Filed 10/20/23 Stiger v. Providence St. Joseph Health CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

LATASHA STIGER,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH 

HEALTH, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 B326999

 (Los Angeles County Super.

 Ct. No. 21STCV15994)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los

Angeles County, Malcolm H. Mackey, Judge. Reversed in part, 

dismissed in part, and remanded with directions.

Mahoney Law Group, Kevin Mahoney and George Singer 

for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Call & Jensen, Julie R. Trotter, Melinda Evans, Morgan E. 

Podruski and Ellen Connelly Cohen for Defendants and 

Respondents.

___________________________
2

Plaintiff Latasha Stiger sued defendants Providence St. 

Joseph Health and Aerotek Scientific, LLC under the Private 

Attorneys’ General Act of 2004 (PAGA) for alleged Labor Code 

violations. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged both individual and 

nonindividual claims (commonly known as representative claims) 

under PAGA.1 Defendants moved to compel arbitration of 

plaintiff’s individual claims and to dismiss her nonindividual 

claims, relying on the holding in Viking River Cruises, supra,

142 S.Ct. at pages 1923-1925. On February 10, 2023, the trial 

court granted defendants’ motion, and plaintiff appealed.

On August 22, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation to 

partially vacate the trial court order and dismiss plaintiff’s 

appeal. The parties agreed plaintiff’s nonindividual PAGA claims 

should not have been dismissed because “an order compelling 

arbitration of the individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of 

standing as an aggrieved employee to litigate claims on behalf of 

other employees under PAGA.” (Adolph v. Uber Technologies, 

Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1114 (Adolph).) The parties further 

agreed plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims were properly ordered 

to arbitration.

Accordingly, the parties request this Court reverse or 

vacate that portion of the trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s 

nonindividual PAGA claims with instructions to the trial court 

1 In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 

____, 142 S.Ct. 1906, 1916 (Viking River Cruises), the U.S. 

Supreme Court noted that all PAGA actions are “representative”

in that the plaintiff either is a representative of the State or of 

other employees. In this opinion, we use the term “nonindividual 

claims” to mean those claims involving Labor Code violations 

against employees other than plaintiff and “individual claims” to 

mean those involving plaintiff. 
3

that litigation of those claims be stayed pending arbitration of 

plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims. The parties further request 

plaintiff’s appeal be dismissed and each party to bear their own 

costs on appeal. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a) grants 

every court “the power to do all of the following: [¶] . . . [¶]

(8) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make 

them conform to law and justice. An appellate court shall not 

reverse or vacate a duly entered judgment upon an agreement or 

stipulation of the parties unless the court finds both of the 

following:

“(A) There is no reasonable possibility that the interests of 

nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the 

reversal.

“(B) The reasons of the parties for requesting reversal 

outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the 

nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of

stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial 

settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).) Courts must 

fully consider and weigh these factors on a case-by-case basis 

before reversing or vacating a judgment by stipulation. (Hardisty 

v. Hinton & Alfert (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 999, 1005 (Hardisty).)

We have reviewed the stipulation. Given the California 

Supreme Court’s holding in Adolph, the reversal of that portion 

of the judgment that dismisses plaintiff’s representative PAGA 

claims is likely. “[T]he presence of reversible error is pertinent to 

the first two [Code of Civil Procedure] section 128[, subdivision]

(a)(8) factors. For example, [section] 128[, subdivision] (a)(8)(A) 

refers to the interests of the public being adversely affected by 

the stipulated reversal. If there is reversible error, prompt 
4

resolution of the appeal without the considerable expense to the 

parties of briefing and taxpayer incurred costs of the internal 

decisionmaking process within the court certainly serves the 

public interest. Also, section 128, subdivision (a)(8)(B) requires 

an appellate court to conclude that the reasons for the reversal 

outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the 

nullification of a judgment before accepting a stipulated reversal.

If there is reversible error present, whatever public trust is 

eroded when a judgment is reversed, the purported erosion of our 

citizens’ faith in the courts is materially mitigated when the 

reversal would have occurred in any event and the parties agree 

to accept the inevitable.” (Union Bank of Cal. v. Braille Inst. of 

Am. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1330-1331 (Union Bank).)

In addition to the factors discussed in Union Bank, the 

stipulated reversal will have no effect on the incentive for pretrial 

settlement in this or other litigation. Under these circumstances, 

we find the parties’ stipulation meets the requirements imposed 

by Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). 

DISPOSITION

That part of the February 10, 2023, order dismissing

plaintiff’s nonindividual PAGA claims is reversed. The trial court 

shall issue a new and different order (1) denying the motion to 

dismiss the nonindividual claims and (2) staying proceedings on 

the nonindividual claims pending the arbitration of the 

individual claims. Plaintiff’s appeal from that part of the 

February 10, 2023, order compelling arbitration of her individual 
5

PAGA claims is dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs on 

appeal. 

RUBIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BAKER, J.

KIM, J.