Casement v. Soliant Health, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES CASEMENT, on behalf of himself No. 1:19-cv-01262-DAD-JLT and others similarly situated, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO v. VACATE JUDGMENT, VACATE ORDER 14 COMPELLING ARBITRATION AND SOLIANT HEALTH, INC., DISMISSING CASE, REOPEN CASE, AND 15 REMAND TO STATE COURT Defendant. 16 (Doc. Nos. 37, 38, 46) 17 18 19 This matter is before the court on the parties’ joint motion and stipulation requesting that 20 the judgment entered in this matter on April 29, 2020 be vacated (Doc. No. 38); the order 21 compelling arbitration and dismissing this case be vacated (Doc. No. 37); and the matter be re- 22 opened and then remanded back to state court. (Doc. No. 46.) Pursuant to General Order No. 23 617 addressing the public health emergency posed by the coronavirus pandemic, the court took 24 this matter under submission to be decided on the papers, without holding a hearing. (Doc. 25 No. 47.) 26 BACKGROUND 27 Plaintiff James Casement commenced this class action on August 7, 2019 in Kern County 28 Superior Court on behalf of himself and other non-exempt hourly-paid employees in California, 1 alleging defendant Soliant Health, Inc., an employment staffing agency, failed to: (1) provide 2 reporting time pay; (2) pay employees for all hours worked; (3) pay overtime; (4) pay minimum 3 wage; (5) authorize or permit meal breaks; (6) authorize or permit rest breaks; and (7) furnish 4 accurate wage statements. (Doc. Nos. 3 at 2; 3-1 at 4–30.) On September 9, 2019, defendant 5 removed this case to federal court. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2, 3.) On December 10, 2019, plaintiff filed a 6 First Amended Complaint, asserting the same causes of action and as well as adding a claim 7 under California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), California Labor Code § 2699, et 8 seq., for civil penalties based on the facts and Labor Code violations alleged in the original 9 complaint. (Doc. No. 27 at 15–27.) Also on December 10, 2019, defendant moved to compel 10 arbitration on an individual basis relying on an arbitration provision contained in plaintiff’s 11 employment agreement. (Doc. No. 24.) On April 29, 2020, after completing a full round of 12 briefing and holding a hearing on the motion, this court granted defendant’s motion to compel 13 arbitration and dismissed the case pursuant to defendant’s request while the matter was arbitrated. 14 (Doc. Nos. 24, 28, 20, 32, 37.) Judgment was also inadvertently entered in this matter. (Doc. No. 15 38.) 16 On May 26, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. No. 41.) In 17 their joint motion now pending before this court, the parties state that while plaintiff’s appeal was 18 pending, they participated in mediation on October 14, 2020 and were able to reach a settlement 19 on behalf of plaintiff, the proposed class, and all aggrieved employees. (Doc. Nos. 46 at 5; 46-1 20 at ¶ 3.) The joint motion further states that in connection with the settlement, the parties 21 stipulated to certify a settlement class including all individuals employed by defendant in 22 California as a non-exempt traveling employee at any time from August 7, 2015 through January 23 3, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 46 at 5; 46-1 at ¶ 4.) Thereafter, the parties agreed to dismiss the pending 24 appeal, and the Ninth Circuit’s order voluntarily dismissing that appeal was entered on January 25 15, 2021. (Doc. Nos. 45, 46 at 5.) 26 The parties now wish to seek court approval of their settlement in state court, and in order 27 to do so, they request that this court vacate the April 29, 2020 judgment under Federal Rule of 28 Civil Procedure 60, vacate the April 29, 2020 order compelling arbitration and dismissing this 1 case, re-open this matter, and they stipulate to and request that this case be remanded back to state 2 court. (Doc. No. 46 at 5–7.) 3 DISCUSSION 4 A. Vacating the April 29, 2020 Judgment Entered 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a district court to relieve a party from a 6 final order or judgment on grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 7 (2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; 8 (5) the judgment has been satisfied . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation 9 of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Here the parties have provided an adequate basis under 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to support vacating the judgment entered on April 29, 11 2020, because it was entered in error and not at the court’s direction. (Doc. No. 38.) 12 B. Vacating the Order Compelling Arbitration on an Individual Basis 13 The court will adopt the other aspects of the parties’ joint motion and stipulation and will 14 vacate the April 29, 2020 order compelling arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims and 15 dismissing this case. (Doc. No. 37.) However, the April 29, 2020 order will also be vacated as 16 to plaintiff’s PAGA claim for the additional reason that under California Labor Code § 2698, et 17 seq., PAGA representative actions cannot be waived. Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am., Inc., 803 18 F.3d 425, 440 (9th Cir. 2015). 19 The court takes this opportunity to express its concern with the way arbitration is 20 sometimes used, with this case serving as an example. Plaintiff commenced this action nearly 21 two years ago, and it has already been sent to four separate forums. Now, this case must be 22 returned to the same court in which it originated, otherwise “the [p]arties will be without a forum 23 within which to pursue preliminary and final approval of the stipulated settlement.” (Doc. Nos. 24 46 at 7; 46-1 at ¶ 7.) While the general merits of arbitration agreements can be debated, in light 25 of what has transpired in this case, it is evident that arbitration multiplied the proceedings for no 26 good reason and at the expense of both the parties’ and the court’s resources. At a minimum, this 27 type of “conduct undermines the public’s confidence in getting a fair shake when arbitration is 28 ///// 1 | compelled.” McLellan v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00036-JD, 2018 WL 3549042, at *1 (N.D. 2 | Cal. July 24, 2018). 3 Nonetheless, the court now orders that its April 29, 2020 order (Doc. No. 37) compelling 4 | arbitration on an individual basis and dismissing this case is vacated for the reasons explained 5 | above and that this case be re-opened. 6} C. Remanding the Action 7 Good cause appearing, and pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, this case is remanded to the 8 | Kern County Superior Court. 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons: 11 1. The final judgment entered April 29, 2020 (Doc. No. 38), is vacated; 12 2. The April 29, 2020 order (Doc. No. 37) compelling arbitration of plaintiffs 13 claims on an individual basis and dismissing this case is vacated; 14 3. This case is reopened; 15 4. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, this re-opened case is remanded to Kern 16 County Superior Court for all further proceedings; and 17 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case without entering judgment. 18 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si □ | Dated: _ April 12, 2021 Yola A Lange 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28