California Supreme Court Breaks from Federal Precedent on PAGA
The California Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. in July 2023, departing from the US Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana and holding that non-individual PAGA standing does not disappear after a plaintiff is compelled to arbitrate his or her individual PAGA claims. This plaintiff-friendly decision definitively answers this question of California law and may encourage an increase in PAGA claims going forward.
PAGA permits an “aggrieved employee” to bring representative claims on behalf of him or herself and other workers subject to the same alleged violations of law. In Viking River Cruises, the US Supreme Court—acknowledging that California courts would have the final say on California law—held that if a plaintiff is compelled to arbitrate individual claims because of an arbitration agreement, the remaining non-individual claims must be dismissed for lack of standing. While California state law provides PAGA actions cannot be divided into individual and non-individual claims due to an agreement to arbitrate individual claims, the US Supreme Court found that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted that state law.
The California Supreme Court disagreed, finding no conflict between the FAA and California’s PAGA framework. On that basis, the Court held that a plaintiff does not lose standing in court simply because he or she is compelled to arbitrate individual claims.
The Court did not determine whether non-individual claims should be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration of individual claims, but it left open the possibility that courts “may” decide to pause proceedings during that interim period. Nevertheless, regardless of the new law stated in Adolph, the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Rocha v. U-Haul Co. earlier this year still provides a useful tool for employers to end a PAGA suit altogether once an employer can prevail against the named plaintiff.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
PAGA permits an “aggrieved employee” to bring representative claims on behalf of him or herself and other workers subject to the same alleged violations of law. In Viking River Cruises, the US Supreme Court—acknowledging that California courts would have the final say on California law—held that if a plaintiff is compelled to arbitrate individual claims because of an arbitration agreement, the remaining non-individual claims must be dismissed for lack of standing. While California state law provides PAGA actions cannot be divided into individual and non-individual claims due to an agreement to arbitrate individual claims, the US Supreme Court found that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted that state law.
The California Supreme Court disagreed, finding no conflict between the FAA and California’s PAGA framework. On that basis, the Court held that a plaintiff does not lose standing in court simply because he or she is compelled to arbitrate individual claims.
The Court did not determine whether non-individual claims should be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration of individual claims, but it left open the possibility that courts “may” decide to pause proceedings during that interim period. Nevertheless, regardless of the new law stated in Adolph, the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Rocha v. U-Haul Co. earlier this year still provides a useful tool for employers to end a PAGA suit altogether once an employer can prevail against the named plaintiff.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Lawyers
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
The California Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. in July 2023, departing from the US Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana and holding that non-individual PAGA standing does not disappear after a plaintiff is compelled to arbitrate his or her individual PAGA claims. This plaintiff-friendly decision definitively answers this question of California law and may encourage an increase in PAGA claims going forward.
PAGA permits an “aggrieved employee” to bring representative claims on behalf of him or herself and other workers subject to the same alleged violations of law. In Viking River Cruises, the US Supreme Court—acknowledging that California courts would have the final say on California law—held that if a plaintiff is compelled to arbitrate individual claims because of an arbitration agreement, the remaining non-individual claims must be dismissed for lack of standing. While California state law provides PAGA actions cannot be divided into individual and non-individual claims due to an agreement to arbitrate individual claims, the US Supreme Court found that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted that state law.
The California Supreme Court disagreed, finding no conflict between the FAA and California’s PAGA framework. On that basis, the Court held that a plaintiff does not lose standing in court simply because he or she is compelled to arbitrate individual claims.
The Court did not determine whether non-individual claims should be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration of individual claims, but it left open the possibility that courts “may” decide to pause proceedings during that interim period. Nevertheless, regardless of the new law stated in Adolph, the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Rocha v. U-Haul Co. earlier this year still provides a useful tool for employers to end a PAGA suit altogether once an employer can prevail against the named plaintiff.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
PAGA permits an “aggrieved employee” to bring representative claims on behalf of him or herself and other workers subject to the same alleged violations of law. In Viking River Cruises, the US Supreme Court—acknowledging that California courts would have the final say on California law—held that if a plaintiff is compelled to arbitrate individual claims because of an arbitration agreement, the remaining non-individual claims must be dismissed for lack of standing. While California state law provides PAGA actions cannot be divided into individual and non-individual claims due to an agreement to arbitrate individual claims, the US Supreme Court found that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempted that state law.
The California Supreme Court disagreed, finding no conflict between the FAA and California’s PAGA framework. On that basis, the Court held that a plaintiff does not lose standing in court simply because he or she is compelled to arbitrate individual claims.
The Court did not determine whether non-individual claims should be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration of individual claims, but it left open the possibility that courts “may” decide to pause proceedings during that interim period. Nevertheless, regardless of the new law stated in Adolph, the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Rocha v. U-Haul Co. earlier this year still provides a useful tool for employers to end a PAGA suit altogether once an employer can prevail against the named plaintiff.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Lawyers
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Associate Steven Arango to Speak at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair
On September 18, Associate Steven Arango will speak on a panel at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair (VLCF), the only legal career fair in the United States dedicated to veterans, active-duty service members, and military spouses.
September 18, 2026
Publications
In American Banker, Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Weighs in on OCC's Handling of Fintech Bank Charter Applications
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon spoke with American Banker about how the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is approaching bank charter applications from fintechs, amid a growing wave of companies seeking charters from federal regulators.
August 18, 2026
Event
Partner David Greenwald to Speak at PLI Program on Privilege and AI
On August 17, David Greenwald will speak at "Fitting New “Tech” Into the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection," a virtual program hosted by the Practising Law Institute (PLI).
August 17, 2026
Publications
Special Counsel Kimberly Cook Featured in FCBA Member Spotlight
The Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) featured Kimberly Cook in its Member Spotlight series.
August 13, 2026
Recognition
Three Jenner & Block Partners Named to Crain's New York Business' 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law List
Crain's New York Business recognized Jenner & Block Partners Anthony Barkow, Alison Stein, and Damian Williams among its 2026 Notable Leaders in Accounting, Consulting & Law.
August 10, 2026