Court Opinion

ID: 9892186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 20:04:35.661708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:21:52.664132
License: Public Domain

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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                     B326999

           Plaintiff and Appellant,                                  (Los Angeles County Super.
                                                                     Ct. No. 21STCV15994)
 v.

 PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH
 HEALTH, et al.,

           Defendants and Respondents.

      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.
                   ___________________________
       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.

                                 2
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

                                 3
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

                                 4
PAGA claims is dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs on
appeal.

                                     RUBIN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

                       BAKER, J.

                       KIM, J.

                                 5