Placido Valdez v. Terminix International Company Limited Partnership

Filing 14

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 8 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to file the correct operative complaint with this Court, either by stipulation or, if the parties are unable to agree, by motion. Any such sti pulation or motion for leave to file a first amended complaint shall be filed no later than ten days after the date of this order. Failure to file either a stipulation or a motion for leave to file a firstamended complaint within ten days may be deem ed a waiver of Plaintiffs PAGA claim or claims. Because ruling on the issues of law surrounding the PAGA claim appears to be critical to the resolution of this motion to dismiss, the Court finds that it cannot proceed with the motion until the approp riate operative complaint is filed in this federal action. The Motion to Dismiss is VACATED, but Defendant is free to bring the same or a similar motion if Plaintiff either files a first amended complaint or allows the ten day deadline to pass without filing a stipulation or motion. Nothing in this order acts as a decision on the merits of any claim or defense in this case. (lc) Modified on 2/19/2015 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PLACIDO VALDEZ,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL
COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a Delaware limited
partnership dba ANTIMITE
TERMITE AND PEST CONTROL,
Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 14-09748 DDP (Ex)
ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION
[Dkt. No. 8]

18
19

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or

20

in the Alternative to Stay Civil Action and Compel Arbitration.

21

(Dkt. No. 8.)

22

from fully considering Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s

23

arguments, the Court adopts the following order vacating the Motion

24

to Dismiss.

25

Because procedural irregularities prevent the Court

Plaintiff is Defendant’s former employee.

(Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A

26

(“Complaint”), ¶ 6; Opp’n at 2:7.)

27

parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement with a choice of

28

law clause selecting Tennessee law, although both the existence of

Defendant alleges that the two

1

an agreement and the validity of the choice of law provision are in

2

dispute.

3

(Def.’s Mem. P.&.A and exhibits thereto; Opp’n at 2-3.)

Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court alleging that

4

Defendant has violated certain provisions of California labor law

5

by denying employees rest and meal breaks, failing to pay wages on

6

termination, and failing to provide and maintain accurate records.

7

Plaintiff sues under California’s wage-and-hour statutes and,

8

additionally, sues under California’s Unfair Competition Law.

9

(Compl. generally.)

10
11

19, 2014.

Defendant removed to federal court on December

(Dkt. No. 1.)

Plaintiff also alleges in his Opposition, and Defendant

12

agrees, that after the case was removed he filed a First Amended

13

Complaint in state court adding a claim on behalf of the state

14

pursuant to California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”),

15

Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq.

16

However, neither party has put the first amended complaint on the

17

record in this federal action, either by direct filing or as an

18

exhibit to a motion.

19

(Opp’n at 2:8-10; Reply at 3 n.2.)

Plaintiff argues that his PAGA claims, at least, are not

20

subject to arbitration, because California law prevents it.

21

at 4.)

22

law applies, and (2) as a matter of federal law, Plaintiff’s PAGA

23

claims do not defeat or limit the arbitration agreement, and

24

therefore dismissal or an order compelling arbitration is

25

appropriate on this record.

26

(Opp’n

Defendant argues that (1) Tennessee rather than California

(Reply at 3-5.)

The Court declines to resolve these complex questions on an

27

incomplete record.

28

opinion.

To do so would be to render an advisory

“[A] federal court has neither the power to render
2

1

advisory opinions nor to decide questions that cannot affect the

2

rights of litigants in the case before them.

3

resolve a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific

4

relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished

5

from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical

6

state of facts.”

7

Its judgments must

Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975).

The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to file the correct

8

operative complaint with this Court, either by stipulation or, if

9

the parties are unable to agree, by motion.

Any such stipulation

10

or motion for leave to file a first amended complaint shall be

11

filed no later than ten days after the date of this order.

12

to file either a stipulation or a motion for leave to file a first

13

amended complaint within ten days may be deemed a waiver of

14

Plaintiff’s PAGA claim or claims.

Failure

15

Because ruling on the issues of law surrounding the PAGA claim

16

appears to be critical to the resolution of this motion to dismiss,

17

the Court finds that it cannot proceed with the motion until the

18

appropriate operative complaint is filed in this federal action.

19

The Motion to Dismiss is VACATED, but Defendant is free to bring

20

the same or a similar motion if Plaintiff either files a first

21

amended complaint or allows the ten day deadline to pass without

22

filing a stipulation or motion.

23

Nothing in this order acts as a decision on the merits of any

24

claim or defense in this case.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: February 19, 2015
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

28
3