Guenther vs. Qazi Cosmetic Clinic

and the court rejects it. As stated above, the XC alleges that, beginning around 09-02-2025, plaintiffs stated “(1) there was mold at Cross- Complainant, Christ Church by the Sea Children’s Center, and (2) that the Pastor at Cross-Complainant, Christ Church by the Sea, had engaged in sexual misconduct.” ROA 23 ¶ 14. The allegations further state that “the conduct of Cross-Defendants, Hillary Jade Cortese and Hillary Pedersen, described herein above, was intended by those Cross-Defendants to cause injury to Cross-Complainants and was despicable conduct carried out by said Cross-Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of Cross-Complainants, subjecting Cross-Complainants to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Cross-Complainants’ rights such as to constitute malice, oppression or fraud...”

Id. ¶ 19. At the pleading stage, the complaint may rely on, as here, ultimate facts of oppression or malice. See Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1055.

The court finds the allegations sufficient to survive the motion to strike and on that basis, it is DENIED. 102 Guenther vs. Qazi 1. Motion to Compel Arbitration Cosmetic Clinic 2. Case Management Conference

2025-01502198 Defendant Qazi Cosmetic Clinic’s unopposed Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. In fact, the parties recently submitted a stipulation and proposed order to that effect. The Court has signed the order.

The parties left open the question of whether a stay of the representative PAGA claims was appropriate, pending arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual claims. The Court concludes a stay is appropriate.

Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to arbitrate her individual claims against defendant, including her individual PAGA claim. Plaintiff’s representative PAGA claim is stayed, along with the remainder of the action, pending the outcome of the arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. § 3; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.4; Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 142 S. Ct. 1906, 1919; Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal. 5th 1104, 1125.

An ADR Review hearing is scheduled for August 19, 2027, at 9:30AM in Department CX102. The parties are ordered to file a joint status conference report at least 10 court days prior to the hearing.

Defendant to give notice.