Radcliff v. San Diego Gas & Electric Company

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 3, 2022
• Docket: 3:20-cv-01555
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID RADCLIFF, individually and on Case No.: 20-cv-1555-H-MSB behalf of others similarly situated and 12 aggrieved, ORDER GRANTING 13 JOINT MOTION TO STAY Plaintiff,

14 v. [Doc. No. 46.] 15 SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC 16 COMPANY, a California corporation; SEMPRA ENERGY, a California 17 corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, 18 inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 On February 27, 2020, Plaintiff David Radcliff filed a proposed class action 21 complaint against Defendants San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Sempra Energy in 22 the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. (Doc. No. 1-2.) On 23 August 11, 2020, Defendants removed the case to this Court. (Doc. No. 1.) On September 24 25, 2020, Defendants moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. No. 7.) The 25 Court granted this motion on November 2, 2020. (Doc. No. 20.) As a result, the only claim 26 still before the Court is Plaintiff’s claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys 27 General Act (“PAGA”). (Id.) 28 ] On January 13, 2022, the parties jointly moved to stay this case pending a 2 || forthcoming decision by the United States Supreme Court. (Doc. No. 46.) On December 3 || 15, 2021, the Supreme Court granted review of Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc., Cal. 4 || App. Case No. B297327 from the California Court of Appeal. (Id.) The Supreme Court 5 ||agreed to decide the enforceability of arbitration agreements that prohibit an employee 6 serving as a representative in a PAGA action. (Id.) A decision is expected during 7 Supreme Court’s current term. (Id.) The parties state that a stay will benefit the Court 8 the parties by avoiding the unnecessary expenditure of resources. 9 For good cause shown, the Court grants the parties’ motion for a stay of the action 10 the earlier of August 1, 2022 or the date the Supreme Court issues a decision in 11 || Moriana or otherwise disposes of that case. See Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 12 || 1109 (9th Cir. 2005); Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th 13 || Cir. 1979). Accordingly, the Court vacates all pending pre-trial dates and deadlines. The 14 |/case management conference that is currently scheduled for May 10, 2022 is continued 15 || until August 8, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. The Court may schedule an earlier status conference if 16 Supreme Court resolves Moriana prior to August 1, 2022. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ||DATED: — February 3, 2022 -

MARILYN E. HUFF, Di t Judge 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 22 23 24 25 26 27 28