TENAYA JACKSON VS CBRE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 21TRCV00543 Hearing Date: March 9, 2022 Dept: B

PROCEEDINGS

Tenaya Jackson v. CBRE, Inc., et al.

21TRCV00543

1. CBRE, Inc., et al.’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings

   TENTATIVE RULING

   CBRE, Inc., et al.’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings is denied.

   Background

   Plaintiff Tenaya Jackson filed her Complaint on July 26, 2021. Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants. Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of herself and similarly aggrieved non-exempt employees under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) for recovery of civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 2698, et seq.

   Motion for Stay

   Defendant moves for an order staying this matter in its entirety pending resolution of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (-- S.Ct. -- , 2021 WL 5911481, [Dec. 15, 2021]) (“Viking River”). Defendant argues that the outcome of that case may determine the gateway question of whether Plaintiff’s PAGA Complaint is viable at all, independent of the merits. Defendant contends that a ruling by the United States Supreme Court may find that the arbitration clause entered into by the parties in this action would be enforceable.

   Pursuant to CCP 128 and through its equitable power, the trial court has broad authority to stay actions in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency. See, Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489. As relevant here, the Court may stay an action when concurrent litigation involves similar and/or overlapping parties and claims wherein resolution of the similar action may have direct bearing on issues in the action to which the stay may be warranted. See, Dolwing v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 685, 691-92.

Here, moving party has failed to adequately establish that the interest of justice supports a stay of the instant action, at this time. Defendant seeks a stay based on the hypothetical possibility that the United States Supreme Court may make a ruling which overrules existing case law concerning arbitration of PAGA actions. Defendant does not dispute that the current established authority provides that private employment agreements can neither waive PAGA enforcement proceedings nor compel the real party in interest, the State of California, to arbitration. Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 382-84. Further, a stay of this action would undermine the legislature’s policy for speedy resolutions of workplace violation claims. Brown v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 824, 840 (noting that the one-year statute of limitations emphasizes the Legislature’s desire for quick action on workplace violations.)

Finally, even assuming for sake of discussion that the U.S. Supreme Court renders a decision which overrules Iskanian in a complete or limited manner, Defendant would still be required to file a motion to compel arbitration. Presumably, all the mechanisms currently in place for a party to challenge enforcement of the arbitration provision, i.e., procedural and substantive unconscionability, would remain. The opposition filed by Plaintiff makes clear that Plaintiff would challenge the arbitration provision based on those arguments. Therefore, it would be premature, at this time, to simply make a finding that the action would automatically proceed to arbitration. The Court notes that much of the arguments made by the parties mirror arguments that would be made in a motion to compel arbitration, and the corresponding opposition to such a theoretical motion. The Court makes no findings with respect to this issue as it is premature and not currently before this Court. The Court’s ruling on this motion does not preclude Defendant’s right to bring a motion to compel arbitration should existing case law warrant the filing of such a motion in the future.

Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Stay is denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.