One month after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected California’s ban on enforcing agreements that require the individual arbitration of claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the California Supreme Court granted...more
Following the United States Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, California courts were tasked with the open question of whether an “aggrieved” employee whose individual Private Attorneys...more
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an employer-friendly decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana. There, it held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)...more
On July 17, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (Cal. Sup. Ct. Case No. S274671), in which it addressed whether a plaintiff who is compelled to arbitrate their individual...more
On March 12, 2020, the California Supreme Court broadened the scope of who can bring a representative action claiming penalties under the 2004 Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)....more
With the advent of California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), employees can step into the shoes of a state attorney general and bring lawsuits against their employers, seeking civil penalties for Labor Code...more
On July 28, 2016, in Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc., the California Supreme Court (the “Court”) held that the underlying arbitration agreement, as interpreted under California contract principles, should determine whether...more