On February 26, 2025, in Parra Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services Ltd., LLC, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District held that trial courts cannot order arbitration of unasserted individual claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The decision affirmed a Superior Court decision denying a motion to compel arbitration where the plaintiff disclaimed all individual relief and brought the action in a representative capacity only. The Fourth Appellate District's decision departs from Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., where the Second Appellate District held that every PAGA action inherently includes an individual component which cannot be disclaimed to avoid arbitration.
Background
In February 2022, Jose A. Parra Rodriguez filed a PAGA complaint against Packers Sanitation Services Ltd. for alleged violations of overtime and meal and rest break requirements under the Labor Code and California Code of Regulations. Parra alleged Packers committed these violations against himself "and all other aggrieved employees." In March 2022, Packers moved to compel arbitration based on a valid arbitration agreement which effectively waived Parra's right to assert representative claims under PAGA.
Motion to Compel Arbitration Denied: No Individual Claims to Arbitrate
Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's Viking River Cruises v. Moriana decision, Packers argued that Parra's individual PAGA claim must be compelled to arbitration and any remaining non-individual PAGA claims must be dismissed. In response, Parra argued that he did not allege the individual component of a PAGA claim and acted only in a representative capacity; thus, there was no individual claim to compel to arbitration. The Superior Court agreed and denied Packer's motion.
On appeal, the Fourth Appellate District upheld the decision, concluding there was no individual component to arbitrate because Parra alleged violations only in a representative capacity. The panel noted that while Parra included himself as an aggrieved employee throughout the complaint, he was required to do so in order to meet the standing requirements for the non-individual component of the PAGA claim. The panel further noted that Parra did not explicitly seek PAGA civil penalties for the violations he personally suffered but rather sought an award of statutory penalties for each employee underpaid due to Packers' alleged violations.
Sufficiency of Complaint Cannot Be Challenged in Motion to Compel Arbitration
Packers further argued that an individual cannot file a complaint that brings only representative PAGA claims because, pursuant to the Leeper decision, every PAGA action necessarily includes an individual PAGA claim. The Fourth Appellate District found the logic unpersuasive, stating that "just because a PAGA action must include an individual PAGA claim does not mean any particular complaint brought under the auspices of PAGA does contain one. It means that a PAGA complaint should contain an individual PAGA claim, not that it does."
However, the panel stopped short of addressing whether a plaintiff is permitted to file a complaint asserting only non-individual PAGA claims, emphasizing that the relevant question at this stage is whether Parra's complaint asserts an individual PAGA claim, not whether it should include such a claim. The panel explained that a dispute as to the sufficiency of the complaint must be resolved on a pleadings challenge and not on a motion to compel arbitration.
Employer Takeaways
Packers could appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court, which seems likely in light of the split in authority. In the meantime, when confronted with a headless PAGA action, employers may want to consider filing a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to compel arbitration.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
