Moreno v. Unisource Solutions CA2/5

Filed 12/6/23 Moreno v. Unisource Solutions CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

GONZALO MORENO, B327516

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22STCV13190) v.

UNISOURCE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Teresa A. Beaudet, Judge. Reversed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded with directions. Bibiyan Law Group, David D. Bibiyan, Jeffrey D. Klein, and Anita Lodi for Plaintiff and Appellant. Jackson Lewis, Leonora M. Schloss, Andrea F. Oxman, Dylan B. Carp, and Martin P. Vigodnier for Defendant and Respondent. ___________________________

On April 20, 2022, plaintiff Gonzalo Moreno sued defendant Unisource Solutions, Inc. under the Private Attorneys’ General Act of 2004 (PAGA) for alleged Labor Code violations. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged one cause of action for civil penalties under PAGA, comprised of individual and non-individual components.1 Defendant moved to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims and to dismiss his non-individual claims, relying on the holding in Viking River Cruises, supra, 142 S.Ct. at pages 1923- 1925. On January 30, 2023, the trial court granted defendant’s motion, and plaintiff appealed. On November 2, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation for partial reversal and partial dismissal of plaintiff’s appeal. The parties agree plaintiff’s non-individual 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 agree plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims were properly ordered to arbitration. Accordingly, the parties request this court reverse that portion of the trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s non-