Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 21-01210019, Date: 2022-10-07 Tentative Ruling
1. Defendants Connell
Chevrolet and Paul W. Doddridge's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel
Plaintiff's Individual PAGA Claims to Arbitration ROA 87
2. Status Conference
Defendants Connell Chevrolet and Paul W. Doddridge move to compel arbitration of the individual portion of Plaintiff Jose Ledesma’s PAGA claim. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. The representative portion of Plaintiff’s PAGA claim is STAYED pending the outcome of the arbitration. An arbitration review conference will be held on May 31, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department CX-104.
EVIDENTIARY MATTERS
Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are all OVERRULED. It appears to the Court that these objections are identical to objections previously overruled by the Court (Judge Di Cesare) in connection with a prior motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs’ objections are therefore an improper attempt to reconsider the prior order.
Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of several documents. The Court DENIES notice of Exhibit A, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ original motion to compel arbitration, which Plaintiff incorporates by reference into his opposition here. Again, this is an improper attempt at reconsideration. The Court also DENIES notice of Exhibits B-D and F, which are unpublished rulings (in one case a tentative ruling) from California Superior Courts. “Even assuming for the sake of argument that [these cases] involve[] the same issue as the case before [the Court] . . . a written trial court ruling has no precedential value.” (Santa Ana Hospital Medical Center v. Belshe (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 819, 831.) The Court has not considered these decisions. Finally, the Court DECLINES to take notice of Exhibit E, an unpublished federal trial court decision not material to this ruling. (See Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, 748 fn. 6 [declining to take judicial notice of materials not “necessary, helpful, or relevant”].)
GROUNDS FOR RULING
I. Background
This matter was originally a class/PAGA action advancing wage-and-hour claims on behalf of Defendants’ employees. Defendants moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s substantive claims on an individual basis, strike his class claims, and stay his PAGA claim pending the outcome of arbitration. The Court (Judge Di Cesare) granted this motion in an order dated January 11, 2022.
In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court decided Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906, which affected the arbitrability of PAGA claims. Following Viking River Cruises, Defendants now move to compel arbitration of the individual portion of Plaintiff’s PAGA claim. Per the reply, they ask the Court to stay the representative portion of Plaintiff’s PAGA claim pending the outcome of arbitration.
II. Discussion
A. Improper Motion for Reconsideration
Much of Plaintiff’s opposition is taken up by an argument that no valid agreement to arbitrate exists, or alternatively that it is unenforceable. This argument is the same as the argument considered, and rejected, by Judge Di Cesare. (In fact, Plaintiff goes so far as to incorporate all of his prior opposition briefing by reference.) Defendants correctly note in reply that this amounts to an untimely motion for reconsideration. To the extent Plaintiff repeats arguments previously rejected by Judge Di Cesare, the Court does not consider them.
However, because the prior motion did not involve PAGA-specific arguments, the Court will consider those portions of Plaintiff’s opposition.
B. Wholesale PAGA Waiver
Plaintiff contends that the arbitration agreement contains a wholesale waiver of PAGA claims, which remains illegal even under Viking River Cruises. (See 142 S.Ct. at pp. 1924-25 [citing Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348].) Defendants argue the agreement contains no PAGA waiver at all, only a requirement that PAGA claims be arbitrated on an individual basis.
Defendants have the better argument. The agreement requires arbitration of “any claim . . . arising from . . . my . . . employment by . . . the Company.” (Tiongson Decl., Ex. A, at p. 5.) This language is broad enough to cover Plaintiff’s PAGA claim. The agreement also provides “that an arbitrator will hear only my individual claims and does not have the authority to fashion a proceeding as a class or collective action or to award relief to a group of employees in one proceeding.” (Ibid.)
Under Viking River Cruises, if the FAA applies, a PAGA claim can be split into “individual” and “representative” portions. Defendants argue the FAA applies here, and Plaintiff does not argue to the contrary, so the Court treats the point as conceded. As a result, Plaintiff’s PAGA claim consists of an individual portion, for civil penalties based on Labor Code violations suffered by Plaintiff, and a representative portion, for civil penalties based on Labor Code violations suffered by other allegedly aggrieved employees. The agreement allows the arbitrator to decide Plaintiff’s individual claims arising from his employment, which includes his individual PAGA claim.
C. Waiver of Right to Compel Arbitration
Plaintiff notes that the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Viking River Cruises on December 15, 2021, that the Supreme Court’s decision was handed down on June 15, 2022, and that Defendants waited until September 7, 2022 to file this motion. Plaintiff contends that by (1) failing to seek a stay pending the ruling in Viking River Cruises, and (2) failing to file a motion for three months after the decision, Defendants have waived the right to compel arbitration.
The Court disagrees. As to a stay pending the Viking River Cruises decision, Judge Di Cesare stayed the case on January 11, 2022. There was no need for Defendants to seek a stay of a case that was already stayed. After the case was transferred to CX104, the Court lifted the stay on May 10, 2022. (ROA 78.) Assuming Defendants should have moved for a stay pending Viking River Cruises at that time, they may not even have been able to secure a hearing date by June 15.
As to waiting three months to file this motion, the Court proposes on its own motion to take judicial notice of the Supreme Court’s online docket in Viking River Cruises. Per the docket, Moriana filed a petition for rehearing on July 6, 2022. The Supreme Court denied the petition for rehearing on August 22, 2022, and it entered judgment in Viking River Cruises’ favor that same day. Thus, while the decision in Viking River Cruises was issued on June 15, it wasn’t final until August 22. Defendants filed this motion just over two weeks later. There is no waiver.
D. Further Proceedings
In reply, Defendants ask the Court to stay the representative portion of the PAGA claim pending the outcome of arbitration. The Court will do so.