Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc. CA2/3

Filed 9/18/20 Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

ANGIE MORIANA, B297327

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC687325) v.

VIKING RIVER CRUISES, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard J. Burdge, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Littler Mendelson, Douglas A. Wickham and Ian T. Maher for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes, Kevin T. Barnes, Gregg Lander; Davtyan and Emil Davtyan for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

Angie Moriana sued her former employer Viking River Cruises, Inc. (Viking), seeking recovery of civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.). Viking moved to compel Moriana’s PAGA claims to arbitration, arguing that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018) ___ U.S. ___ [138 S.Ct. 1612] overruled the California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian), which held arbitration agreements that waive the right to bring PAGA representative actions in any forum are unenforceable. The trial court denied Viking’s motion to compel arbitration. We affirm the order denying that motion. BACKGROUND Moriana worked for Viking as a sales representative and agreed to submit any dispute arising out of her employment to binding arbitration. The agreement required Moriana to waive any right to bring a class, collective, representative, or private attorney general action. It also included a delegation provision, giving the arbitrator authority to resolve any disputes over the formation, existence, validity, interpretation or scope of the agreement. Moriana sued Viking on behalf of the state and all other similarly situated aggrieved employees, alleging various Labor Code violations in a single cause of action under PAGA. Viking moved to compel Moriana’s PAGA claims to arbitration. The trial court denied the motion. DISCUSSION Because the pertinent facts are undisputed and the denial of Viking’s motion was based upon a decision of law, our review is de