BERNSTEIN vs COMPILE, INC.,, et al.

25CV109171: BERNSTEIN vs COMPILE, INC.,, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by BetterHelp, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 116110938692 in Department 15

Tentative Ruling - 08/24/2026 Peter Borkon

The Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by BetterHelp, Inc. on 06/15/2026 is Denied.

On 8/21/2025, Judge Raj Chatterjee granted the motion of Defendant Compile, Inc. dba Betterhelp, Inc. (“Defendant”) to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claim and stay Plaintiff’s individual claim, but denied Defendant’s request to stay Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claim. (See Order dated 8/21/2025 (“8/21/25 Order”).

The 8/21/25 Order contains a detailed explanation of the Court’s decision to deny a stay and permit the representative PAGA claim to proceed while the arbitration is pending. (See id. at pp. 7-8.)

On 6/15/2026, Defendant filed this renewed motion seeking a stay on essentially the same grounds raised in its prior motion. The 8/21/25 Order largely addressed and resolved Defendant’s arguments.

Because this case stands in a slightly different procedural posture than it did when the 8/21/25 Order issued, the Court declines to construe this motion as an untimely request for reconsideration and deny it outright, as Plaintiff urges the Court to do. Nevertheless, the Court denies the renewed request for a mandatory stay under the Federal Arbitration Act and CCP section 1281.4 for the same reasons stated in the 8/21/25 Order. The Court agrees with and adopts Judge Chatterjee’s reasoned analysis on this point and finds no basis to revisit that ruling.

The Court also DENIES the motion to the extent it seeks a discretionary stay. “Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489; see also St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. AmerisourceBergen Corp. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1, 6–7 [“[A] stay gives effect to the general rule that a court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice.”].)

Defendant asserts three grounds for granting a discretionary stay: promoting judicial efficiency; avoiding irreparable harm caused by potentially conflicting rulings regarding Plaintiff’s standing, as well as overlapping factual and legal issues; and promoting public policy favoring arbitration. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

Defendant contends that staying the representative claim will promote judicial efficiency by avoiding the need to rule on potential discovery disputes, but this argument is speculative. The parties are represented by able counsel and are capable of meeting and conferring in good faith in an effort to resolve any such discovery disputes informally. 25CV109171: BERNSTEIN vs COMPILE, INC.,, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by BetterHelp, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 116110938692 in Department 15

The 8/21/25 Order addressed and resolved the stated grounds for irreparable harm asserted in this motion, noting that Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claim belongs to the LWDA and “represents the same legal right and interest as state labor law enforcement agencies—namely, recovery of civil penalties that otherwise would have been assessed and collected by the LWDA.” (Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 664, 682; see also Kim v. Reins Int’l. California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 86 [“[A] PAGA claim is an enforcement action between the LWDA and the employer, with the PAGA plaintiff acting on behalf of the government.”].)

As such, the representative claim may proceed in court to effect the PAGA’s sole purpose “to augment the limited enforcement capability of the [LWDA] by empowering employees to enforce the Labor Code as representatives of the Agency.” (Kim, 9 Cal.5th at 86.) Any concerns regarding potential standing issues or overlapping factual or legal issues can, if necessary, be addressed later without staying the representative claim and pausing state labor law enforcement. (8/21/25 Order at p. 8.)

Third, staying this case on public policy grounds would arguably undermine the competing interest of the state in enforcing the Labor Code. (See Kim, 9 Cal.5th at 86; see also Williams v. Superior Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 548 [“Hurdles that impede the effective prosecution of representative PAGA actions undermine the Legislature's objectives.”].) The Court therefore declines to stay the representative PAGA action on public policy grounds.

For the foregoing reasons, the renewed motion for a stay is DENIED.

If this tentative ruling is contested, the Court will hear argument at 9:30 a.m. on August 24, 2026.