Raymond v. Compucom Systems, Inc.

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 | William Dean Raymond, No. 2:21-cv-02327-KJM-KJIN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. CompuCom Systems, Inc., 1S Defendant. [16] 17 Plaintiff William Dean Raymond brings this employment action under the California 18 | Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seg., against defendant 19 | CompuCom Systems, Inc. The court has currently stayed the action. CompuCom moves to 20 | dismiss plaintiff's non-individual PAGA claim for lack of statutory standing and requests a 21 | continued stay. Because the court grants CompuCom’s request for a continued stay, the court 22 | does not reach the motion to dismiss. 23 The court incorporates its previous summary of the case’s history here. Prior Order 24 | (Mar. 10, 2023) at 1-2, ECF No. 42. While the court has compelled arbitration of Raymond’s 25 | individual PAGA claim, his non-individual PAGA claim remains pending. /d. at 1. CompuCom 26 | moves to dismiss the non-individual claim. See Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 31. The parties dispute 27 | whether the current stay of the case should be lifted. See Joint Status Report, ECF No. 44. The 28 | court ordered further briefing regarding whether the court should maintain the stay. See Prior 1 Order (Aug. 23, 2023), ECF No. 45. CompuCom filed a supplemental brief, which included 2 arguments in support of both the prior motion to dismiss and maintaining the stay. See 3 CompuCom Suppl., ECF No. 46. Raymond opposed. See Raymond Suppl., ECF No. 47. The 4 court notes, as Raymond points out, CompuCom exceeded the parameters of the supplemental 5 briefing the court requested by briefing new arguments in support of its motion to dismiss that 6 were neither discussed in the parties’ joint status report nor the court’s prior order requesting the 7 supplemental briefing. See Prior Order (Aug. 23, 2023) at 4; CompuCom Suppl. at 2–8; 8 Raymond Suppl. at 6 9 This court previously found the FAA does not mandate a stay in this case. See Prior 10 Order (Aug. 23, 2023) at 3 (“Insofar as the non-individual claim is not arbitrable, the court is not 11 persuaded a mandatory stay under the FAA applies to the non-individual claim.”); Forrest v. 12 Spizziri, 62 F.4th 1201, 1204 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. granted sub nom. Smith v. Spizzirri, 144 S. Ct. 13 680 (2024) (explaining a mandatory stay under the FAA applies “at least where all issues are 14 subject to arbitration”); id. at 1204 n.2 (explaining district court’s discretion to stay matters when 15 not all claims are arbitrable). Moreover, in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., the California 16 Supreme Court provided one possible way of proceeding at this juncture, where the individual 17 PAGA claim is sent to arbitration. 14 Cal. 5th 1104 , 1123–24 (2023). 18 First, the trial court may exercise its discretion to stay the non19 individual claims pending the outcome of the arbitration pursuant 20 to section 1281.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Following the 21 arbitrator’s decision, any party may petition the court to confirm or 22 vacate the arbitration award under section 1285 of the Code of 23 Civil Procedure. If the arbitrator determines that [the plaintiff] is 24 an aggrieved employee in the process of adjudicating his 25 individual PAGA claim, that determination, if confirmed and 26 reduced to a final judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.4), would be 27 binding on the court, and [the plaintiff] would continue to have 28 standing to litigate his nonindividual claims. If the arbitrator 29 determines that [the plaintiff] is not an aggrieved employee and the 30 court confirms that determination and reduces it to a final 31 judgment, the court would give effect to that finding, and [the 32 plaintiff] could no longer prosecute his non-individual claims due 33 to lack of standing. 34 Id. (citations omitted). ] Several district courts have followed the proposed procedure in Adolph and stayed the 2 | non-individual PAGA claim pending the resolution of the arbitration regarding the individual 3 | PAGA claim. See, e.g., Colores v. Ray Moles Farms, Inc., No. 21-00467, 2023 WL 6215789 , at 4 | *3(E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2023) (finding “the proper course of action, as the Adolph decision itself 5 | indicated, will be to stay this matter until the arbitration concludes, at which time the parties can 6 | return to this Court to address any res judicata impact of the arbitrator’s decision”); Josephson v. 7 | Lamon Constr. Co., Inc., No. 23-00043, 2024 WL 382378 , at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2024); 8 | Radcliff San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., No. 20-1555, 2023 WL 8264445 , at *1 (S.D. Cal. 9 | Nov. 28, 2023); Rubio v. Marriott Resorts Hosp. Corp., No. 23-00773, 2023 WL 8153535 , at *4 10 | (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2023). This court agrees and finds a continued stay will promote the interest 11 | of judicial economy and help avoid relitigation, as contemplated in Adolph. See Adolph, 14 Cal. 12 | 1124. For these reasons, the court grants CompuCom’s request for a continued stay of 13 | the non-individual PAGA claim. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED: March 20, 2024. | / [16] 7 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE