Judge: William D. Claster, Case: 21-01232129, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling
Defendant Cal Fresco/Legacy Farms Employment Services Company, Inc.'s Notice of Petition and Petition to Compel Individual Arbitration and Stay All Proceedings ROA 57
Defendant Cal Fresco/Legacy Farms Employment Services Company, Inc., fka Legacy Farms Employment Services Company, Inc. moves for an order (1) compelling Plaintiff Arturo Martinez to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis, with this action stayed pending completion of arbitration, and (2) dismissing the representative portion of Plaintiff’s PAGA claim. For the reasons set forth below, the Court orders as follows:
An arbitration review conference will be held on June 26, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department CX-104.
GROUNDS FOR RULING
This is a PAGA-only matter that follows a prior related class action, Becerra v. LFESC, No. 21-01225861. Plaintiff was one of the two named plaintiffs in Becerra, which brought wage-and-hour claims on behalf of a putative class. (Huerta Decl., Ex. A.) Roughly a month after Becerra was filed, Plaintiff filed this companion PAGA-only case. On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant filed a stipulation in Becerra by which Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate his claims against Defendant on an individual basis. (Huerta Decl., Ex. B.)
Plaintiff subsequently filed a demand for arbitration with JAMS. (Huerta Decl., Ex. C.) In the section of the demand titled “Nature of Dispute,” Plaintiff’s counsel wrote: “See complaint attached hereto as Exhibit A.” (Id., at p. 3.) Exhibit A to the demand is the PAGA-only complaint in this action. In the section of the demand titled “Arbitration Agreement,” Plaintiff’s counsel wrote: “See arbitration agreement attached hereto as Exhibit B.” (Id., at p. 4.) Exhibit B to the demand is identical to the arbitration agreement Defendant seeks to enforce through this motion. (Compare Huerta Decl., Ex. C, at Ex. B thereto [unexecuted English and Spanish copies] with Alva Decl., Exs. A-C [unexecuted English and Spanish copies, executed Spanish copy, and certified translation of executed copy].) Defendant filed an answer with JAMS on June 9, 2022. (Huerta Decl., Ex. D.)
Because Plaintiff already submitted his PAGA claim to arbitration with JAMS pursuant to a stipulation to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis, the Court finds he is estopped from arguing the arbitration agreement is unconscionable, unenforceable, etc., and from arguing that he is not required to arbitrate the individual portion of his PAGA claim. The motion to compel arbitration is granted, and pursuant to CCP § 1281.4, this case is stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration.
The remaining question is what to do with the representative portion of Plaintiff’s PAGA claim. Defendant asks the Court to dismiss it. This request follows the conclusion of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906. There, the Supreme Court majority explained that under its view of California law, plaintiffs ordered to arbitrate their individual PAGA claims lose standing to prosecute representative PAGA claims: “But as we see it, PAGA provides no mechanism to enable a court to adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has been committed to a separate proceeding. Under PAGA’s standing requirement, a plaintiff can maintain non-individual PAGA claims in an action only by virtue of also maintaining an individual claim in that action.” (Id., at p. 1925.)
But “construction of a state statute by a federal court does not preclude a state court from later rejecting the federal court’s conclusion.” (16 Cal.Jur.3d (2022) Courts, § 324.) As two concurrences in Viking River Cruises pointed out, the majority may well be incorrect about PAGA standing. Justice Sotomayor wrote, “Of course, if this Court’s understanding of state law is wrong, California courts, in an appropriate case, will have the last word.” (Viking River Cruises, supra, 142 S.Ct. at p. 1926 [conc. opn. of Sotomayor, J.].) And three justices noted the majority’s conclusion “addresses disputed state-law questions” and “is unnecessary to the result.” (Ibid. [conc. opn. of Barrett, J.].)
In fact, the California Supreme Court recently granted review in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, S274671, to answer this exact question. Per an order dated August 1, 2022, “The issue to be briefed and argued is limited to the following: Whether an aggrieved employee who has been compelled to arbitrate claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) that are ‘premised on Labor Code violations actually sustained by’ the aggrieved employee [citation] maintains statutory standing to pursue ‘PAGA claims arising out of events involving other employees’ [citation] in court or in any other forum the parties agree is suitable.”
Were the Court to dismiss the representative PAGA claims only for Adolph to reach a different conclusion than Viking River Cruises, both judicial economy and the parties’ resources would be taxed by attempts to unwind the dismissal. Furthermore, the arbitrator may decide that Plaintiff hasn’t suffered any of the Labor Code violations complained of, meaning Plaintiff may lack PAGA standing regardless of what happens in Adolph. For these reasons, the Court will deny the request to dismiss the representative portion of the PAGA claim without prejudice to Defendant raising the issue again when the arbitration concludes.