This case involves the preemptive effect of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., on state-law claims brought under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. Two Terms ago, applying the FAA, this Court divided PAGA claims subject to an arbitration agreement into two new categories of claims: "individual" claims and "nonindividual" claims. Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. __, 142 S. Ct. 1906, 1924-25 (2022). The Court held that individual claims must be arbitrated, while non-individual claims must be dismissed. Id. at 1925. The latter holding—that the proper disposition of a non-individual claim is a dismissal—quickly became a dead letter in California. In Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that non-individual claims should not be dismissed; instead, they should be stayed or litigated in court. 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1114 (2023). Lower courts in California have applied the same logic (including here in Lyft's case) and bypassed this Court's disposition in Viking River. The question at hand is whether, in deviating from this Court's direction to dismiss non-individual claims, California courts have violated federal law, including the rules in Viking River and in the FAA.

Whether state courts can circumvent the Supreme Court's Viking River Cruises decision by refusing to dismiss non-individual Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims after individual claims are compelled to arbitration