Radcliff v. San Diego Gas & Electric Company
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
The court issued an order pending the Ninth Circuit's mandate, reinstating the plaintiff's representative PAGA claim, ordering arbitration of the individual PAGA claim, and staying the representative claim pending the outcome of the individual arbitration. The court cited the Ninth Circuit's reversal and the parties' joint stipulation as the basis for these procedural actions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Reinstatement of Plaintiff's representative PAGA claim“the Court (1) reinstates Plaintiff's representative PAGA claim” | agree with court The court is implementing the Ninth Circuit's mandate which reversed the prior dismissal. Reinstating the claim is the logical procedural step following a reversal on appeal. |
Ordering parties to arbitrate Plaintiff's individual PAGA claim“orders the parties to arbitrate Plaintiff's individual PAGA claim” | agree with court The order states this is done pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's instructions and the parties' joint motion. It cites Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., which supports the separability of individual and representative PAGA claims, allowing individual claims to be arbitrated while representative claims proceed in court. |
Staying the representative PAGA claim pending the outcome of the arbitration of all of Plaintiff's individual claims“stays the representative PAGA claim pending the outcome of the arbitration of all of Plaintiff's individual claims” | agree with court The court cites Rocha v. U-Haul of California, which discusses the procedural posture of PAGA claims and the potential for staying representative claims while individual claims are resolved, particularly in the context of arbitration. This aligns with the parties' joint stipulation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural implementation of a Ninth Circuit mandate and a joint stipulation. It correctly identifies the relevant legal framework (Viking River, Adolph, Rocha) for separating individual and representative PAGA claims and handling them through arbitration and litigation respectively. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order pending mandate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAVID RADCLIFF, individually and on Case No.: 20-cv-1555-H-MSB behalf of others similarly situated and 11 aggrieved, ORDER PENDING MANDATE 12 HEARING Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 15 COMPANY, a California corporation; SEMPRA ENERGY, a California 16 corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, 17 inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 On November 20, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 21 reversed this Court’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff David Radcliff’s (“Plaintiff”) 22 representative1 claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act 23 24 25 1 For the purposes of this order, the Court uses the term “individual” PAGA claims to 26 mean claims that are premised on California Labor Code violations “actually sustained by 27 the plaintiff” and “representative” PAGA claims to mean those claims “arising out of events involving other employees.” See Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 142 S.Ct. 28 1 || (“PAGA”) and remanded the case to this Court “for proceedings consistent with the parties’ 2 ||joint motion.” (Doc. No. 63.) 3 The Court issues this Order pending the forthcoming Ninth Circuit mandate and 4 ||subsequent mandate hearing to be held in this Court. Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s 5 || instructions and the parties’ joint motion, the Court (1) reinstates Plaintiff's representative 6 || PAGA claim’; (2) orders the parties to arbitrate Plaintiff's individual PAGA claim; and (3) 7 stays the representative PAGA claim pending the outcome of the arbitration of all of 8 || Plaintiff's individual claims. Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order at 3, David Radcliff v. 9 ||San Diego Gas & Electric Company; Sempra Energy, No. 22-55940 (9th Cir. 2023) (Doc. 10 || No. 34); see also Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 14 Cal.5th 1104 (2023); Rocha v. U- 11 || Haul of California, 88 Cal.App.S5th 65, 77-78 (2023). The Court will schedule a telephonic 12 status conference once the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ||DATED: November 28, 2023 \ lu | 15 Miualen be dhaf » UPA MARILYN &. HUFF, Seniorésfrict Judge 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a7Hho0C~Ci“‘ 28 * Plaintiff's PAGA claim is the eleventh cause of action in his Complaint. (Doc. No. 1-2; Compl. {| 68-71.)