Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
25 California opinions name it 3 courts 2014–2025 13 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLCred2 sentences2023(Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 360 [“an arbitration agreement requiring an employee as a condition of employment to give up the right to bring representative PAGA actions in any forum is contrary to public policy”].) Nor do they dispute that Viking River left intact the portion of Iskanian’s rule “prevent[ing] parties from waiving representative standing to bring PAGA claims in a judicial or arbitral forum.” (Viking River, supra, 142 S.Ct. at pp. 1916, 1924-1925, italics omitted.) As such, the first part of the PAGA waiver here is unenforceable under Iskanian and cannot bar Seifu from brin 2022(Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 377 .) Iskanian held “an employee’s right to bring a PAGA action is unwaivable” and that such a rule was not preempted by the FAA to the extent the rule barred “predispute waiver[s] of an employee’s right to bring an action that can only be brought by the state or its representatives.” (Id. at pp. 383, 388.) The court reasoned, “the rule against PAGA waivers does not frustrate the FAA’s objectives because . . . the FAA aims to ensure an efficient forum for the resolution of private disputes, whereas a PAGA action is a dispute between an employer and the state | 3 | 10 |
Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.green2 sentences2022(Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 377 .) Iskanian held “an employee’s right to bring a PAGA action is unwaivable” and that such a rule was not preempted by the FAA to the extent the rule barred “predispute waiver[s] of an employee’s right to bring an action that can only be brought by the state or its representatives.” (Id. at pp. 383, 388.) The court reasoned, “the rule against PAGA waivers does not frustrate the FAA’s objectives because . . . the FAA aims to ensure an efficient forum for the resolution of private disputes, whereas a PAGA action is a dispute between an employer and the state 2020That case is Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am., supra, 803 F.3d 425 , which concluded as follows: “After closely examining Concepcion and the Court’s other statements regarding the purposes of the FAA, we conclude that the Iskanian rule does not stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA’s objectives, and is not preempted.” (Id. at p. 427.) The Ninth Circuit reasoned that Iskanian complies with the FAA requirement “that a state contract defense place arbitration agreements on equal footing with non-arbitration agreements,” because the “rule bars any waiver of PAGA claims, regardless | 2 | 7 |
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Morianagreen2 sentences2025(Viking River, supra, 596 U.S. at pp. 649, 662.) In other words, Viking River did not disturb Iskanian’s rule that a contractual waiver of the right to prosecute PAGA claims is unenforceable under California law. 2025(Iskanian, at pp. 383–384.) “Appellate courts interpreted this aspect of Iskanian ‘as prohibiting splitting PAGA claims into individual and nonindividual components to permit arbitration of the individual claims.’ ” (Nickson v. Shemran, Inc. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 121 , 128 (Nickson).) “Based on Iskanian, California courts refused to enforce predispute agreements to arbitrate PAGA claims.” (Ibid.) In Viking River, the United States Supreme Court declared that the FAA preempted “Iskanian’s rule that PAGA actions cannot be divided into individual and non-individual claims.” (Viking River, supra, | 1 | 6 |
Esparza v. KS Indus., L.P.green2 sentences2023(Iskanian, at p. 384.) Specifically, in seeking to bifurcate plaintiffs’ claims for civil penalties from their claims for unpaid wages and to compel arbitration of the latter, defendants cited the then-recent decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Esparza v. KS Industries, L.P. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1228 (Esparza), for the proposition that Iskanian’s rule barring arbitration of PAGA claims applied only to “PAGA representative claims for civil penalties,” which excluded claims for unpaid wages. 2019(See Esparza, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 1243 [“[a] determination that an award of unpaid wages under Labor Code section 558 is a civil penalty does not control how we interpret the term civil penalty as it is used in the Iskanian rule”].) Alternatively, ZB asserts that unpaid wages recovered through section 558 fail to qualify as a civil penalty of either kind and are better understood as compensatory damages. | 1 | 2 |
