Gutierrez v. Panera, LLC CA2/8

Filed 10/21/24 Gutierrez v. Panera, LLC CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

AGUSTIN GUTIERREZ, B328496

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20TRCV00424 v.

PANERA, LLC, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gary Y. Tanaka, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Law Offices of Farrah Mirabel and Farrah Mirabel for Plaintiff and Appellant. Ogletree Deakins, Lyne A. Richardson and Adam C. Hackett for Defendants and Respondents. ____________________ An employee consented to arbitrate his claims against his employer, with a proviso excluding his right to bring a claim

under the Private Attorneys General Act (Labor Code § 2699 et seq.) (PAGA). The employee filed suit against his employer, and the parties then stipulated to arbitrate his non-PAGA claims and litigate his PAGA claims in court. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 (Viking), the employer moved to compel the employee’s individual PAGA claims to arbitration. The trial court granted the motion. However, the proviso in the arbitration agreement still stated, with our emphasis, that “Employee may bring or participate in a suit seeking remedies under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) seeking to enforce State rights under the California Labor Code.” We reverse. I Manna Development Group, LLC, Manna LA, LLC, and Panera LLC are business affiliates operating a Panera Bread restaurant in Westchester. We refer to these affiliates collectively as Panera. Panera employed Agustin Gutierrez from October 2018 to October 2019 at the Westchester restaurant. As part of his onboarding, Gutierrez signed a contract with Panera, agreeing to arbitrate their disputes. He waived his right to bring a class action against Panera. The agreement, however, included the proviso we have quoted. After Panera ended his employment, Gutierrez sued Panera on employment claims. He amended his complaint to add a PAGA cause of action. Panera and Gutierrez then stipulated to arbitrate Gutierrez’s claims (excluding the claims under PAGA) and to stay Gutierrez’s court case (which now consisted solely of Gutierrez’s claims under PAGA) until the conclusion of the arbitration. At