individual PAGA claim in California

2013In 12 See also Quevedo, supra, 798 F.Supp.2d at pages 1140-1142 [concluding without analyzing the statutory language that a plaintiff may bring an individual PAGA claim and may be required to arbitrate that claim individually where there is an arbitration agreement with a representative action waiver], and Brown, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at page 509 (conc. and dis. opn. of Kreigler, J.) [suggesting that allowing individual arbitration of a PAGA claim is not inconsistent with PAGA statute]. 35 Brown, the court observed that in Concepcion, the United States Supreme Court had not addressed the vali

2013In 12 See also Quevedo, supra, 798 F.Supp.2d at pages 1140-1142 [concluding without analyzing the statutory language that a plaintiff may bring an individual PAGA claim and may be required to arbitrate that claim individually where there is an arbitration agreement with a representative action waiver], and Brown, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at page 509 (conc. and dis. opn. of Kreigler, J.) [suggesting that allowing individual arbitration of a PAGA claim is not inconsistent with PAGA statute]. 35 Brown, the court observed that in Concepcion, the United States Supreme Court had not addressed the vali

2026In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 , the United States Supreme Court held that where the FAA applies, the act requires enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate a plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim.

2025(Viking River, supra, 596 U.S. at pp. 649, 656–659, italics omitted.) This latter rule requiring joinder of individual and representative PAGA claims coerced parties into either arbitrating claims they never agreed to arbitrate or “forgo[ing] arbitration altogether,” violating the FAA’s “fundamental principle that ‘arbitration is a matter of consent.’ ” 6 (Viking River, at pp. 659–661.) 6 Viking River went on to suggest that once an individual PAGA claim was sent to arbitration, the plaintiff would lack standing under California law to bring representative PAGA claims in court.

2025(Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 379 .) First, many Labor Code provisions were not being enforced because they were punishable only as misdemeanors without civil penalties or other 7 See Kim, supra, 9 Cal.5th at page 92, footnote 7 (“Kim’s PAGA claim”); ZB, supra, 8 Cal.5th at page 198 (“employee’s PAGA claim”); Leeper, supra, 107 Cal.App.5th at page 1012, review granted (“court on remand must order plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim to arbitration”); Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533 , 537 (“a plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim”); and Seifu v. Lyft, Inc., sup

2025(Adolph, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 1113, 1116.) In Viking, the United States Supreme Court held that the FAA preempted the rule of Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at page 387 , insofar as it precluded division of PAGA actions into individual and nonindividual claims through an agreement to arbitrate, such that Viking was entitled to compel the employee’s individual PAGA claim to arbitration.

2013A plaintiff may not bring a PAGA claim as an individual claim, but rather only ‘as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies.’ (Reyes v. Macy’s, Inc. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1123-24 ; see also Brown[, supra,] 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 501-502 .) ‘Because the PAGA claim is not an individual claim, it was not within the scope of Defendant’s request that individual claims be submitted to arbitration . . . .’ ( Reyes, supra, at 1123-24 .) [¶] Assuming Plaintiff could bring an individual PAGA claim, then the motion must be denied under Brown, supra. The Court cannot compel ar

2013A plaintiff may not bring a PAGA claim as an individual claim, but rather only ‘as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies.’ (Reyes v. Macy’s, Inc. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1123-24 ; see also Brown[, supra,] 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 501-502 .) ‘Because the PAGA claim is not an individual claim, it was not within the scope of Defendant’s request that individual claims be submitted to arbitration . . . .’ ( Reyes, supra, at 1123-24 .) [¶] Assuming Plaintiff could bring an individual PAGA claim, then the motion must be denied under Brown, supra. The Court cannot compel ar

2013A plaintiff may not bring a PAGA claim as an individual claim, but rather only ‘as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies.’ (Reyes v. Macy’s, Inc. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1123-24 ; see also Brown[, supra,] 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 501-502 .) ‘Because the PAGA claim is not an individual claim, it was not within the scope of Defendant’s request that individual claims be submitted to arbitration . . . .’ ( Reyes, supra, at 1123-24 .) [¶] Assuming Plaintiff could bring an individual PAGA claim, then the motion must be denied under Brown, supra. The Court cannot compel ar

