{"id":1217,"date":"2024-02-15T18:52:05","date_gmt":"2024-02-15T22:52:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1217"},"modified":"2024-02-15T18:52:05","modified_gmt":"2024-02-15T22:52:05","slug":"ninth-circuit-holds-that-federal-courts-must-apply-adolph-in-paga-cases-with-a-concurring-opinion-addressing-whether-individual-arbitration-will-have-preclusive-effect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/02\/15\/ninth-circuit-holds-that-federal-courts-must-apply-adolph-in-paga-cases-with-a-concurring-opinion-addressing-whether-individual-arbitration-will-have-preclusive-effect\/","title":{"rendered":"Ninth Circuit Holds That Federal Courts Must Apply Adolph In PAGA Cases, With A Concurring Opinion Addressing Whether Individual Arbitration Will Have Preclusive Effect"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Eden E. Anderson, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Jennifer A. Riley<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways: <\/strong>On February 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion<\/a> in Johnson v. Lowe\u2019s Home Centers, LLC, No. 22-16486 (9th Cir. Feb. 12, 2024).<\/em>\u00a0 <\/strong>It held that federal courts must follow the statutory standing analysis of the California Supreme Court in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., and not the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s different interpretation in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana.\u00a0 Additionally, in his concurrence, Judge Kenneth Lee opined that issues decided in individual arbitration of a PAGA claim should not have preclusive effect on the bigger non-individual PAGA claim.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

Case Background <\/strong><\/p>\n

The plaintiff in Johnson<\/em> alleged PAGA claims against her former employer based on the employer\u2019s alleged violations of the California Labor Code.\u00a0 Applying all aspects of the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana<\/em>, the district court compelled Johnson\u2019s individual PAGA claims to arbitration and dismissed her non-individual PAGA claims for lack of statutory standing.\u00a0 While the case was on appeal, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc.<\/em>, which held that a PAGA plaintiff retains standing to maintain non-individual PAGA claims even after their individual PAGA claims are compelled to arbitration.<\/p>\n

At issue on appeal in Johnson v. Lowe\u2019s Home Centers, LLC<\/em> was whether the non-individual PAGA claims should have been dismissed.<\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit\u2019s Decision <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit held that federal courts must follow the statutory standing analysis of the California Supreme Court in Adolph<\/em>, and not the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s different interpretation in Viking River<\/em>.\u00a0 It thus vacated the ruling dismissing the non-individual PAGA claims and remanded the case to the district court to apply Adolph<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Johnson<\/em> decision is of further interest because of the concurring opinion of Judge Kenneth Lee.\u00a0 His concurrence addressed the next big question in PAGA cases, i.e<\/em>., the extent to which issues decided by the arbitrator in resolving individual PAGA claims will be binding in court in the litigation of the non-individual PAGA claims.\u00a0 Judge Lee noted that individual arbitration is often \u201clow-stakes\u201d for companies, who sometimes even send non-lawyers, such as paralegals, to arbitration proceedings because the amount at issue is not worth a lawyer\u2019s higher hourly rates.\u00a0 However, as Judge Lee noted, if legal conclusions or factual findings in individual arbitration are binding, then companies would have little choice but to bring in the \u201clegal cavalry\u201d and devote substantial resources in individual arbitration, which would undermineg the efficiency of those proceedings, which is the whole \u201cpoint\u201d of enforcing arbitration agreements according to their terms.\u00a0 Judge Lee reasoned that there is thus a \u201clurking tension\u201d between the FAA and the suggestion in Adolph<\/em> that issue preclusion can apply to the outcome of arbitration of an individual PAGA action.\u00a0 Judge Lee expressed his view that application of issue preclusion in this context would contravene the FAA.<\/p>\n

Implications For Employers <\/strong><\/p>\n

Whether in state or federal court in a PAGA action, the Ninth Circuit made clear that Adolph<\/em> must be applied.\u00a0 The concurring opinion in Johnson <\/em>provides employers facing adverse rulings in individual arbitration with good arguments against the application of issue preclusion in the non-individual PAGA claim proceedings.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Eden E. Anderson, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Jennifer A. Riley \u00a0 Duane Morris Takeaways: On February 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Johnson v. Lowe\u2019s Home Centers, LLC, No. 22-16486 (9th Cir. Feb. 12, 2024).\u00a0 It held that federal courts must follow the statutory standing analysis of the California Supreme … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Holds That Federal Courts Must Apply Adolph In PAGA Cases, With A Concurring Opinion Addressing Whether Individual Arbitration Will Have Preclusive Effect”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":651,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[41],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[92,7,9],"class_list":["post-1217","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arbitration-issues"],"authors":[{"term_id":92,"user_id":651,"is_guest":0,"slug":"eeanderson","display_name":"Eden Anderson","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/07\/andersoneden-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1217","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/651"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1217"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1217\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1217"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1217"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1217"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1217"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}