Stay Play

Leenay v. Superior Court, No. E077292 (D4d2 Jul. 22, 2022)

A Store is facing a bunch of wage-and-hour litigation across the state. It successfully had a number of cases coordinated through the JCCP process. It then moved to stay the coordinate cases because it was also the Respondent in 50 or more wage and hour cases—cases brought by different plaintiffs—that had been compelled to arbitration. Store convinced the trial court that Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.4—which says a court shall stay a case pending arbitration “of a controversy which is an issue involved” in the action—required it to stay cases brought by different parties, so long as the “issues” overlapped. Plaintiff took a writ.

The problem with Store’s argument is § 1281.4’s use of the word “controversy.” Elsewhere in the CAA, that term is defined as “any question arising between parties to an agreement whether the question is one of law or of fact or both.” § 1280(d). So the “controversy” referenced in § 1281.4 needs to be between the same parties who are also parties to an arbitration agreement. “In other words, section 1281.4 requires that the pending action involve both the arbitrable question and the parties in the arbitration.” That doesn’t apply to Plaintiff’s case here.

Writ granted.