Edlebeck v. HomeGoods, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 24, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00735
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JENNIFER EDLEBECK, an individual, Case No.: 23-CV-735 TWR (BGS) individually and on behalf of all similarly 12 situated and aggrieved employees of ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 Defendants in the State of California, MOTION TO SUBMIT MATTER TO ARBITRATION, DISMISS CLASS 14 Plaintiff, CLAIMS, AND REMAND ACTION 15 v. TO STATE COURT

16 HOMEGOODS, INC., a Delaware (ECF No. 9) corporation; NASH TANG, an individual; 17 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Submit Matter to 21 Arbitration, Dismiss Class Claims, and Remand. (See ECF No. 9.) Specifically, the Joint 22 Motion seeks “an order dismissing [Plaintiff’s] class claims without prejudice, compelling 23 Plaintiff’s individual claims to arbitration, and remanding [the remainder of] this action to 24 state court where the Parties will stipulate to stay the action pending resolution of the matter 25 in arbitration.” (See id. ¶ 7.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ 26 Joint Motion. 27 Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint in the Superior Court of California, 28 County of San Diego, Central Division on March 8, 2023. (See ECF No. 1-2.) The First 1 Amended Complaint contains two sets of claims: five putative class action claims and one 2 Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) claim. (See generally id.) On April 21, 2023, 3 Defendants timely filed their Notice of Removal to Federal Court Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 4 1332, 1441, and 1446. (See generally ECF No. 1.) On May 2, 2023, Defendants filed their 5 Answer to the Complaint, (see generally ECF No. 8), and on May 12, 2023, the Parties 6 filed the instant Joint Motion, (see generally ECF No. 9). 7 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may jointly 8 stipulate to the dismissal of an action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Parties may also 9 stipulate to binding arbitration, see, e.g., Van Waters & Rogers Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of 10 Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., Loc. Union 70, 913 F.2d 736, 11 740 (9th Cir. 1990); Plasterers Loc. Union No. 346 v. Wyland Enterprises Inc., 819 F.2d 12 217, 218 (9th Cir. 1987), or to the remand of a case from federal district court to state 13 superior court, see, e.g., Vorise v. Mitsubishi Elec. US, Inc., No. 4:22-CV-02017-HSG, 14 2022 WL 1117198, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2022); Flamenco v. Mercedes-Benz USA, 15 LLC, No. 8:22-CV-00082-DOC-KES, 2022 WL 602382, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2022). 16 Here, the Parties’ Joint Motion seeks arbitration, partial dismissal, and a remand of the 17 remaining claims to state court. (See generally ECF No. 9.) 18 According to the Joint Motion, the Parties entered into a Binding Arbitration 19 Agreement (the “Agreement”) at the time Plaintiff was hired, through which they decided 20 that “any claims arising out of or related to Plaintiff’s employment with HomeGoods, Inc. 21 and any related entity would be resolved by an arbitrator through final and binding 22 arbitration, and not by way of a court or jury trial.” (See id. ¶ 2.) Pursuant to that 23 Agreement, the Parties met and conferred and “agreed to submit Plaintiff’s individual wage 24 and hour claims and individual PAGA claims in this lawsuit to binding arbitration.” (See 25 id. ¶ 4.) The Parties also agreed to “dismiss the class claims without prejudice.” (See id.) 26 Because the Parties have stipulated to the dismissal of the class wage and hour claims and 27 the arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual wage and hour claims and individual PAGA claim, 28 only the “non-individual PAGA claims” remain in this matter. (See id. at 2–3.) 1 Defendants initially removed this matter to federal court pursuant to the Class Action 2 || Fairness Act (““CAFA”), which provides for original jurisdiction over civil class actions in 3 || which any member of the putative class is a citizen of a state different than any defendant, 4 ||there are at least 100 putative class members, and the amount in controversy exceeds 5 $5,000,000. (See ECF No. 1 at 4 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1446).) According to the 6 || Parties’ good faith representations, if only the “non-individual PAGA claims” remained, 7 ||“CAFA would no longer be applicable.” (See ECF No. 9 §] 6; see also ECF No. 1 at 16 8 ||(“[Defendants’ Notice of Removal] analysis does not account for Plaintiff's PAGA claim 9 ||....”).) Therefore, the Parties ask that the remaining representative PAGA claim in “this 10 || matter be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, 11 || Central Division.” (See id.) 12 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. Accordingly, the 13 ||}Court ORDERS the Parties to arbitrate Plaintiff's individual wage and hour claims and 14 |}individual PAGA claim, DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE □□□□□□□□□□□ 15 representative wage and hour claims, and REMANDS the remainder of this action to the 16 || Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Central Division. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: May 24, 2023 —_—— [59 bee 20 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28