On June 26, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Blankenship, Daniel,
and
Aio Acquistion Inc.,
Brady Corporation,
Brady Worldwide, Inc., A Wisconsin Corporation,
Personnel Concepts, Inc., A California Corporation,
for Employment - Complex
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
\a
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
1
James R. Hawkins, Esq. (#192925)
Gregory Mauro, Esq. (#222239) [guimia ECOURT
2
Michael Calvo, Esq. (#3 14986) COUNTvo oF SAN
NEB RNHARDING
Lauren Falk, Esq. (#3 16893)
SAN BE 7 ”Rm” N0 D'STR'CT
3
Ava Issary, Esq. (#342252)
“0V
l
1 5 2022
9880 Research Drive, suite 200
4
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel.: (949) 387-7200
5
Fax: (949) 387-6676
6 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplo.com
Email: Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
7 Email: Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Email: Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.c0m
8 Email: Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com
9 Attorneys for Plaintiff DANIEL BLANKENSHIP,
on behalf of the general public as private attorney general
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
13
14 DANIEL BLANKENSHIP, on behalf ofthe Case No. CIVD51918709
general public as private attorney general,
1 5
Assigned for All Purposes to:
16 Plaintiff, Honorable David Cohn
Department S-26
l7 V_
PLAINTIFF’S LIMITED OPPOSITION
18
BRADY WORLDWIDE, INC., a Wisconsin TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
19 Corporation; PERSONNEL CONCEPTS, INC., COMPEL ARBITRATION
a California Corporation, and DOES through
1
20 50, inclusive, Date: November 30, 2022
Defendant. Time: 10:00 a.m.
21
Dept: S-26
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S LIMITED OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COIVIPEL ARBITRATION
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Plaintiff, Daniel Blankenship (“Plaintiff”) on behalf of the public as private attorney general,
hereby respectfully submits this Limited Opposition to Defendants Brady Corporation and AIO'
Acquisition, Inc. (“Defendants”) Motion to Compel Arbitration. (“Motion”).
\DWVQUI-PUJN
I. LEGAL ARGUMENTS
A. Plaintiff Agrees t0 Submit His Individual PAGA Claims to Arbitration
Plaintiff will agree to submit his individual claims t0 arbitration. However, as discussed below,
Plaintiff challenges Defendant’s requested to dismiss the remaining representative PAGA portion 0f this
action.
10
11
B. Even if Plaintiff Is Compelled to Arbitrate His “Individual” PAGA Claims, He May
12 Continue t0 Assert the Representative PAGA Claims
13 The Court should not stay the representative PAGA claims because such a result is contrary t0
14 California law. As detailed below, the Viking River decision affirmed the concept that all PAGA claims
15 are “representative” in nature and preempted Iskam‘an only insofar as it precluded division of the PAGA
16 claim into individual and non-individual components. (Viking River, 142 S. Ct. 1906, 191 1- 1916
17 (2022)).
18 1. PlaintiffDoes Not Lose Standing t0 Pursue the Representative PAGA Claims Bv
19 Arbitrating Her Individual PAGA Claims
20 In Viking River, the United States Supreme Court decided the issue of whether the FAA
21
preempted the Iskanian decision, which invalidated contractual waivers 0f the right t0 allege
22
representative claims under PAGA. Viking River, 142 S. Ct. at 1924-1925. The Supreme Court
23
distinguished PAGA actions as being representative in “two distinct ways” — first, these claims are
24
representative because the employees act as “agents or proxies” of the state and thus, “‘every PAGA
25
action is . . .representative.”’ Viking River, 142 S. Ct. at 1916 citing Kim, 9 Cal.5th at 87. Second, PAGA
26
claims are representative “when they are predicated on code Violations sustained by other employees.”
27
Id. With respect to the second sense of “representative,” the Court further distinguished “‘individual’
28
PAGA claims, which are premised on Labor Code Violations actually sustained by the plaintiff, from
1
PLAINTIFF’S LIMITED OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
Document Filed Date
November 15, 2022
Case Filing Date
June 26, 2019
Category
Employment - Complex
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
\a JAMES HAWKINS APLC 1 James R. Hawkins, Esq. (#192925) Gregory Mauro, Esq. (#222239) [guimia ECOURT 2 Michael Calvo, Esq. (#3 14986) COUNTvo oF SAN NEB RNHARDING Lauren Falk, Esq. (#3 16893) SAN BE 7 ”Rm” N0 D'STR'CT 3 Ava Issary, Esq. (#342252) “0V l 1 5 2022 9880 Research Drive, suite 200 4 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel.: (949) 387-7200 5 Fax: (949) 387-6676 6 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplo.com Email: Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com 7 Email: Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Email: Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.c0m 8 Email: Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff DANIEL BLANKENSHIP, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 13 14 DANIEL BLANKENSHIP, on behalf ofthe Case No. CIVD51918709 general public as private attorney general, 1 5 Assigned for All Purposes to: 16 Plaintiff, Honorable David Cohn Department S-26 l7 V_ PLAINTIFF’S LIMITED OPPOSITION 18 BRADY WORLDWIDE, INC., a Wisconsin TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 19 Corporation; PERSONNEL CONCEPTS, INC., COMPEL ARBITRATION a California Corporation, and DOES through 1 20 50, inclusive, Date: November 30, 2022 Defendant. Time: 10:00 a.m. 21 Dept: S-26 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S LIMITED OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COIVIPEL ARBITRATION MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Plaintiff, Daniel Blankenship (“Plaintiff”) on behalf of the public as private attorney general, hereby respectfully submits this Limited Opposition to Defendants Brady Corporation and AIO' Acquisition, Inc. (“Defendants”) Motion to Compel Arbitration. (“Motion”). \DWVQUI-PUJN I. LEGAL ARGUMENTS A. Plaintiff Agrees t0 Submit His Individual PAGA Claims to Arbitration Plaintiff will agree to submit his individual claims t0 arbitration. However, as discussed below, Plaintiff challenges Defendant’s requested to dismiss the remaining representative PAGA portion 0f this action. 10 11 B. Even if Plaintiff Is Compelled to Arbitrate His “Individual” PAGA Claims, He May 12 Continue t0 Assert the Representative PAGA Claims 13 The Court should not stay the representative PAGA claims because such a result is contrary t0 14 California law. As detailed below, the Viking River decision affirmed the concept that all PAGA claims 15 are “representative” in nature and preempted Iskam‘an only insofar as it precluded division of the PAGA 16 claim into individual and non-individual components. (Viking River, 142 S. Ct. 1906, 191 1- 1916 17 (2022)). 18 1. PlaintiffDoes Not Lose Standing t0 Pursue the Representative PAGA Claims Bv 19 Arbitrating Her Individual PAGA Claims 20 In Viking River, the United States Supreme Court decided the issue of whether the FAA 21 preempted the Iskanian decision, which invalidated contractual waivers 0f the right t0 allege 22 representative claims under PAGA. Viking River, 142 S. Ct. at 1924-1925. The Supreme Court 23 distinguished PAGA actions as being representative in “two distinct ways” — first, these claims are 24 representative because the employees act as “agents or proxies” of the state and thus, “‘every PAGA 25 action is . . .representative.”’ Viking River, 142 S. Ct. at 1916 citing Kim, 9 Cal.5th at 87. Second, PAGA 26 claims are representative “when they are predicated on code Violations sustained by other employees.” 27 Id. With respect to the second sense of “representative,” the Court further distinguished “‘individual’ 28 PAGA claims, which are premised on Labor Code Violations actually sustained by the plaintiff, from 1 PLAINTIFF’S LIMITED OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION