested. See Evid. Code § 452(h); see also Emerald Aero, LLC v. Kaplan (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1125, 1132 fn. 5.
4. Discussion and Ruling.
The unopposed motion to compel arbitration is granted.
Defendant has established the existence of an agreement between the parties to arbitrate 'any and all disputes, claims, or controversies...arising out of...the employment relationship' and to do so on an 'individual basis.' (Turner Decl., Ex. A at pp. 1-2.) The burden shifts to plaintiffs to prove any defenses to the arbitration agreement's enforcement. See Baker, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at 1157. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion and, therefore, have failed to meet their burden.
Accordingly, plaintiffs are ordered to arbitrate their individual PAGA claims as they agreed to do when they were hired. See Viking River, supra, 142 S.Ct. at 1925. Defendant's request to dismiss plaintiffs' non-individual PAGA claims is denied. See Adolph, supra, 2023 WL 4553702, at *8. Those claims are hereby stayed while the arbitration of plaintiffs' individual PAGA claims is conducted. Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.4.
The CMC set for today is hereby vacated. An arbitration status conference will be held on August 9, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 72.
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
2992100 34