Lovig v. Best Buy Stores LP
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:18-cv-02807
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Lovig v. Best Buy Stores, Judge Hamilton lifted the stay after arbitration ended, allowing Best Buy to file a separate motion challenging Lovig’s remaining PAGA claim.
Nikola Lovig’s remaining PAGA claim was returned to active status when the court lifted the stay. Best Buy was allowed to file a separate motion to dismiss, but the court did not decide that motion or the viability of the PAGA claim.
What happened
Lovig v. Best Buy Stores began as an employee wage case involving claims about meal periods, rest periods, wages, wage statements, final pay, and a representative claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act. The court had compelled arbitration of Lovig’s non-PAGA claims and stayed the remaining PAGA claim.
The arbitration, related appeal, and court proceedings concerning the arbitrated claims had ended. Lovig asked the court to lift the stay. Best Buy opposed the request and argued that the case should instead be dismissed, but it did not file a motion to dismiss.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted Lovig’s motion and lifted the stay. The court declined to treat Best Buy’s opposition as a motion to dismiss, but allowed Best Buy to file a separate motion raising whether the arbitration and final judgment prevent Lovig from pursuing the PAGA claim.
The detailed version
- Lovig v. Best Buy Stores LP · No. 4:18-cv-02807
- Phyllis Hamilton
- May 31, 2024
Background
Nikola Lovig was employed by Best Buy Stores, L.P. from approximately April 24, 2004, through May 12, 2017. He filed a state-court action against Best Buy Stores and Best Buy Co., Inc. on behalf of himself and a proposed class. The complaint asserted wage-and-hour claims concerning meal periods, rest periods, hourly wages, written wage statements, and final pay. Lovig later added a claim under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA.
The court previously determined that Lovig had entered into an enforceable arbitration agreement covering his non-PAGA claims. It compelled arbitration of those claims and stayed the action while arbitration proceeded. After the arbitrator issued a decision, the court entered a stipulated final judgment in favor of the defendants. Lovig appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the orders compelling arbitration and confirming the arbitration award. The appeal was completed when the mandate issued on December 11, 2023.
Motion to Lift the Stay
Lovig later asked the court to lift the stay of the remaining PAGA claim. He argued that the court had authority to do so and that the arbitration and related appeal had concluded. Best Buy did not dispute the court’s authority or that arbitration had ended. Instead, it argued in its opposition that the action should be dismissed.
The court held that it had the power to lift the stay it had imposed. Because the proceedings for which the stay had been entered had concluded, the court found it proper to lift the stay.
Ruling
The court granted Lovig’s motion to lift the stay. It also vacated the scheduled hearing and terminated as moot the parties’ stipulation to reschedule that hearing.
The court declined to consider Best Buy’s opposition as a motion to dismiss, explaining that an opposition to a motion to lift a stay is not the proper way to seek dismissal. The court nevertheless granted Best Buy leave to file a motion to dismiss addressing, among other issues, whether Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC prevent Lovig from pursuing his PAGA claims after the arbitration and the stipulated final judgment. The court stated that any such motion would be resolved on the papers and should not be noticed for a hearing. The opinion did not decide whether the PAGA claim should be dismissed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.