Tentative Ruling: SMITH ET AL -V- CHARTER (COMPLEX) Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                13.Mott-Smith and                Gomez v.          Charter Communications                LLC                      JAN   1   7 202
          Clv032022503                                                                                                                   3
                                                                                                BY
          Motion to Compel                Arbitration
          Tentative Ruling:




       Defendant brings this motion to compel arbitratipn purséégt to ‘sf mg Ri pr
Cruises, Inc. v. Mon'ana (2022) 142 S. Ct. 1906. Be_f9 3W1ng Rigler, PA           'ffl
                                                                                      ms were
not subject to arbitration under any circumstances. (Q e e. fi         A??? v. CL" Transp.
Los Angeles LLC (2014) 59 Cal 4th 348. ) In Vfifig R%§                                                  ‘
                                                                                                              -~




                                                                                                          "

contraryto lskanian, that underthe Federal        rationA            .




(FAA) a  PAGA    action is divisible into "indié"           “5‘23
                                                                  wag»
                                                                  :yidual” components. In
                                                                                            ‘


the Viking Riverlexicon, an “individuaj’flrPAGA clai                   on LaborCode
                                                                                x

violations allegedly suffered                   by the n         lintiff,   w
                                                                            133$ “non- individual” PAGA
claims are those based on Labor_,Code1:j¢lo                       lags allegem' §uffered by employees other
than the named plaintiff. Dep     hg on me         5”,;          $$$$ij langué‘ge of the arbitration
agreement, Viking River requi  ‘éthe trial é                      gig d‘fiie;        arbitration of the individual


by the FAA.1

         The Court in”                 @399
                                            Rfiérfalso Indiéated that the non- individual PAGA claims
should be dlsmggse                        nfllggg): 'iy‘idual cTaim'Is committed to arbitration because, in
                                  k8




                     ‘
         Defen            t   Charté’?        Communications, LLC moves to compel arbitration of
plaintiff’s indivi       fig!   PAGA claim          and to dismiss the non- individual PAGA claims. 2



         The Court                                                  it is preempted when the FAA applies.
1
                         did not overrule lskanian, but merely held that
(See   Volt Info. Sciences, Inc.  Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University (1989) 489 U.S.
                                         v.

468, 477: In situations governed by the FAA, conflicting state law is preempted.) If the FAA does not
apply, lskanian still precludes division of PAGA claims into individual and non-individual components, and
PAGA claims    are not subject to arbitration.
2
         The motion  is directed to plaintiff Robert Mott-Smith.            Plaintiff   Jacob   Gomez              is   being dismissed by
agreement.
Page 9 of 10
CV526011723
                                           Plaintiff’s       Request     for Judicial Notice


Plaintiff   asks the court to take              judicial notice of          a number of        trial    court rulings. While the
rulings are court records, they                 have no precedential value and therefore are                                       irrelevant.
Judicial notice             is   denied.


           To compel           under the FAA, the court must find that an agreement
                                 arbitration
exists for arbitrationbetween the parties and that the agreement c9vers the dispute.
(A T&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers ofAmen'l ?”?986) 475 U S. 643,
648—49. ) Enforcement of the agreement Is a matter of ordina         te- law contract                   ,r,‘




principles. (AT&TMobi/ity LLC v. Concepcion (201 1) 131 Si?
                                                                                                                          >
                                                                                                    .
                                                                                                               k
                                                                                                    '




Therefore arbitration agreements can be declared unenforce
contract defenses such as fraud, duress or unconscig abiIlity
doubt about arbitrability of a dispute under the FAA
                                                                                     h
arbitration.             (Id atp. 650.)


               does not dispute that he ent_ g“, ,nto the g
           Plaintiff                                                                           __
                                                                                                                   fies not dispute
that the FAA governs, and does not contefi “thaéfzi     agree eflt                                        Is     unenforceable on
grounds of fraud, duress, or unconsciq/gability. Ra her       T

waived the right to compel arbitration




discovery cited, however p        dame;
                                      W   Vikingfij ér, whén PAGA cases were still not
                                                         .




subject to arbitration undQeJ; {skania .gig-Defend‘g t had no basis to move for arbitration at
that time and was therefore       quired f6;   fend he case on the merits. Furthermore,
plaintiff cites no a                  defen     twhich are necessarily inconsistent with
arbitration.                        ""vifiby mer “participation in the litigation; there must be
                             '




judicial   litig
                                                      " {able
                                                              issues.            (Christensen           v.     Dewor
Developm           ‘7.                                       4:25W82.)   Plaintiff   has   failed to     meet       his   burden of
proof f, "demgfigxtratlfig wanVér
                                                  ‘




       J

   ~
           $3? motion              ,       glarbltratlon of plaintiff‘s individual                  PAGA claim                Is   therefore
granted.     ourt, th
                   g      r denies defendant' s request to dismiss the non- individual

PAGA claims’ Ihe coufl will stay those claims pending a decision'In Adolph. the                                                      If

California     Suprémg Court agrees with the United States Supreme Court that, under
California law,    no p’i‘bcedural mechanism exists for the non- individual claims to go
forward once the individual claim has been committed to arbitration defendant can
move for dismissal of those claims at that time. If the California Court disagrees with
United States Supreme Court, this court can take such other action at that time which                                                        is

consistent with the decision in Adolph. Meanwhile, the matter is stayed.




Page 10 of 10
CV526011723