Motion,Ex Parte: **COMPLEX/CLASS ACTION**AGUIRRE-V-MENASHA, ET AL Print

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                SUPERIOR CO! URT OF CALIFO
                                                                          COUNTY OF Sal N BERNARDIN   RNIA
                                                                                                        O
                                                                            ‘SAN BERNARI IDINO DISTRICT
        Aguirre v. Menasha Packaging Company, LLC et al.
        CIVDS-2004372                                                             DEC 0 3 2021
        Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action
        Tentative Ruling:
                                                                             J       "A       LES,      UTY
        Denied.

       Plaintiffs Partida and Aguirre, who were employed by Simplified Staffing
Solutions and placed to work at Menasha Packaging, have dismissed their individual
and class claims. Plaintiff Armenta was not employed by Simplified Staffing, but was
employed directly by Menasha, and apparently is not subject to any arbitration
agreement. As for Partida and Aguirre, they remain plaintiffs for PAGA claims, but
PAGA is not subject to arbitration. (Herrera v. Doctor’s Medical Center of Modesto, Inc.
(2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 538, 542.) Therefore, there is nothing to arbitrate.

        Simplified Staffing, however, makes several novel arguments in its Reply brief.

        First, Simplifed Staffing argues that the substantive claims, if not dismissed with
prejudice, must still go to arbitration to adjudicate whether Labor Code violations
occurred.     The argument is unsupported by any authority.    There are no claims to
arbitrate because they have been dismissed. A defendant cannot compel a plaintiffs to
pursue claims they do not wish to pursue. It is a frequent occurrence in this court, and
in other courts around the state, that plaintiffs facing motions to compel arbitration will
dismiss the class and individual claims, typically without prejudice, and pursue PAGA
claims in court. The dismissal moots the motion to compel arbitration.

        Second, Simplified Staffing argues that “further proceedings against Simplifed
would need to be stayed” pending resolution of the class action.” Again, Simplified
Staffing fails to cite any authority for this proposition. Even so, whether there are
grounds to stay the PAGA action against Simplified Staffing is well beyond this motion
to compel arbitration.

         Third, Simplified Staffing argues that there are no viable PAGA claims against
Simplied Staffing because plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. If
this is true, Simplified Staffing has a defense to the case, but it has nothing to do with
arbitration.

        Finally, Simplified Staffing argues that plaintiffs waived any defense to the
enforcement of the arbitration agreement because they did not controvert any of the
factual allegations in the petition. It doesn’t matter. There is nothing to arbitrate
because the claims have been dismissed.




Page 2 of 2
CVS26120321