Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 24STCV15491, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.
If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.
2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.
3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
Case Number: 24STCV15491 Hearing Date: December 16, 2024 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: December
16, 2024
CASE NAME: Madelaine
Morris v. Zara Usa, Inc.
CASE NO.: 24STCV15491
MOTION
TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS
MOVING PARTY: Defendant
Zara USA, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Madelaine Morris on
behalf of all Aggrieved Employees only.
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
Order compelling plaintiff Madelaine Morris to submit her individual claims
under PAGA to arbitration; and
2. An
Order staying all prosecution and proceedings regarding Plaintiff’s
representative PAGA claims.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion
to Compel Arbitration and Stay Matter is DENIED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff Madeline Morris on behalf of all
other Aggrieved Employees (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint for Enforcement under
the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code § 2698, et seq.
against Defendant Zara USA, Inc. (Defendant).
On August 1, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to
Compel Arbitration. On December 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. Replies
were due on or before December 9, 2024. As of December 12, 2024, the court has
not received a reply brief.
LEGAL STANDARD:
Request
for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff requests judicial notice of four trial court
rulings that she cites at length in her opposition. (Request for Judicial
Notice, Exhibits A-D.) The court may decline to take judicial notice of
materials not “necessary, helpful or relevant.” (Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison
(1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, 748, fn. 6.) California Rule of Court, rule 8.115(b),
prohibits citing or relying on unpublished decisions except for reasons not
applicable here. Second, “A written trial court ruling in another case has no
precedential value. ” (Budrow v. Dave
& Buster’s of California (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 875, 885; Bolanos v. Superior Court (2008) 169
Cal.App.4th 744, 761; In re Molz
(2015) 127 Cal.App.4th 836, 845;
Santa Ana Medical Hospital Center v.
Belshé (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 819, 831.) Here, Plaintiff’s request for
judicial notice includes four trial court opinions. As discussed above, this not
only does not help the court, it is improper.
Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for
judicial notice in its entirety.
Compel
Arbitration
“California law reflects a strong public policy in favor of
arbitration as a relatively quick and inexpensive method for resolving
disputes. To further that policy, section 1281.2 requires a trial court
to enforce a written arbitration agreement unless one of three limited
exceptions applies. Those statutory exceptions arise where (1) a party
waives the right to arbitration; (2) grounds exist for revoking the arbitration
agreement; and (3) pending litigation with a third party creates the possibility
of conflicting rulings on common factual or legal issues.” (Acquire II, Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate Group
(2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 959, 967; Code Civ. Proc., §
1281.2.)
In deciding a petition to compel arbitration, trial courts
must decide first whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between
the parties, and then determine the second gateway issue whether the claims are
covered within the scope of the agreement. (Omar v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 955, 961.)
The opposing party has the burden to establish any defense to
enforcement. (Gatton v. T-Mobile
USA, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 571, 579 [“The petitioner, T–Mobile here,
bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and
the opposing party, plaintiffs here, bears the burden of proving any fact
necessary to its defense.”].)
Procedurally, a petition to compel arbitration or stay
proceedings must state verbatim the provisions providing for arbitration, or
must have a copy of them attached. (Cal. R. Ct., rule
3.1330.)
ANALYSIS
Existence of
Arbitration Agreement
“With respect to the moving party’s burden to provide
evidence of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, it is generally
sufficient for that party to present a copy of the contract to the
court.” (Baker v. Italian Maple
Holdings, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1152, 1160.)
Here, Defendant presents evidence that on May 20, 2022, at
the outset of her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff viewed and physically signed
the Arbitration Agreement. (Declaration of Joanna Dmytryszyn [“Dmytryszyn
Decl.”] ¶10, Exhibit 1.) Plaintiff does not dispute that she signed it.
(Declaration of Madelaine Morris [“Morris Decl.”] ¶ 4.)
Thus, Defendant met its burden that an arbitration agreement
exists.
Burden on
the¿Opposing Party to Establish Any Defense to Enforcement
Because Defendant has established the existence of a valid
and binding arbitration agreement, the burden shifts to Plaintiff as the party
opposing arbitration, to show why the agreement should not be
enforced.
Plaintiff contends that the motion should be denied as
Defendant cannot compel to arbitration individual PAGA claims that do not exist.
Plaintiff also asserts that she has sufficiently alleged standing to prosecute
representative PAGA claims under Balderas
v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533 (Balderas), which reversed an order
striking a PAGA pleading for lack of individual PAGA claim. Plaintiff
thus contends that she cannot be compelled to arbitrate her representative
claims. Defendant argues that Plaintiff clearly has individual
claims and is otherwise circumventing PAGA requirements.
