116 594115.10 establishes that UCL restitution maybe available for nonpayment ofwages, Cortez’s result is inapplicable here, where there is no commonproofof a Labor Code violation as to each class member. | Here, Plaintiffs cannot escape the fact that they must comply with the procedural requirements of Code of Civil Procedure Section 382. See §California Business and Professions Code Section 17203.

5 Plaintiff purports to bring his class action under California Code of Civil Procedure 382, even though Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs this putative class action. See Erie v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938); see FAC ¶ 19 (“Plaintiffs brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated as a class action, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382”); ¶ 26 (“The various claims asserted in this action are additionally or alternatively certifiable under the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure section 382[.]”).

Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 (“A person may pursue representative claims or relief on behalf of others only if the claimant meets the standing requirements of Section 17204 and complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure[.]”) (emphasis added); Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 382 (permitting class actions based on commonality of question, numerosity of parties, and impracticability joinder). Plaintiffs do not have standing to seek any relief, let alone restitution, on behalf of the “general public,” or on behalf of the former defendant Cities that they themselves dismissed from the litigation.

And, as in any case, the reach of discovery is limited by the rules of discovery. Contrary to Petitioner’s hypothesis of out-of-control litigation, class certification depends upon a showing of superiority, which takes into account the judicial economy and manageability of class treatment as compared to the alternatives. (Code Civ. Proc., § 382.) Petitioner misunderstands the rules governing class -7- actions by wrongly supposingit is a tool to be feared becauseit will create inefficiencies and unnecessarily sprawlinglitigation.

As shown below and in Defendant's Notice of Removal (Dkt. #1), this Court has original subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d) and 1453, because the number of putative class members exceeds 100, minimal diversity exists, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. I. BACKGROUND On January 16, 2013, Plaintiff Jessica Aparicio ("Plaintiff') individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, filed this case in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, as a putative class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382. The case was captioned Jessica Aparicio, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., and Does 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case No. BC 499281.

Corp. v. Ventana Environmental Organizational Partmership, 109 Cal. App. Ath 1705 (2003) ooo. eececcccceeesecceneceeceeneeceseveatesesssnessceeeseusescenaeeseseeseeesneeseesenssesastenseseeenssntes 12, 13 Nicolopulos v. Super. Ct., 106 Cal. App. 4th 304 (2003).........:..cecseeecsseeeeensseeeeceseserseseceetneetseneens 13 Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp., 14 Cal. 4th 394 (1996)..0..ieeeeeeeeeeeeee6 Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 34 Cal. 4th 319 (2004)........ccesesecessecceneesseceenesteensecneessseees 13 FEDERAL CASES AT&TMobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011)...ccc cecceecceeentenetenteeneeeneecees 4,7, 8, 1} Doctor's Assocs. v. Casarotio, 517 U.S. 681 (1996)... ecceccecesesecetseeseeseneeeteeenesenersnenneeeensenenenes 1] Volt Information Sciences v. Board ofTrustees ofLeland StanfordJunior Univ, 489 US, 468 (1989) oe cecccccccceececsecseseeaceceaceesoeeereecorsneceeeearsenecsenseseessnaaeeesgeseasessecesscenecsenseaesorseeaaes 7 STATE STATUTES Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 382. .o.....ecceceecceceeeseeeeeeeecneeeneneneeceneseneseseereeeeenearesereceeesscsestieseeseteenensaes 13 Page ii MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCEOF INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION;OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,SETTING ASIDE THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IN IT IA TI VE L E G A L G R O U P A P C [8 00 C E N T E R Y P A R K E A S T , S E C O N D F L O O R , L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R S T A 90 06 7 o l U N U O O U l U U l U M m O U M N S OD N 1] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 526(a)(3) .....ccscccessecsecceenseeeseeeeeesseeceeesenaneeseneansesscensesnesesesanesersaesaceceeseeeases 9 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 526(a)(4) .....ececcccecceercecesseteeecessecnee coessnensessaeeessasaseenaenetsanensesensseasaereseeaenass 9 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 526(a)(5)......ccesscessecessceecrecenceersccecserenesneacsaenesscecoseseesseneeseeensenscseteaeeatenes9 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.2(D)....... ee eceeeseceseee

C. The Waiver of a PAGA Representative Action Is Enforceable. Under Concepcion, the FAA applies to waivers of representative actions under PAGA noless than to waiversofclass actions. There is 17 simply no principled distinction between a PAGArepresentative action and a class action under California Code of Civil Procedure § 382. Appellant argues that by barring representative actions in any forum, the Arbitration Agreementeliminates an employee’s supposed unwaivable statutory entitlement to bring a claim under PAGA. This assertion, however, is entirely unsupported by the facts or the law. 1. PAGAis unconstitutional.

Indeed, even before the Urbino decision, as held in Michael Ivey v. Apogen Technologies, Inc., 2011 WL 3515936 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011), for example: The California Supreme Court in Arias, 46 Cal.4th at 986, held that there is no requirement under PAGA for plaintiffs to obtain class certification under California Code of Civil Procedure § 382. But “‘a plaintiff whose cause of action is perfectly viable in state court under state law may nonetheless be Case 2:17-cv-04510-GW-AS Document 8 Filed 06/26/17 Page 29 of 34 Page ID #:140 20 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE FAC LA 133065812v7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 foreclosed from litigating the same cause of action in federal court, if he cannot’ meet federal procedural and jurisdictional requirements.”

(RJN, Ex. A; Analysis of Sen. Bill 796, Sen. Judiciary Comm., April 29, 2003, p. 6.) California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 authorizes a class action if “the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, andit is impracticable to bring them all before the court.” In addition, before a class may becertified a party must establish the existence of both an ascertainable class and a well-defined community of interest among the class members.

20. 33 Rule 23 does not contain an ascertainability requirement similar to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382. However, even if it did, the California and Nationwide Classes and Sub-Class would readily be deemed ascertainable.