SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

ERIC S. NICHOLS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 2017-1-CV-320770

TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION TO VACATE STAY PENDING ARBITRATION

The above-entitled action is set for hearing before the Honorable Thomas E. Kuhnle on September 20, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. The Court now issues its tentative ruling as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION
II.
According to the allegations of the Complaint in this case (“Nichols II”), filed on December 19, 2017, plaintiff Eric S. Nichols (“Plaintiff”) was hired by defendants Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation and Northrop Grumman Corporation (together, “Defendants”) in May 2010 as an hourly, non-exempt employee. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated various wage and hour laws, including requiring Plaintiff and the putative class to go through security checks, failing to provide meal periods, failing to reimburse for business expenses such as the purchase of steel-toed boots, failing to pay overtime wages, and providing inaccurate wage statements. (Complaint, ¶¶ 11-28.) The Complaint sets forth a single cause of action for civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 2698, et seq. (The Private Attorneys General Act [“PAGA”]).

Plaintiff filed a separate case (Nichols I”), on October 12, 2017, against Defendants. The complaint in that case sets forth various Labor Code violations. In July 2018, the parties entered into a stipulation and order finding Nichols I was subject to an arbitration agreement. The parties agreed the class claims should be dismissed, Plaintiff should pursue his claims in arbitration on an individual basis, and Plaintiff’s claims in Nichols I should be stayed. The parties entered into a stipulation and order in Nichols II to stay Nichols II during the pendency of the arbitration of Nichols I. On May 8, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Nichols I without prejudice.

In light of the dismissal of Nichols I, Plaintiff now moves to vacate the stay of Nichols II.

III. DISCUSSION
IV.
Plaintiff makes a straightforward argument for lifting the stay in this action. First, Plaintiff contends he has a statutory right to dismiss his own case (i.e. Nichols I) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (b).

Next, Plaintiff argues this Court has made no determination regarding the enforceability of the parties’ arbitration agreement; rather, the parties stipulated to arbitration prior to any substantive decision. Additionally, the parties have not commenced any arbitration of Plaintiff’s individual claims, which have been dismissed. Because the individual claims in Nichols I have been dismissed, Plaintiff contends any requirement to participate in arbitration is moot.

The Court acknowledges that under normal circumstances, a plaintiff has the right to dismiss an action prior to the commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (b)(1).) Here, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Dismissal,” which was signed by the clerk for the Court. Because Plaintiff sought to dismiss a putative class action, however, Plaintiff was required to comply with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.770(a), which states “dismissal of an entire class action, or of any party or cause of action in a class action, requires court approval.” Rule 3.770 requires the request for dismissal to be accompanied by a declaration setting forth certain information.

The Court has a fiduciary duty to unnamed class members and finds there should have been a submission – including a declaration – prior to the dismissal of Nichols I (i.e. the putative class action) for the Court to consider. There was no such submission. Accordingly, the dismissal entered on May 8, 2019, is VACATED. Plaintiff shall submit a proper request to dismiss the class action in Nichols I on or before October 1, 2019. Defendants may file a response, if any, on or before October 7, 2019. The Court will determine if the class action claims should be dismissed on October 11, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 5. The motion to lift stay in Nichols II is CONTINUED to the same date and time.

The Court will prepare the final order if this tentative ruling is not contested.