Valadez v. Cal. Commerce Club CA2/8

Filed 8/31/20 Valadez v. Cal. Commerce Club CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ALFONSO VALADEZ, B297672

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC644587) v.

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Carolyn B. Kuhl, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Moss Bollinger, Ari E. Moss, Dennis F. Moss; Law Offices of Sahag Majarian, II and Sahag Majarian, II for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Jeffrey S. Ranen and William C. Sung for Defendant and Respondent.

——————————

After the parties briefed the issues in this appeal, the California Supreme Court decided Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73 (Reins), which compels us to reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent. Appellant Valadez is employed by respondent California Commerce Club, Inc. (Commerce). He filed a class action against Commerce alleging various individual wage and hour violations under the Labor Code as well as a claim for civil penalties pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) The trial court compelled arbitration of the non-PAGA causes of action and stayed prosecution of the PAGA cause of action. Eventually at arbitration, Valadez and Commerce settled only his individual non-PAGA claims. When the parties returned to court, Commerce filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that because Valadez had settled his individual non-PAGA claims, he now lacked standing as an “aggrieved employee” to represent the class on the pending PAGA claim. In its precisely worded decision, the trial court agreed Valadez lacked standing due to the settlement of his individual claims and entered summary judgment in favor of Commerce and against Valadez on that ground alone. The main issue posed by the parties on appeal is whether employees lose standing to pursue a claim under PAGA if they settle and dismiss their individual claims for Labor Code violations. In their briefing, the parties agree this case presents facts identical to those in Reins, where plaintiff employee brought individual Labor Code causes of action, which were sent to and settled in arbitration. There, plaintiff’s class action PAGA claim