Ramirez De Portillo v. Metro Services Group

Background

Claudia Ramirez De Portillo sued Metro Services Group, her employer, asserting eight California wage-and-labor-law and unfair-competition claims and a ninth claim under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). She brought the action as a putative class action. The claims concerned alleged failures to pay minimum and overtime wages, provide meal periods and rest breaks, reimburse business expenses, provide accurate wage statements, pay wages due at separation, and comply with California’s unfair-competition law.

Ramirez De Portillo began working for Metro as a janitor in December 2016 and was a member of Service Employees International Union, Local 87. Metro and Local 87 had earlier collective-bargaining agreements, and the latest agreement stated that it covered August 1, 2024, through July 31, 2028. That 2024 agreement was unsigned and contained highlighted, struck-through, and red-lined provisions. Metro’s vice president stated that Metro and Local 87 operated under a mutual understanding that the agreement was effective and controlling beginning September 18, 2024.

The 2024 agreement included a grievance procedure ending in binding arbitration. It also included a provision stating that violations of the California Labor Code that could be addressed through PAGA had to be resolved through that grievance procedure rather than in court or before an administrative agency. The agreement further stated that the arbitrator could award remedies available under the Labor Code, except PAGA penalties payable to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

Claims One Through Eight

Metro sought summary judgment. Summary judgment is entered when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court held that the 2024 collective-bargaining agreement was enforceable and applied to Ramirez De Portillo. Although Metro was not a signatory to the agreement, the court found that Metro adopted it through its conduct. The court relied on evidence that Metro received notice confirming Local 87’s agreement to the PAGA-related provision, notified the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency of the agreement, and paid Local 87 employees wages from the 2024 agreement’s pay schedule.

The court also held that the agreement clearly and unmistakably waived Ramirez De Portillo’s right to pursue the covered California Labor Code claims in court. The court concluded that the agreement’s reference to “any and all violations” of California Labor Code provisions redressable through PAGA was sufficiently specific and was not a blanket waiver of all state and federal claims.

The court further held that the waiver applied retroactively. It reasoned that the provision covered “any and all violations,” contained no temporal limitation, and did not indicate that it applied only to future conduct. The court therefore granted summary judgment on claims one through seven and dismissed those claims for arbitration. Because Ramirez De Portillo did not dispute that her California unfair-competition claim was derivative of those claims, the court also dismissed claim eight for arbitration.

The 2024 agreement was silent about class arbitration. Under the court’s analysis, Ramirez De Portillo therefore had to arbitrate her claims individually rather than on a class-wide basis.

PAGA Claim

Metro also sought arbitration of the individual portion of the PAGA claim and a stay of the representative portion. The parties agreed that the agreement’s waiver of the representative PAGA claim was ineffective because Ramirez De Portillo asserted the claim before California Labor Code section 2699.8 took effect. Metro argued that the agreement’s savings clause allowed the individual portion to be arbitrated while the representative portion was stayed.

The court rejected Ramirez De Portillo’s argument that Metro had waived its right to compel arbitration of the individual PAGA portion. The court considered Metro’s conduct after September 18, 2024, when the parties agreed to the relevant PAGA provision, and found that only about six months passed before Metro filed its motion. The court also found that Metro’s post-September 2024 discovery activity was insufficient to establish waiver.

The court granted summary judgment on the individual portion of claim nine, severed that portion, and compelled its arbitration. Because Ramirez De Portillo did not oppose a stay of the representative portion while the individual portion was arbitrated, the court stayed the representative PAGA claim.

Disposition

The court granted Metro’s motion for summary judgment on claims one through eight and the individual portion of claim nine. It severed the individual portion of the PAGA claim and stayed the representative portion. The court also denied Ramirez De Portillo’s evidentiary objections to the declaration supporting Metro’s motion.

Judge

Laurel Beeler, United States Magistrate Judge, issued the order on June 10, 2025.