Preview
supenlongolu%T§FD
11. Guzman v. State Logistics Services, Inc.
CIVSB2130246 JAN 1 8 2023
Motion to Compel Arbitration
Tentative Ruling: By
a
L S.
. . . . .
lawswt, flled under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of
Plalntlff’s “Ty
2004, Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (PAGA), seeks penalties for alleged violations of
the California Labor Code suffered by plaintiff and other “aggrieved employees.”
Defendant brings this motion to compel arbitration pursuant to Viking River
Cruises, Inc. v. Mariana (2022) 142 S. Ct. 1906. Before Viking RIVer, PAGA claims were
not subject to arbitration under any circumstances. (See e. g. Iskanian v CLS Transp.
contrary to lskanian, that under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S C. section 1 et seq.
(FAA), a PAGA action is divisible into “individual” and “non- individual? components. In
PAGA claim is one based on Labor Code
the Viking River lexicon, an ‘individual”
by the named plaintiff whereas “non- individual” PAGA
violations allegedly suffered
claims are those based on Labor Code violations allegedly suffered by employees other
I
than the named plaintiff.
Depending on the specific language df the arbitration agreement, and subject to
any defenses to enforcement, Viking RiVer requires the trial court to order arbitration of
the individual PAGA claim if it Is covered by an enforceable arbitration agreement
governed by the FAA. -
The Court in Viking River did nbt‘qverrule lskanian, but merely held that lskanian
ispreempted When'tg :EAA applies. (See Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees
of Leland Stanford r'Umversrty (1989) 489 U. S. 468, 477 [In situations governed
by the FAA onfllctlng sate law7Ls preempted]. ) If the FAA does not apply, lskanian still
precludeg divnsion of PAGA claims into individual and non- individual components, and
PAGA cl 'ms are not subjeCt arbitration. to
he Court In Viking River also indicated that the non- individual PAGA claims
should be dlsmlssed When the individual claim'Is committed to arbitration because, in
the Court’ s View no procedural mechanism remained for the non- i—ndividual claims to go
forward in court once the individual claim was committed to arbitration. That Issue,
however, appears to be one of California law, and the California Supreme Court has
undertaken to address the issue by granting review in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
(August 1, 2022) No. $274671, 2022 LEXIS 5021 at *1.
To compel arbitration under the FAA, the court must find that the parties have an
agreement to arbitrate and that the agreement covers the particular dispute. (AT&T
Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers ofAmerica (1986) 475 U.S. 643, 648-
49.) Enforcement of the arbitration agreement is then a matter of ordinary state-Iaw
Page 2 of 5
CV526121822
contract principles, and agreements should be enforced
according to their terms.
(AT&TMobi/ity LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 131 S.Ct. 1740, 1745.)
Thus arbitration
unenforceable on contract defenses such as fraud, duress,
agreements can be declared
or unconscionability. (Id. at p. 1746.) Any doubt about the arbitrability of a dispute
under the FAA, however, is resolved in favor of arbitration. (Id. at p. 650.)
Application of the FAA
The FAA applies to arbitration clauses or agreements involving interstate
Related
commerce. (9 U.S.C. § 2; Aviation Data, Inc. v. American Express Travel
1534.):w“lnVofl,|vir}gi1‘__Commerce” is
Services Company, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1522,
teri‘n of "afg’tfo’rdinarily
the equivalent of the term “affecting commerce,” which is a
signatling the broadest permissible exercise of Congress’s
commerce Clause power.
bea’flr‘sgtbeéburden of
(Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc. (2003) 439 U.S. 52, 56.) Defendant
evidence.
demonstrating FAA coverage, typically through dec’laratiohs and other
148_CaI.App.4‘th:1092, 1101;
(Shepard v. Edward Mackay Enterprises, Inc. @007)
Woolls v. Superior Court (Turner) (2005) 127 ;'_a;l.App.4th 197, 213-14.)
In thiscase, however, the agreement (the “Mutual DispUte Resolution
Agreement") states: “The parties agreéf;that the substantive and procedural
provisions
(“FAA") and, to the extent not
of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C.‘$§6ti0n 1, et seq.)
shall govern
preempted, the contract |aw of the state'ifigywhiéh Employee is employed
the interpretation and enforcement of this :Agteement." (Exh. A [§IV]
to Monson Decl.)
that the FAA governs.
This language, essentially a‘-'choice,_of |aw préVision, establishes
35 Cal.4th 376, 394;
(See Cronus Investmentégflglnc. v. Concierge Services (2005)
(2007) 152
Aviation Data, Inc. y. American ExpreSstr,,_Travel Related Services Co.,
Inc.
*
Cal.App.4th 1522;?!” 5.) -::~,
,,
’
'iiTheEgAirbitration Agreement
"bt diébfit§,_the existence of the agreement and that he executed it
he agreement provides in relevant part:
Otherigthan as provided Agreement, any controversy, dispute, or
in this
claim be Ween Employee and Company [defined as SLS], including
its
officers, 'd’irgptors, employees, agents, parents,
subsidiaries, affiliated
companies,”or successors, arising out of the employment relationship shall
be settled by binding arbitration, at the request of either party.