ZB, N.A. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2021Because Epic did not overrule Iskanian’s holding, we remain bound by the California Supreme Court’s decision.” (Correia, at p. 620; see, e.g., Provost, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at pp. 997–998 [reaffirming the Correia analysis that Epic Systems did not overrule Iskanian and observing our Supreme Court reaffirmed Iskanian in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175, 185, 197 ]; Contreras, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 471 [agreeing that, “even after Epic Systems, PAGA claims, which seek to vindicate state interests, not private party agreements, are not covered by the FAA”].) We too are bound 2021Because Epic did not overrule Iskanian’s holding, we remain bound by the California Supreme Court’s decision.” (Correia, at p. 620; see, e.g., Provost, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at pp. 997–998 [reaffirming the Correia analysis that Epic Systems did not overrule Iskanian and observing our Supreme Court reaffirmed Iskanian in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175, 185, 197 ]; Contreras, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 471 [agreeing that, “even after Epic Systems, PAGA claims, which seek to vindicate state interests, not private party agreements, are not covered by the FAA”].) We too are bound | 1 | 1 |
State Department of Public Health v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2017(See State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court (2015) 60 Cal.4th 940, 960 [the rule that specific statutory provisions take precedence of more general ones trumps the rule that later-enacted statutes have precedence].) 14. penalty as it is used in the Iskanian rule—a rule of nonarbitrability carefully crafted to avoid federal preemption. 2017(See State Dept. of Public Health v. Superior Court (2015) 60 Cal.4th 940, 960 [the rule that specific statutory provisions take precedence of more general ones trumps the rule that later-enacted statutes have precedence].) 14. penalty as it is used in the Iskanian rule—a rule of nonarbitrability carefully crafted to avoid federal preemption. | 1 | 1 |
Miranda v. Anderson Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences2016(See, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 642, 647, fn. 3 [ 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 83 ]; Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121 [ 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 956; see also Miranda v. Anderson Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 196, 200, 203 [ 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 ] [reversing dismissal of representative action claim in light of Iskanian ; discussion of issue unpublished].) In its reply brief, Bloomingdale’s argues that Iskanian is no longer good law in light of DI 2016(See, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 642, 647, fn. 3 [ 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 83 ]; Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121 [ 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 956; see also Miranda v. Anderson Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 196, 200, 203 [ 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 ] [reversing dismissal of representative action claim in light of Iskanian ; discussion of issue unpublished].) In its reply brief, Bloomingdale’s argues that Iskanian is no longer good law in light of DI | 1 | 1 |
Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences2016(Id. at p. 386; see Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 947, 964 [“We therefore hold, as the Iskanian decision requires, that the FAA does not preempt California’s state law rule precluding predispute waivers of enforcement rights under the PAGA”]; Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. (9th Cir. 2015) 803 F.3d 425, 427 [“the Iskanian rule does not stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA’s objectives, and is not preempted”].) Kenai expressly urges us to disregard Iskanian, but of course we cannot do so, as decisions of the California Supreme Court 2016(Id. at p. 386; see Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 947, 964 [“We therefore hold, as the Iskanian decision requires, that the FAA does not preempt California’s state law rule precluding predispute waivers of enforcement rights under the PAGA”]; Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. (9th Cir. 2015) 803 F.3d 425, 427 [“the Iskanian rule does not stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA’s objectives, and is not preempted”].) Kenai expressly urges us to disregard Iskanian, but of course we cannot do so, as decisions of the California Supreme Court | 1 | 1 |
Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego Countygreen2 sentences2016(See, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 642, 647, fn. 3 [ 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 83 ]; Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121 [ 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 956; see also Miranda v. Anderson Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 196, 200, 203 [ 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 ] [reversing dismissal of representative action claim in light of Iskanian ; discussion of issue unpublished].) In its reply brief, Bloomingdale’s argues that Iskanian is no longer good law in light of DI 2016(See, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 642, 647, fn. 3 [ 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 83 ]; Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121 [ 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 956; see also Miranda v. Anderson Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 196, 200, 203 [ 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 ] [reversing dismissal of representative action claim in light of Iskanian ; discussion of issue unpublished].) In its reply brief, Bloomingdale’s argues that Iskanian is no longer good law in light of DI | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2016(See, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 642, 647, fn. 3 [ 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 83 ]; Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121 [ 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 956; see also Miranda v. Anderson Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 196, 200, 203 [ 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 ] [reversing dismissal of representative action claim in light of Iskanian ; discussion of issue unpublished].) In its reply brief, Bloomingdale’s argues that Iskanian is no longer good law in light of DI 2016(See, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 642, 647, fn. 3 [ 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 83 ]; Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121 [ 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 956; see also Miranda v. Anderson Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 196, 200, 203 [ 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 ] [reversing dismissal of representative action claim in light of Iskanian ; discussion of issue unpublished].) In its reply brief, Bloomingdale’s argues that Iskanian is no longer good law in light of DI | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2021(Epic Systems, at p. ___ [ 138 S.Ct. at p. 1619 ]; id. at p. 1621 [“this much the Arbitration Act seems to protect pretty absolutely”].) The court held that, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the National Labor Relations Act does not “offer[] a conflicting command.” (Epic Systems, at p. ___ [ 138 S.Ct. at p. 1619 ]; ibid. [“This Court has never read a right to class actions into the NLRA.”].) Defendant’s argument that Epic Systems rendered the Iskanian rule invalid has been made and rejected several times. 2021(Epic Systems, at p. ___ [ 138 S.Ct. at p. 1619 ]; id. at p. 1621 [“this much the Arbitration Act seems to protect pretty absolutely”].) The court held that, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the National Labor Relations Act does not “offer[] a conflicting command.” (Epic Systems, at p. ___ [ 138 S.Ct. at p. 1619 ]; ibid. [“This Court has never read a right to class actions into the NLRA.”].) Defendant’s argument that Epic Systems rendered the Iskanian rule invalid has been made and rejected several times. | 4 | 2019–2021 |
At&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
green
2 sentences2016Kenai contends Iskanian’s rule precluding waiver of enforcement rights under the PAGA improperly interferes with enforcement of the FAA under the United States Supreme Court’s holding in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333 , and is therefore pre-empted by the FAA. 2014On April 27, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333 [ 179 L.Ed.2d 742 , 131 S.Ct. 1740 ] (Concepcion). | 2 | 2014–2016 |
Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023Plaintiffs countered with Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Thurman), wherein a division of the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that Labor Code section 558’s provision for civil penalties included unpaid wages that would ultimately be paid entirely to the affected employee. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Placido Valdez v. Terminix Int'l Co.
green
1 sentence2022Partnership (9th Cir. 2017) 681 F.Appx. 592, 593 , the Ninth Circuit affirmed its 6 In Kindred Nursing and Epic Systems, issued three and four years, respectively, after Iskanian, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the broad reach of the FAA. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Ledesma
green
2 sentences2021(See id. at pp. 691–692.) The Iskanian rule concerning PAGA waivers has not been similarly superseded, so Ledesma provides no basis for us to disregard our Supreme Court’s controlling authority. 8 the National Labor Relations Act that guarantees workers the right to engage in “concerted activities.” (Epic Systems, supra, 138 S.Ct. at p. 1622 .) The U.S. Supreme Court rejected any NLRA exception to the FAA and reiterated that the FAA instructs federal courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms. 2021(See id. at pp. 691–692.) The Iskanian rule concerning PAGA waivers has not been similarly superseded, so Ledesma provides no basis for us to disregard our Supreme Court’s controlling authority. 8 the National Labor Relations Act that guarantees workers the right to engage in “concerted activities.” (Epic Systems, supra, 138 S.Ct. at p. 1622 .) The U.S. Supreme Court rejected any NLRA exception to the FAA and reiterated that the FAA instructs federal courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Correia v. NB Baker Elec., Inc.
