Court Opinion

ID: 9907672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 20:02:41.348546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:59:00.184123
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/6/23 Moreno v. Unisource Solutions 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

 GONZALO MORENO,                                                     B327516

           Plaintiff and Appellant,                                  (Los Angeles County Super.
                                                                     Ct. No. 22STCV13190)
 v.

 UNISOURCE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

           Defendant and Respondent.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Teresa A. Beaudet, Judge. Reversed in part,
dismissed in part, and remanded with directions.
     Bibiyan Law Group, David D. Bibiyan, Jeffrey D. Klein,
and Anita Lodi for Plaintiff and Appellant.
     Jackson Lewis, Leonora M. Schloss, Andrea F. Oxman,
Dylan B. Carp, and Martin P. Vigodnier for Defendant and
Respondent.
                   ___________________________
      On April 20, 2022, plaintiff Gonzalo Moreno sued defendant
Unisource Solutions, Inc. under the Private Attorneys’ General
Act of 2004 (PAGA) for alleged Labor Code violations. Plaintiff’s
complaint alleged one cause of action for civil penalties under
PAGA, comprised of individual and non-individual components.1
Defendant moved to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s individual
claims and to dismiss his non-individual claims, relying on the
holding in Viking River Cruises, supra, 142 S.Ct. at pages 1923-
1925. On January 30, 2023, the trial court granted defendant’s
motion, and plaintiff appealed.
      On November 2, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation for
partial reversal and partial dismissal of plaintiff’s appeal. The
parties agree plaintiff’s non-individual 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 agree
plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims were properly ordered to
arbitration.
      Accordingly, the parties request this court reverse that
portion of the trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s non-

1     In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S.
____, 142 S.Ct. 1906, 1916 (Viking River Cruises), the United
States Supreme Court held 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
“non-individual claims” to mean those claims involving Labor
Code violations against employees other than plaintiff and
“individual claims” to mean those involving plaintiff.

                                 2
individual PAGA claims. The parties further request plaintiff’s
appeal be otherwise dismissed and each party to bear their own
costs on appeal. In support of their stipulation, the parties agree
the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 128 have
been met.
       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.)
       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 non-individual 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

                                 3
the stipulated reversal. If there is reversible error, prompt
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 of Code of
Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8).
                          DISPOSITION
      That part of the January 30, 2023 order dismissing
plaintiff’s non-individual PAGA claims is reversed. The trial
court shall issue a new and different order (1) denying the motion
to dismiss the non-individual claims and (2) staying proceedings
on the non-individual claims pending the arbitration of the
individual claims. Plaintiff’s appeal from that part of the
January 30, 2023 order compelling arbitration of her individual
PAGA claims is dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs on
appeal.

                                 4
                            RUBIN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

             MOOR, J.

             KIM, J.

                        5