Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1573_8p6h.pdf
Page Number: 25

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

21 

Opinion of the Court 

claims.  And under our holding, that aspect of Iskanian is 
not preempted by the FAA, so the agreement remains inva-
lid insofar as it is interpreted in that manner.  But the sev-
erability clause in the agreement provides that if the waiver
provision  is  invalid  in  some  respect,  any  “portion”  of  the
waiver that remains valid must still be “enforced in arbitra-
tion.”  Based on this clause, Viking was entitled to enforce
the agreement insofar as it mandated arbitration of Mori-
ana’s individual PAGA claim.  The lower courts refused to 
do so based on the rule that PAGA actions cannot be divided 
into individual and non-individual claims.  Under our hold-
ing, that rule is preempted, so Viking is entitled to compel 
arbitration of Moriana’s individual claim. 

The remaining question is what the lower courts should
have  done  with  Moriana’s  non-individual  claims.  Under 
our holding in this case, those claims may not be dismissed 
simply because they are “representative.”  Iskanian’s rule 
remains valid to that extent.  But as we see it, PAGA pro-
vides  no  mechanism  to  enable  a  court  to  adjudicate  non- 
individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has been 
committed to a separate proceeding.  Under PAGA’s stand-
ing  requirement,  a  plaintiff  can  maintain  non-individual 
PAGA claims in an action only by virtue of also maintaining 
an individual claim in that action.  See Cal. Lab. Code Ann. 
§§2699(a),  (c).    When  an  employee’s  own  dispute  is  pared 
away from a PAGA action, the employee is no different from 
a member of the general public, and PAGA does not allow 
such persons to maintain suit.  See Kim, 9 Cal. 5th, at 90, 
459  P. 3d,  at  1133  (“PAGA’s  standing  requirement  was 
meant to be a departure from the ‘general public’ . . . stand-
ing originally allowed” under other California statutes).  As 
a  result,  Moriana  lacks  statutory  standing  to  continue  to 
maintain her non-individual claims in court, and the correct 
course is to dismiss her remaining claims. 

For these reasons, the judgment of the California Court 
of Appeal is reversed, and the case is remanded for further