Plaintiff’s
non-individual PAGA claim is not arbitrable
To have standing to bring a representative PAGA claim, a
plaintiff need not also allege an individual PAGA cause of action. (Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. (2024)
101 Cal.App.5th 533, 538.) “The inability for an employee to pursue an
individual PAGA claim does not prevent that employee from filing a
representative PAGA action.” (Balderas,
supra, 101 Cal.App.5th at 537.) Representative PAGA claims are not
derivative or dependent on a plaintiff’s individual claim for relief. (Kim v. Reins International California, Inc.
(2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 86.) PAGA standing “does not depend on maintaining
an individual Labor Code violation.” (Johnson
v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 924, 930.)
As Adolph v. Uber
Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 1104, 1113 explicitly holds that an
individual remedy is unnecessary to possess standing to pursue PAGA penalties,
it necessarily follows that Plaintiff is not obligated to seek any individual
remedy, in the form of any “individual” PAGA penalties, to possess standing to
pursue PAGA penalties for fellow employees:¿
As Kim and Johnson make clear, a worker becomes an
“aggrieved employee” with standing to litigate claims on behalf of fellow
employees upon sustaining a Labor Code violation committed by his or her
employer. (See Kim, supra, 9 Cal.5th at pp. 84–85, 259
Cal.Rptr.3d 769, 459 P.3d 1123; Johnson,
supra, 66 Cal.App.5th at p. 930, 281
Cal.Rptr.3d 478; § 2699, subd. (c).) Standing under PAGA is not affected
by enforcement of an agreement to adjudicate a plaintiff’s individual claim in
another forum. Arbitrating a PAGA plaintiff’s individual claim does not
nullify the fact of the violation or extinguish the plaintiff’s status as an
aggrieved employee, any more than the time-barring of remedies did in Johnson or the settlement of the
individual damages claims did in Kim. (See
Kim, at pp. 84–85, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d
769, 459 P.3d 1123; Johnson, at p.
930, 281 Cal.Rptr.3d 478.) The operative complaint alleges that Adolph
experienced Labor Code violations while driving for Uber. Under Kim, Adolph’s allegations that Labor
Code violations were committed against him while he was employed by Uber
suffice to confer standing to bring a PAGA action.¿¿(Adolph, supra, 14 Cal.
5th at 1121.)¿
To establish standing in a PAGA action, plaintiff need only
allege that she is “(1) someone who was employed by the alleged violator and
(2) someone against whom one or more of the alleged violations was
committed.” (Adolph, supra, 14
Cal.5th at 1120 (internal quotations omitted).) Despite Labor Code Section
2699’s language stating that an employee must bring an action on behalf of
himself and other current employees, the California Supreme Court has declined
to “impose additional” standing requirements because doing so would “thwart¿the
Legislature's clear intent to deputize employees to pursue sanctions on the
state’s behalf.” (Id. at 1120,
1122.)
Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently established standing.
First, Plaintiff has alleged that she was employed by Defendant, which
Defendant does not dispute, stating in the Complaint that Plaintiff “is an
individual who resides in California and was employed by ZARA USA, INC., on or
about June 20, 2022 and worked for EMPLOYERS until on or about January 20, 2024.”
(Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 14.) Second, Plaintiff has alleged that she is someone
against whom one or more of the alleged violations was committed, stating in
the Complaint that she “has suffered labor code violations” along with the
aggrieved employees for “failure to provide employment records,” “failure to
pay overtime and double time,” “failure to provide rest and meal periods,”
“failure to pay minimum wages,” “failure to keep accurate payroll records and
provide itemized wage statements,” “failure to pay reporting time wages,”
“failure to pay split shift wages,” “failure to pay all wages earned on time,”
“failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation,” and “failure
to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses.” (Complaint, ¶¶ 5-6.) Thus,
Plaintiff has standing to assert her non-individual PAGA claim.
Further, Viking River
does not operate to divest Plaintiff of standing to pursue “non-individual”
PAGA claims.¿ Adolph rejected that
contention under California State law.¿ (Adolph,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at 1119-1120.)¿
While Viking River may stand for the
proposition that Plaintiff must arbitrate an “individual” PAGA claim, so long
as she chooses to assert one, nothing in Viking
River gives any court the authority to force a plaintiff to arbitrate an
individual claim that he or she elects not
to pursue, to begin with.¿ ¿
In sum, Plaintiff has sufficiently established standing as
an employee against whom one or more of the alleged violations were committed,
and Plaintiff elects not to pursue an individual PAGA claim, instead seeking to
recover only for the “non-individual” PAGA claim. Thus, there would be no
individual claim to refer to arbitration.¿ As such, Defendant’s argument that
Plaintiff’s nonexistent individual claim must be arbitrated, fails.
Accordingly, the court DENIES Defendant’s motion to
compel arbitration and stay action.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
1. Motion
to Compel Arbitration and Stay Matter is DENIED.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 16, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court