Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV11472, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV11472 Hearing Date: August 31, 2022 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: August
31, 2022
CASE NAME: Ralph Corona v. PJCA-5, LP, et al.
CASE NO.: 21STCV11472
DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, OR ALTERNATIVELY, STAY THE PROCEEDINGS
MOVING PARTY: Defendants PJCA-5, LP, et
al.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Ralph
Corona
RELIEF REQUESTED:
(1)
An order
compelling arbitration of Plaintiff Ralph Corona’s representative PAGA claim;
and
(2)
In the
alternative, to stay the instant action until the United States Supreme Court
adjudicates Viking River Cruises, Inc.,
v. Moriana, No. 20+1573
TENTATIVE RULING:
(1) The
Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED, as to the individual PAGA claim.
Plaintiff’s representative claim is STAYED Request for Judicial Notice is
GRANTED. Request for Sanctions is GRANTED.
(2) The
request for alternative relief is MOOT, pursuant to Supreme Court’s ruling on Viking River Crusies, Inc., v. Moriana,
No. 20-1573, on June 15, 2022.
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Plaintiff Ralph Corona, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees, (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants PJCA-5, LP, et
al. The complaint was for a violation of the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, the
Plaintiff’s employer, failed to provide required meal periods and rest periods;
failed to pay overtime wages, minimum wages, and wages due to discharged and
quitting employees; failed to maintain required wages; failed to furnish
accurate itemized wage statements; and failed to indemnify employees for
necessary expenditures.
Defendants PJCA-5, LP, et al. filed
an Answer on November 2, 2021.
Defendants PJCA-5, LP, et al. filed
this current Motion to Compel on June 1, 2022. Plaintiff filed an Opposition on
July 5, 2022. Defendants’ reply was filed on July 11, 2022.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under CCP §1285, “any party to
an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to
confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondents
all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons
bound by the arbitration award.” Under CCP §1285.4, “A petition
under this chapter shall: (a) Set forth the substance of or have attached a
copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence
of such an agreement. (b) Set forth names of the arbitrators. (c) Set
forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the
arbitrators, if any.”
“[T]he petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence
of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence . . .
.” Giuliano v. Inland Empire
Personnel, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284. “In
determining whether an arbitration agreement applies to a specific dispute, the
court may examine only the agreement itself and the complaint filed by the
party refusing arbitration [citation]. The court should attempt to give effect
to the parties' intentions, in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the
contractual language and the circumstances under which the agreement was
made.” Weeks v. Crow (1980)
113 Cal.App.3d 350, 353. “To determine whether a contractual arbitration
clause requires arbitration of a particular controversy, the controversy is
first identified and the issue is whether that controversy is within the scope
of the contractual arbitration clause.” Titolo v. Cano (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 310, 316.
“Doubts as to whether an arbitration clause applies to a particular dispute are
to be resolved in favor of sending the parties to arbitration. The court should
order them to arbitrate unless it is clear that the arbitration clause cannot
be interpreted to cover the dispute.” California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n v. State (2006)
142 Cal.App.4th 198, 205.
“[A] party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving
by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. [Citation.]
In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing
all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as
oral testimony received at the court's discretion, to reach a final
determination.” Giuliano v.
Inland Empire Personnel, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.
ANALYSIS:
Defendants
move to compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate his representative PAGA claim.
On July 18,
2022, the parties presented arguments to the court. The Court issued a tentative
ruling granting the motion to compel but continued the matter to allow both
parties to provide supplemental briefings concerning the representative PAGA
claim and whether it should be dismissed if the individual PAGA claim is sent
to arbitration. To be clear, the
prior TENTATIVE RULING REMAINS UNCHANGED.
Defendant contends that the PAGA
statute indicates that Plaintiff’s representative claims should be dismissed.
Specifically, under Viking River Cruises,
the United States Supreme Court indicated that PAGA has a standing requirement
where a plaintiff’s non-individual PAGA claims can be maintained “only by
virtue of also maintaining an individual claim in that action. See Cal. Lab.
Code Ann. §§ 2699(a), (c).” (Viking River
Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906, 1925, reh'g denied (U.S.,
Aug. 22, 2022, No. 20-1573) 2022 WL 3580311 (Viking River Cruises).) Therefore, because the Plaintiff’s individual
PAGA claim is subject to arbitration, Plaintiff no longer has standing to
assert the representative claim in Court. Defendant further argues that the
language of Labor Code § 2699(a) bars splitting PAGA claim, as the statute
allows for recovery brought by an “employee on behalf of himself or herself and
other current or former employees.”
Further, Defendant asserts that Viking River Cruises does not conflict with Kim
v. Reins. Defendant argues that in Kim,
the plaintiff litigated the underlying labor code violations in the arbitration
forum and then came back to litigate the PAGA claims, both the individual and
representative PAGA claims. (Kim v. Reins
Int'l California, Inc., (2020) 9 Cal. 5th 73.)
Plaintiff argues that the
representative claims should not be dismissed for three reasons. One, PAGA
standing is controlled by state law, as stated in Justice Sotomayor’s
concurrence in Viking River Cruises.
Two, the majority in Viking River Cruises misread the decision in Kim.
Specifically, Kim did not hold that “shifting a dispute into another forum,
such as arbitration, turns an aggrieved employee into a member of “general
public” without PAGA standing.” (Opp. 5: 12-14). Third, California courts have
permitted Plaintiffs to litigate representative PAGA claims even if the PAGA
representative has no personal stake in the litigation.
Viking
River Cruises abrogated Iskanian,
whereby a plaintiff can be compelled to arbitrate the individual PAGA claim
that was agreed to in an arbitration agreement. However, Defendant’s contention
that Viking River Cruises compels
that Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claim be dismissed because once
Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim is sent to arbitration he no longer has standing
fails. As Plaintiff correctly argues, the California Supreme Court in Kim determined that a plaintiff still
has standing to pursue a representative claim even after the individual claims
are settled. (Kim, supra, 9 Cal.5th
at 80.) According to Labor Code § 2699(a), an aggrieved employee can bring a
civil action against a current or former employee. Under subsection (c), an
aggrieved employee is a person who was “employed by the alleged violator” and
against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed.” (Id.) Kim
added: “The Legislature defined PAGA standing in terms of violations, not
injury. Kim became an aggrieved employee, and had PAGA standing, when one or
more Labor Code violations were committed against him. (See § 2699(c).)
Settlement did not nullify these violations.” (Kim, supra, 9 Cal.5that 84.) Further,
The statutory language reflects
that the Legislature did not intend to link PAGA standing to the maintenance of
individual claims when such claims have been alleged. An employee has PAGA
standing if “one or more of the alleged violations was committed” against him.
(§ 2699(c), italics added.) This language indicates that PAGA standing is not
inextricably linked to the plaintiff's own injury. Employees who were subjected
to at least one unlawful practice have standing to serve as PAGA
representatives even if they did not personally experience each and every
alleged violation. (§ 2699(c).) This expansive approach to standing serves the
state's interest in vigorous enforcement.
(Id.)
While this ruling is inconsistent with the United States
Supreme Court’s interpretation of California law in Viking River Cruises, this
court is bound by the California Supreme Court’s interpretation of California
law. (See Auto Equity Sales v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 57
Cal.2d 450.)
Therefore, Plaintiff has standing as it relates to the
representative PAGA claim. Thus, the Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claim is
stayed until the resolution of the individual arbitrable PAGA claims.
Conclusion:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
The Motion to Compel Arbitration is
GRANTED, as to the individual PAGA claim. Plaintiff’s representative claim is STAYED
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August
31, 2022 _________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court