The claims which are be arbitrated under this Agreement include, but
to
are not limited to, claims for wages and other compensation,
and
claims for violation of any federal, state, or other government |aw,
statute,
regulation, or ordinance....
Page 3 of 5
CVSZ6121822
Preview
supenlongolu%T§FD 11. Guzman v. State Logistics Services, Inc. CIVSB2130246 JAN 1 8 2023 Motion to Compel Arbitration Tentative Ruling: By a L S. . . . . . lawswt, flled under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of Plalntlff’s “Ty 2004, Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (PAGA), seeks penalties for alleged violations of the California Labor Code suffered by plaintiff and other “aggrieved employees.” Defendant brings this motion to compel arbitration pursuant to Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Mariana (2022) 142 S. Ct. 1906. Before Viking RIVer, PAGA claims were not subject to arbitration under any circumstances. (See e. g. Iskanian v CLS Transp. contrary to lskanian, that under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S C. section 1 et seq. (FAA), a PAGA action is divisible into “individual” and “non- individual? components. In PAGA claim is one based on Labor Code the Viking River lexicon, an ‘individual” by the named plaintiff whereas “non- individual” PAGA violations allegedly suffered claims are those based on Labor Code violations allegedly suffered by employees other I than the named plaintiff. Depending on the specific language df the arbitration agreement, and subject to any defenses to enforcement, Viking RiVer requires the trial court to order arbitration of the individual PAGA claim if it Is covered by an enforceable arbitration agreement governed by the FAA. - The Court in Viking River did nbt‘qverrule lskanian, but merely held that lskanian ispreempted When'tg :EAA applies. (See Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford r'Umversrty (1989) 489 U. S. 468, 477 [In situations governed by the FAA onfllctlng sate law7Ls preempted]. ) If the FAA does not apply, lskanian still precludeg divnsion of PAGA claims into individual and non- individual components, and PAGA cl 'ms are not subjeCt arbitration. to he Court In Viking River also indicated that the non- individual PAGA claims should be dlsmlssed When the individual claim'Is committed to arbitration because, in the Court’ s View no procedural mechanism remained for the non- i—ndividual claims to go forward in court once the individual claim was committed to arbitration. That Issue, however, appears to be one of California law, and the California Supreme Court has undertaken to address the issue by granting review in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (August 1, 2022) No. $274671, 2022 LEXIS 5021 at *1. To compel arbitration under the FAA, the court must find that the parties have an agreement to arbitrate and that the agreement covers the particular dispute. (AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers ofAmerica (1986) 475 U.S. 643, 648- 49.) Enforcement of the arbitration agreement is then a matter of ordinary state-Iaw Page 2 of 5 CV526121822 contract principles, and agreements should be enforced according to their terms. (AT&TMobi/ity LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 131 S.Ct. 1740, 1745.) Thus arbitration unenforceable on contract defenses such as fraud, duress, agreements can be declared or unconscionability. (Id. at p. 1746.) Any doubt about the arbitrability of a dispute under the FAA, however, is resolved in favor of arbitration. (Id. at p. 650.) Application of the FAA The FAA applies to arbitration clauses or agreements involving interstate Related commerce. (9 U.S.C. § 2; Aviation Data, Inc. v. American Express Travel 1534.):w“lnVofl,|vir}gi1‘__Commerce” is Services Company, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1522, teri‘n of "afg’tfo’rdinarily the equivalent of the term “affecting commerce,” which is a signatling the broadest permissible exercise of Congress’s commerce Clause power. bea’flr‘sgtbeéburden of (Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc. (2003) 439 U.S. 52, 56.) Defendant evidence. demonstrating FAA coverage, typically through dec’laratiohs and other 148_CaI.App.4‘th:1092, 1101; (Shepard v. Edward Mackay Enterprises, Inc. @007) Woolls v. Superior Court (Turner) (2005) 127 ;'_a;l.App.4th 197, 213-14.) In thiscase, however, the agreement (the “Mutual DispUte Resolution Agreement") states: “The parties agreéf;that the substantive and procedural provisions (“FAA") and, to the extent not of the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C.‘$§6ti0n 1, et seq.) shall govern preempted, the contract |aw of the state'ifigywhiéh Employee is employed the interpretation and enforcement of this :Agteement." (Exh. A [§IV] to Monson Decl.) that the FAA governs. This language, essentially a‘-'choice,_of |aw préVision, establishes 35 Cal.4th 376, 394; (See Cronus Investmentégflglnc. v. Concierge Services (2005) (2007) 152 Aviation Data, Inc. y. American ExpreSstr,,_Travel Related Services Co., Inc. * Cal.App.4th 1522;?!” 5.) -::~, ,, ’ 'iiTheEgAirbitration Agreement "bt diébfit§,_the existence of the agreement and that he executed it he agreement provides in relevant part: Otherigthan as provided Agreement, any controversy, dispute, or in this claim be Ween Employee and Company [defined as SLS], including its officers, 'd’irgptors, employees, agents, parents, subsidiaries, affiliated companies,”or successors, arising out of the employment relationship shall be settled by binding arbitration, at the request of either party. The claims which are be arbitrated under this Agreement include, but to are not limited to, claims for wages and other compensation, and claims for violation of any federal, state, or other government |aw, statute, regulation, or ordinance.... Page 3 of 5 CVSZ6121822