Scheiber v. Shoe Palace CA6

Filed 8/16/16 Scheiber v. Shoe Palace CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JUSTIN SCHEIBER, H041495 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 113CV254589)

v.

SHOE PALACE CORPORATION,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Justin Scheiber filed a complaint against his former employer, defendant Shoe Palace Corporation, for failure to pay all wages owed among other claims. Plaintiff brought the claims in his individual capacity and also on behalf of a class of current and former employees. He also alleged a representative claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. The trial court granted in part the motion to compel arbitration. The court determined that plaintiff had waived his class claims, that his individual claims had to be arbitrated, and that his representative PAGA claim would be litigated in court. The court ordered the arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims to be stayed pending litigation of the PAGA claim in court.

On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by staying the arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims and allowing plaintiff’s representative PAGA claim to proceed in court first. Defendant argues that the arbitration of the individual claims should take place before the court proceedings on the PAGA claim. In response, plaintiff contends that the appeal is moot because he has dismissed all of his individual claims and only the PAGA claim remains and, in any event, the appeal lacks merit. For the reasons stated below, we determine that the appeal is moot. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Complaint In October 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that defendant violated the Labor Code by failing to pay all amounts owed and by failing to provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff alleged six causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal breaks or pay meal period premiums; (4) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (5) unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) based on the failure to pay all wages owed, provide meal breaks, and provide proper and accurate wage statements; and (6) civil penalties under PAGA. Plaintiff alleged the first five causes of action in his individual capacity and on behalf of a class of current and former employees, and he alleged the sixth cause of action under PAGA in a representative capacity. B. The Motion to Compel Arbitration In May 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. In the motion, defendant contended that it had instituted an “Employee Dispute Resolution Plan” (EDR) in July 2013, requiring the arbitration of any employment disputes. According to defendant, plaintiff agreed to be bound by the EDR, the EDR covered plaintiff’s claims, and the EDR required plaintiff’s claims to be arbitrated only as individual claims, and not as class or representative claims.