2013A plaintiff may not bring a PAGA claim as an individual claim, but rather only ‘as the proxy or agent of the state’s labor law enforcement agencies.’ (Reyes v. Macy’s, Inc. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1123-24 ; see also Brown[, supra,] 197 Cal.App.4th 489, 501-502 .) ‘Because the PAGA claim is not an individual claim, it was not within the scope of Defendant’s request that individual claims be submitted to arbitration . . . .’ ( Reyes, supra, at 1123-24 .) [¶] Assuming Plaintiff could bring an individual PAGA claim, then the motion must be denied under Brown, supra. The Court cannot compel ar

2025There, the court stated the second amended complaint “retained the PAGA claim from the original complaint” and that claim “sought PAGA penalties for various Labor Code violations[.]” (Id. at p. 595; see also, Williams v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 642, 649 [“case law suggests that a single representative PAGA claim cannot be split into an arbitrable individual claim and a nonarbitrable representative claim”]; Viking River, supra, at p. 654, fn. 6 .) Individual PAGA claim.

2024A division of this court characterized Iskanian as not having decided the issue: “[W]hile assuming the possibility of such a claim, the Iskanian court did not directly decide whether an ‘individual PAGA claim’ . . . is cognizable.” (Tanguilig v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 677.) After Iskanian, “various courts held that employers may not require employees to ‘split’ PAGA actions in a manner that puts individual and non-individual components of a PAGA claim into bifurcated proceedings. ([Citation]; [see, e.g., ]Williams v. Superior Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 642, 649 .)”

2025(Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 379 .) First, many Labor Code provisions were not being enforced because they were punishable only as misdemeanors without civil penalties or other 7 See Kim, supra, 9 Cal.5th at page 92, footnote 7 (“Kim’s PAGA claim”); ZB, supra, 8 Cal.5th at page 198 (“employee’s PAGA claim”); Leeper, supra, 107 Cal.App.5th at page 1012, review granted (“court on remand must order plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim to arbitration”); Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533 , 537 (“a plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim”); and Seifu v. Lyft, Inc., sup

2025(Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 379 .) First, many Labor Code provisions were not being enforced because they were punishable only as misdemeanors without civil penalties or other 7 See Kim, supra, 9 Cal.5th at page 92, footnote 7 (“Kim’s PAGA claim”); ZB, supra, 8 Cal.5th at page 198 (“employee’s PAGA claim”); Leeper, supra, 107 Cal.App.5th at page 1012, review granted (“court on remand must order plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim to arbitration”); Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533 , 537 (“a plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim”); and Seifu v. Lyft, Inc., sup

2025(Estate of Sapp (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 86, 109, fn. 9 .) Finally, Hotel contends “whether Neubecker personally suffered a Labor Code violation” is an arbitrable controversy, and such arbitrability questions—including whether the complaint asserts an arbitrable claim—fall within the arbitrator’s “exclusive authority” under the delegation clause.

2024Citing Franco, the court in Miranda v. Anderson Enterprises, Inc. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 196, 199, 201 , held the death knell doctrine applied to render appealable a trial court order compelling arbitration of the plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim and dismissing a non-individual PAGA claim.

2024(Mondragon v. Sunrun Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 592 , 615 [explaining that Viking River does not “prohibit parties from agreeing to exclude all PAGA claims, individual and nonindividual, from the scope of an arbitration agreement”]; see Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 236 [“arbitration under the FAA ‘is a matter of consent, not coercion’ ” and “[t]hus, ‘ “a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he [or she] has not agreed so to submit” ’ ”].) Defendants further argue, citing Viking River, “that ‘applicable law’ (1) does not permit the wholesale waiver of PAGA cl

2024Leeper’s interpretation would have us either excise the language “on behalf of the employee” or interpret the word “and” to mean “and/ or.” (§ 2699, subd. (a).) Doing either would be contrary to fundamental tenets of statutory construction that we assign the “statute’s words . . . their usual and ordinary meanings, and constru[e] them in context” (Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1164, 1190 (Wells)), and that we not “render statutory language meaningless” (Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water Dist. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 372, 386 ).

2023(See Brandwein v. Butler (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1485, 1507 [we “avoid interpretations that render any portion [of a contract] superfluous, void or inexplicable”].) 14 the individual PAGA claim is a Covered Claim to be resolved by arbitration.