Joshua Cahill v. Marriott International, Inc., et al

Case Number

24CV02394

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 09/16/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion To Stay Action On Grounds Of Another Similar Action Pending In Federal Court

Tentative Ruling

Joshua Cahill v. Marriott International, Inc., et al

Case No. 24CV02394

Hearing Date: September 16, 2024                                       

HEARING:              Motion To Stay Action On Grounds Of Another Similar Action Pending In Federal Court                                   

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Joshua Cahill: Arby Aiwazian, Tara Zabehi, Brittany L. Shaw, Margaux Gundzik, Lawyers for Justice, PC

                             For Defendants Marriott International, Inc., and Residence Inn By Marriott, LLC: Greg S. Labate, Eric T. Angel, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court continues the hearing on the motion of defendant to stay this action to October 28, 2024. On or before October 16, 2024, the parties shall file a joint status report, or if necessary individual status reports, in accordance with this ruling.

Background:

On April 29, 2024, plaintiff Joshua Cahill (Cahill) filed a complaint against defendants Marriott International, Inc. and Residence Inn By Marriott, LLC (collectively, Marriott), alleging one cause of action for violation of Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 or PAGA). In the complaint (herein referred to as the PAGA Complaint), Cahill alleges that he was employed by Marriott as an hourly, non-exempt employee in October 2023, in Santa Barbara, California. Cahill further alleges, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees as that term is defined under PAGA, that Marriott failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, to provide meal and rest periods, to pay wages upon termination in a timely manner, to provide complete and accurate wage statements, to keep complete and accurate payroll records, and to provide reimbursement for necessary business related costs and expenses. Cahill alleges that Marriott violated Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 226, subdivision (a), 226.7, 510, 512, subdivision (a), 558, 1174, subdivision (d), 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 2800, and 2802. (PAGA Compl., ¶ 19.)

On June 20, 2024, Marriott filed its answer to the PAGA Complaint generally denying its allegations and asserting forty six affirmative defenses.

On July 18, 2024, Marriott filed a motion for an order staying the present action on the grounds that there exists a substantively identical matter involving substantially similar parties and claims which is currently pending before a federal court which will require the adjudication of identical issues. In support of the motion, Marriott submits a request for judicial notice of a class action complaint (the Class Complaint) filed on April 29, 2024, as Santa Barbara Superior Court case no. 24CV02395 entitled Joshua Cahill, et al. v. Marriott International, Inc., (the Class Action), and of a Notice of Removal of the Class Action (the Notice) filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, codified in 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d) (CAFA). (RFJN, ¶¶ 1-2 & Exhs. A-B.)

The motion is opposed by Cahill.

Analysis:

In order to determine whether a stay of this action is warranted, the Court finds it necessary to provide a brief overview of relevant underlying issues of law.

The undisputed evidence and information shows that the Class Complaint filed by Cahill in the Class Action asserts violations of the California Labor Code and of the Business and Professions Code, and does not arise from any purported violations of federal law. (RFJN, Exh. A.) An employee who, under circumstances present here, seeks judicial relief for an employer’s alleged violations of California state labor laws, including violations relating to unpaid wages, may file a private civil action. (ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175, 186 (ZB); see also Lab. Code, § 1194.) Moreover, to the extent that a purported violation of the Labor Code constitutes an unfair business act or practice, the employee may also pursue claims for unpaid wages under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. ( the Unfair Competition Law or UCL). (Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 178-179.)

In addition to pursuing a private right of action, a plaintiff may bring an action under PAGA, which is “a procedural statute allowing an aggrieved employee to recover civil penalties—for Labor Code violations—that otherwise would be sought by state labor law enforcement agencies.” (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003 (Amalgamated).) PAGA authorizes employees to “sue on behalf of themselves and other aggrieved employees to recover civil penalties previously recoverable only by the Labor Commissioner — including those in [Labor Code] section 558. [Citations.].” (ZB, supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 185.) Claims brought under PAGA are representative actions “in the sense that they are brought on the state’s behalf. The employee acts as ‘the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies’ and ‘represents the same legal right and interest as’ those agencies — ‘namely, recovery of civil penalties that otherwise would have been assessed and collected by the Labor Workforce Development Agency.’ [Citations].” (Ibid.) To seek recovery of penalties under PAGA, the employee must have “suffered injury resulting from an unlawful action: under the unfair competition law by unfair acts or practices; under the act, by violations of the Labor Code.” (Amalgamated, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 1001; see also Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 85, fn. 4 (Kim) [a PAGA representative must be someone against whom the alleged violations were committed].)

