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 Attorneys
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 Attorneys
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
Podcasts
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.
July 15, 2026
Publications
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report
Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
July 14, 2026
Publications
Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.
July 7, 2026
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026