The motion for preliminary injunction brought by plaintiff Santiago Ochoa is granted. Defendant Automobile Club of Southern California is enjoined from proceeding with its counterclaim in arbitration for declaratory relief in JAMS Case No. 1200057920.
As a preliminary matter, the court declines Defendant’s request that the court disregard Plaintiff’s motion on the basis that a mandatory stay was in place pursuant to CCP §1281.4 while Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration was pending. As set forth above, that motion has now been denied.
“In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial court must weigh two inter-related factors: (1) the likelihood the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative interim harm the parties would suffer from the issuance or nonissuance of the injunction.” (Brooks v. AmeriHome Mortgage Co. (2020) LLC, 47 Cal.App.5th 624, 628 (citing People ex rel Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1109)).
As was the case in Brooks, this Court finds Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on the issue of whether Plaintiff’s PAGA-only claim is subject to arbitration. (Id. at 628).
Per Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, “where…an employment agreement compels the waiver of representative claims under the PAGA, it is contrary to public policy and unenforceable as a matter of state law.” (Id. at 384). This is so, in part, as “[t]he government entity on whose behalf the plaintiff files suit is always the real party in interest in the suit.” (Id. at 382).
Additionally, as explained in Williams v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 642, “a single representative PAGA claim cannot be split into an arbitrable individual claim and a nonarbitrable representative claim.” (Id. at 649).
Here, as in Brooks, the complaint is a “‘pure PAGA claim’ . . . Because [Plaintiff] brought a representative claim, he cannot be compelled to separately arbitrate whether he was an aggrieved employee.” (Brooks, supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at 629).
Defendant’s attempted arbitration counterclaim would impermissibly split the PAGA claim as discussed above in this court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Secondly, as was also the case in Brooks, the interim harm likely to be suffered by Plaintiff outweighs any harm to defendant, as “[a]rbitration of a nonarbitrable claim would be futile.” (Brooks, supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at 630).
Request for Judicial Notice: Plaintiff requests that the court take judicial notice of The Final Order Granting the plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Mbise v. Exlehire Inc., Case No. RG20075115 (Alameda Sup. Ct., January 13, 2021).
Although the above item is a court record potentially subject to judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code §452(d), the court sustains Defendant’s objection to this Request and the court denies the Request for Judicial Notice. The Mbise opinion is non-binding and does not impact the disposition of this motion. It is irrelevant.