Relevant here, with the exception of PAGA actions which are not class actions (Kim, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 87), to the extent a private cause of action alleging violations of state labor laws satisfies the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 382, including with respect to any claims brought under the UCL, the cause of action may be pursued as a class action. (See, generally, Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1, 28 [general discussion]; Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 980.) In cases other than PAGA actions where a plaintiff seeks to certify a class action alleging violations of state labor laws, a defendant may seek removal of the class action to federal court under CAFA, which “provides the federal district courts with ‘original jurisdiction’ to hear a ‘class action’ if the class has more than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the ‘matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000.’ [Citations.]” (Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles (2013) 568 U.S. 588, 592; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d); but see Baumann v. Chase Inv. Services Corp. (9th Cir. 2014) 747 F.3d 1117, 1122-1123 [PAGA actions are not class actions and do not trigger jurisdiction under CAFA].)  
 

A defendant seeking to remove a class action under CAFA must “file in the federal forum a notice of removal ‘containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.’ [Citation.]” (Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens (2014) 574 U.S. 81, 87.) The notice of removal need not include evidence but only a “plausible allegation” that grounds for removal exist. (Id. at p. 89.) However, if the plaintiff contests the defendant’s allegation, evidence establishing grounds for removal is required. (Ibid.)

The present action (the PAGA Action) and the Class Action were filed by Cahill against Marriott on the same day. As further discussed above, the Class Complaint alleges various Labor Code violations, which purportedly arise from Marriott’s failure to provide rest and meal periods, to pay minimum and other wages including those earned for missed meal and rest periods and overtime, to pay wages upon discharge or resignation, to maintain or provide complete and accurate wage statements, and to provide reimbursement for necessary business related expenses. (RFJN, Exh. A [Class Compl.] ¶¶ 26-49.) Cahill does not, and cannot reasonably, dispute that the allegations of the Class Complaint with respect to the acts by Marriott which Cahill alleges constitute violations of the Labor Code are effectively similar if not identical to those alleged in the PAGA Complaint.

In addition, the proposed class alleged in the Class Complaint includes “[a]ll current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for [Marriott] within the State of California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing of this [Class] Complaint to final judgment and who reside in California.” (RFJN, Exh. A at ¶ 14.) Accordingly, the class for which Cahill seeks certification in the Class Complaint includes employees who worked for Marriott at any time from April 29, 2024, through final judgment. Cahill also does not, and cannot reasonably, dispute that the aggrieved employees that Cahill purports to represent in the PAGA Action are also, with respect to a certain defined period of time, members, or a subset, of the class alleged in the Class Complaint.

For reasons further discussed above, the available evidence and information shows that, with respect the members of the class in the Class Action who are also alleged to be aggrieved employees in the PAGA Action over a same period of time, there exist overlapping and common issues of law and fact with respect to the conduct of Marriott and the purported violations of the Labor Code alleged in the Class Complaint which also serve as a predicate for the penalties sought in the PAGA Action. As it would appear that Cahill will be required to prove the same conduct and the same statutory violations with respect to the members of the class who are also aggrieved employees under PAGA, “considerations of comity and the prevention of multiple and vexatious litigation” appear to indicate that a stay of the PAGA Action may be appropriate. (Leadford v. Leadford (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 571, 575.) “However, other factors weigh in the balance, and where judicial economy, the interests of the forum, and the convenience of the parties weigh in favor of allowing the action to proceed, the trial court has discretion to deny the stay. (Ibid.)
 

The Court notes that, although Marriott contends that the PAGA Action and the Class Action involve the same parties, the same or similar claims, arise from the same or substantially identical incidents and events, and will require the determination of the same questions of law or fact and duplication of judicial resources, the Court has no record of the filing by Marriott of a Notice of Related Case. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(b).) Notwithstanding any failure to comply with court rules with respect to the required filing an appropriate Notice of Related Case, even if the Court were to determine that a stay of the PAGA Action is justified (and the Court presently makes no findings in this regard), information and evidence submitted by Cahill in opposition to the motion, which is not disputed by Marriott, shows that on July 17, 2024, Cahill filed a motion to remand the Class Action to this Court (the motion to remand), which has been under submission since August 14, 2024. (Gundzik Decl., ¶ 9.)

If the motion to remand is granted, it would appear that, upon remand, issuance of an order under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1), that the PAGA Action and the Class Action be related, may be appropriate. For this reason, should the Class Action be remanded to this Court, the present motion would be rendered moot. Therefore, and notwithstanding whether or not there exists sufficient justification to impose a stay of the PAGA Action to the extent the motion to remand is denied, under the circumstances present here and in the interests of preserving judicial efficiency, the Court will continue the hearing on the motion to permit the parties to obtain a ruling on the motion to remand.

The Court will also order the parties to file a joint status report, or if necessary, individual status reports, prior to the continued hearing informing the Court of the status of the motion to remand, including whether that motion was granted or denied, and any other issues that remain. The Court further notes that, to the extent the motion to remand is granted, the Court intends to order the PAGA Action related to the Class Action. Therefore, to the extent Cahill contends that the PAGA Action and the Class Action are not related cases for purposes of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a), the Court expects that Cahill will address this issue in the joint or individual status report ordered herein.