SCOTUS to decide whether FAA preempts California’s prohibition on the arbitration of PAGA representative claims
We have written a number of articles about California’s restrictions on arbitration agreements, including California’s “McGill rule,” which provides that arbitration agreements cannot waive claims for “public injunctive relief.” See, e.g., Ninth Circuit reexamines California’s McGill rule – which prohibits contractual waivers of “public injunctive relief” – through the lens of federal preemption (Sep. 27, 2021). On December 15, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a California state court decision holding the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt California’s prohibition on the arbitration of representative claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). See Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc., No. B297327, 2020 WL 5584508 (Cal. 2d Dist. Sept. 18, 2020), review denied, No. S265257 (Cal. Dec. 9, 2020), cert. granted, No. 20-1573, 2021 WL 5911481 (U.S. Dec. 15, 2021).
In its petition for certiorari, Viking River Cruises, Inc., presented one question: “Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under PAGA.” Pet. for Writ of Cert., Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573, 2021 WL 1944938 (U.S. filed May 10, 2021). Viking asked the Court to resolve the conflict between the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), and the California Supreme Court’s holding in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC, 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014). In Epic, the Supreme Court held courts could not refuse to enforce arbitration agreements within the scope of the FAA by applying state rules that prohibit the arbitration of certain representational or collective claims. But in Iskanian, the California Supreme Court held unenforceable waivers of PAGA claims in arbitration agreements. We anticipate the U.S. Supreme Court will follow Epic and find the Iskanian rule preempted by the FAA, thereby spelling the demise of California’s “McGill rule.”
Disclaimer
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.
