Stiger v. Providence St. Joseph Health CA2/5

Filed 10/20/23 Stiger v. Providence St. Joseph Health CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

LATASHA STIGER, B326999

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STCV15994) v.

PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Malcolm H. Mackey, Judge. Reversed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded with directions. Mahoney Law Group, Kevin Mahoney and George Singer for Plaintiff and Appellant. Call & Jensen, Julie R. Trotter, Melinda Evans, Morgan E. Podruski and Ellen Connelly Cohen for Defendants and Respondents. ___________________________

Plaintiff Latasha Stiger sued defendants Providence St. Joseph Health and Aerotek Scientific, LLC under the Private Attorneys’ General Act of 2004 (PAGA) for alleged Labor Code violations. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged both individual and nonindividual claims (commonly known as representative claims) under PAGA.1 Defendants moved to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims and to dismiss her nonindividual claims, relying on the holding in Viking River Cruises, supra, 142 S.Ct. at pages 1923-1925. On February 10, 2023, the trial court granted defendants’ motion, and plaintiff appealed. On August 22, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation to partially vacate the trial court order and dismiss plaintiff’s appeal. The parties agreed plaintiff’s nonindividual PAGA claims should not have been dismissed because “an order compelling arbitration of the individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing as an aggrieved employee to litigate claims on behalf of other employees under PAGA.” (Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1114 (Adolph).) The parties further agreed plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims were properly ordered to arbitration. Accordingly, the parties request this Court reverse or vacate that portion of the trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s nonindividual PAGA claims with instructions to the trial court