green
2 sentences2021For example, in Correia v. NB Baker Electric, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 602 (Correia), the court explained that on federal questions, “intermediate appellate courts in California must follow the decisions of the California Supreme Court, unless the United States Supreme Court has decided the same question differently.” (Id. at p. 619.) Epic Systems addressed an issue “pertaining to the enforceability of an individualized arbitration requirement against challenges that such enforcement violated the NLRA.” (Correia, at p. 619.) Iskanian, on the other hand, “held that a ban on bringing PAGA acti 2021For example, in Correia v. NB Baker Electric, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 602 (Correia), the court explained that on federal questions, “intermediate appellate courts in California must follow the decisions of the California Supreme Court, unless the United States Supreme Court has decided the same question differently.” (Id. at p. 619.) Epic Systems addressed an issue “pertaining to the enforceability of an individualized arbitration requirement against challenges that such enforcement violated the NLRA.” (Correia, at p. 619.) Iskanian, on the other hand, “held that a ban on bringing PAGA acti | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Whitworth v. Solarcity Corp.
green
2 sentences2020Cal. 2018) 336 F.Supp.3d 1119 ; Rejuso v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmtys., Inc. (C.D. 2020Cal. 2018) 336 F.Supp.3d 1119 ; Rejuso v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmtys., Inc. (C.D. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Wong v. Tenneco, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Cintas argues the Iskanian rule is not a fundamental policy and Ohio law should apply because such law is not “immoral and contrary to the general interests of California citizens.” In asserting this standard, Cintas relies on a pre-Nedlloyd case, Wong v. Tenneco, Inc. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 126 , at pages 135-136. 2016Cintas argues the Iskanian rule is not a fundamental policy and Ohio law should apply because such law is not “immoral and contrary to the general interests of California citizens.” In asserting this standard, Cintas relies on a pre-Nedlloyd case, Wong v. Tenneco, Inc. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 126 , at pages 135-136. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
ALLIANCE TITLE COMPANY, INC. v. Boucher
green
2 sentences2016“In the absence of controlling United States Supreme Court decisional authority, we make an independent determination of federal law. [Citations.] Decisions of the lower federal courts are persuasive, but are not binding. [Citations.]” (Boucher v. Alliance Title Company, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 262, 268 .) Moreover, a recent Ninth Circuit decision found that the FAA does not preempt the Iskanian rule. 2016“In the absence of controlling United States Supreme Court decisional authority, we make an independent determination of federal law. [Citations.] Decisions of the lower federal courts are persuasive, but are not binding. [Citations.]” (Boucher v. Alliance Title Company, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 262, 268 .) Moreover, a recent Ninth Circuit decision found that the FAA does not preempt the Iskanian rule. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2016(Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 .)2 Kenai alternatively argues Iskanian’s rule precluding waiver of enforcement rights under the PAGA applies only to a pre-employment, pre-dispute waiver, not, as here, to a post-employment and post-dispute waiver. 2016(Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 .)2 Kenai alternatively argues Iskanian’s rule precluding waiver of enforcement rights under the PAGA applies only to a pre-employment, pre-dispute waiver, not, as here, to a post-employment and post-dispute waiver. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Directv, Inc. v. Imburgia
green
2 sentences2016(See, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 642, 647, fn. 3 [ 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 83 ]; Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121 [ 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 956; see also Miranda v. Anderson Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 196, 200, 203 [ 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 ] [reversing dismissal of representative action claim in light of Iskanian ; discussion of issue unpublished].) In its reply brief, Bloomingdale’s argues that Iskanian is no longer good law in light of DI 2016(See, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 642, 647, fn. 3 [ 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 83 ]; Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121 [ 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 568 ]; Franco v. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 956; see also Miranda v. Anderson Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 196, 200, 203 [ 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 ] [reversing dismissal of representative action claim in light of Iskanian ; discussion of issue unpublished].) In its reply brief, Bloomingdale’s argues that Iskanian is no longer good law in light of DI | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.