Private Attorneys General Act Review – 2023 - Report - Page 24
Id. at *7. Since the trial court found that the plaintiff's declaration was not credible, it
ruled the plaintiff had not met her burden of proving, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that common issues pertaining to the implementation of the policies
predominate, and there was no other credible evidence before the court that the
defendant failed to implement its policies as written. Therefore, the court denied class
certification with prejudice. Id. at *9.
E.
Notable California Federal Court Rulings
In Middleton, et al. v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10655
(E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2023), the plaintiff filed a class action alleging six causes of action
under the California Labor Code and a seventh cause of action seeking Private Attorney
General (PAGA) penalties. The parties filed a joint stipulation for arbitration and to stay
the action agreeing to dismiss all claims expect for the PAGA claim, so that the other
claims could be arbitrated. The stipulation created "a mutual agreement mandating all
claims, but for Cause No. 7, be resolved in arbitration." Id. at *2. Subsequently, the case
was stayed for almost two years, during which time, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, et al., 142 S. Ct. 1906 (2022). The defendant
thereafter filed a motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s PAGA claim, asserting
that pursuant to Viking River, the binding arbitration agreement executed by the plaintiff
obligated him to arbitrate his individual PAGA claim on a bilateral basis. On behalf of
similarly aggrieved employees and himself, the plaintiff alleged the defendant committed
seven PAGA violations and sought penalties of approximately $1,400 per employee per
pay period since 2018. Id. at *5. The arbitration agreement mandated that the parties
"finally and conclusively resolve through arbitration" all "disputes" as defined. Id. at *6.
The parties did not contest that the parties were capable of contracting, there was a
lawful object to the agreement, nor that there was sufficient consideration. Id. at *10.
The district court agreed that the agreement was valid therefore the parties must be
held to the terms of the agreement to resolve disputes which the agreement
encompasses. Id. at *11. However, the district court determined that the agreement did
not encompass the dispute at issue because the stipulations modified the agreement
and thus exempted the PAGA cause from arbitration. The plaintiff argued that the
defendant was barred from compelling arbitration of the PAGA claim by its own
stipulation, in which the defendant stipulated that the PAGA claim, as pled at the time of
the stipulation, would be heard in the district court after the plaintiff's individual
arbitration. Id. at *13. The district court ruled that the stipulation was a valid modification
of the arbitration agreement, requiring the parties to litigate the plaintiff’s PAGA claim.
Id. The district court opined that the stipulation clearly delegated the Labor Code claims
to arbitration while intending to litigation the PAGA claim, and the parties did not include
any caveat to capture potential changes in case law in the stipulation. Accordingly, the
district court found that the parties’ stipulation did not encompass the plaintiff’s
representative PAGA claim, and therefore it could no compel the plaintiff to arbitrate that
claim.
In Dominguez, et al. v. Sonesta International Hotels Corp., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 385
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2023), the plaintiff filed a class action asserting various wage and
hour claims under the California Labor Code, including a claim for civil penalties under
24
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
PAGA Litigation Review – 2023
