Rogers v. Pacifica Companies CA4/1

Filed 12/18/25 Rogers v. Pacifica Companies CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AMANDA ROGERS, D084238

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2023-00023685-CU-OE-CTL) PACIFICA COMPANIES LLC et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth J. Medel, Judge. Affirmed.

Littler Mendelson, Robert S. Blumberg, Brooke S. Hammond, and Devon S. Mills, for Defendants and Appellants. Sullivan & Yaeckel Law Group, Eric K. Yaeckel, Ryan T. Kuhn, and Karoline D. Kitlowski, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services LTD., LLC (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 69 (Rodriguez), review granted May 14, 2025, S290182, we held

that if, upon review of the complaint, a plaintiff in an action brought under

the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code,1 § 2698 et seq.) chooses to forego the individual components of his or her PAGA claims, and pursue only the non-individual components on behalf of himself or herself and other aggrieved employees, the trial court should deny the employer’s motion to compel arbitration because there is no individual dispute to arbitrate. In this case, the trial court concluded that plaintiff Amanda Rogers had elected not to pursue any individual PAGA claims in her complaint against defendants Pacifica Companies LLC; Pacifica Hosts, Inc.; Oasis Outsourcing, LLC; and Prospect Hospitality LP (collectively, appellants), and denied appellants’ motion to compel arbitration. Following Rodriguez, supra, 109 Cal.App.5th 69, review granted, we affirm the order denying appellants’