On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573. At issue was a rule announced by the California Supreme Court in Iskanian v. CLS...more
Since 2004, the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) has been a thorn in the side of employers in the State of California. Indeed, there are approximately 17 PAGA actions filed every day in the state. A PAGA claim allows a...more
California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) is a statute that authorizes employees to bring an action for civil penalties on behalf of the state against an employer for Labor Code violations committed against the...more
On June 15, the U.S. Supreme Court finally brought closure to the long-running, unsettled issue of whether California’s prohibition against arbitration agreement waivers of the right to bring representative actions under the...more
In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U. S. ____ (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court finally answered a question of far-reaching impact for California employers: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act, (“FAA”) preempts...more
In a decision employers across California have been waiting for since December (see our initial article on this issue), the United States Supreme Court held this morning in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, that the...more
In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether representative claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) may be compelled to individual...more
In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, Case No. 20-1573, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide later this term whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a California rule, established in Iskanian v. CLS...more
In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), the California Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement purporting to waive the right to bring a representative action under the Private...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Plaintiffs cannot circumvent arbitration agreements by characterizing claims for statutory damages as claims for civil penalties. The purported PAGA exemption from arbitration agreements applies only to...more
A refinery operator (“Wulfe”), sued his former employer alleging several employment related claims, including a claim under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The court compelled arbitration, and the...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Three decisions issued earlier this month reveal an increasing tension between the Ninth Circuit and California appellate courts on whether representative PAGA actions can be arbitrated. As a result,...more
Defendants appealed an order from a California federal district court that denied their motion to compel individual arbitration of a former employee’s representative claim under California’s Private Attorney General Act...more
Many employers enter into arbitration agreements with their employees to expedite resolution and mitigate the risk of jury trials. For the most part, a proper arbitration agreement would have the effect of requiring both the...more
We previously reported on California courts refusing to enforce waivers contained in arbitration agreements of representative claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”). These cases have...more
The Ninth Circuit Decision - Delivering a perhaps unexpected blow to employers, the Ninth Circuit sided with the California Supreme Court earlier this week in upholding the state-court-fashioned Iskanian rule, which...more
On September 28, 2015, the Ninth Circuit held in Shukri Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. that the FAA does not preempt the rule that the California Supreme Court enunciated in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation that...more
This week, in Sakkab, et al v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., the Ninth Circuit ruled that an employee cannot waive the right to bring a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) through an...more
On September 28, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision in the long-awaited case of Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. (No. 13-55184, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00436-GPC-KSC) (“Sakkab”). The Court...more
Yesterday, by a two-to-one vote, the Ninth Circuit joined the California Supreme Court in holding that Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims are an exception to the Federal Arbitration Act. In Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail...more
On June 24, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a controversial decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC. While the Court in Iskanian confirmed that an express class action waiver in an employment...more
In an October 22, 2014, posting, we addressed the growing divide between California federal district courts and the California Supreme Court over whether an arbitration agreement can waive an employee’s right to pursue a...more
When the California Supreme Court decided Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), this June, some legal commentators assumed that employees could not waive pre-litigation claims under the Private...more