Garcia v. Universal Molding CA2/8

Filed 5/22/24 Garcia v. Universal Molding CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JOBANNY GARCIA, B325071

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV14287 v.

UNIVERSAL MOLDING CO.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael L. Stern, Judge. Reversed in part and remanded with directions.

Aegis Law Firm, Samuel A. Wong, Kashif Haque, Jessica L. Campbell and Joseph M. Szilagyi for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Jackson & Associates, James T. Jackson and Jessica A. Crabbe for Defendant and Respondent.

_____________________________

SUMMARY In Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104 (Adolph), the Supreme Court held that where a plaintiff has brought an action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA, Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) with both individual and nonindividual claims, “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, at p. 1114). Adolph rejected the contrary interpretation of California law enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 (Viking River), where the high court concluded that a PAGA plaintiff loses standing in that situation and her nonindividual claims should be dismissed. (Adolph, at p. 1119, discussing Viking River, at p. 663.) Here, the trial court ruled on defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims after Viking River, but before Adolph. The trial court ordered plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims to arbitration and dismissed his nonindividual claims (albeit without prejudice), following Viking River. Plaintiff appealed, citing the “death knell” doctrine. We reverse the dismissal of plaintiff’s nonindividual PAGA claims, which instead should have remained pending in superior court. On remand, the trial court should consider plaintiff’s request for a stay of the litigation pending arbitration. We leave the management of that litigation during the pendency of the arbitration to the trial court’s sound discretion. (See Nickson v. Shemran, Inc. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 121, 135 (Nickson).) BACKGROUND This appeal is vexed with inaccurate descriptions of the procedural background and apparent misunderstanding of applicable legal principles. Defendant’s only argument in