Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1573_8p6h.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

VIKING RIVER CRUISES, INC. v. MORIANA 

Syllabus 

A state rule imposing an expansive rule of joinder in the arbitral con-
text would defeat the ability of parties to control which claims are sub-
ject to arbitration by permitting parties to superadd new claims to the
proceeding,  regardless  of  whether  the  agreement  committed  those 
claims  to  arbitration.    When  made  compulsory  by  way  of  Iskanian, 
PAGA’s joinder rule functions in exactly this way.  The effect is to co-
Is-
erce  parties  into  withholding  PAGA  claims  from  arbitration. 
kanian’s indivisibility rule effectively coerces parties to opt for a judi-
cial forum rather than “forgo[ing] the procedural rigor and appellate
review of the courts to realize the benefits of private dispute resolu-
tion.”  Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U. S., at 685.  Pp. 17–19. 

(c) Under  this  Courts  holding, Iskanian’s  prohibition  on  wholesale
waivers of PAGA claims is not preempted by the FAA.  But Iskanian’s 
rule that PAGA actions cannot be divided into individual and non-in-
dividual claims is preempted, so Viking was entitled to  compel arbi-
tration of Moriana’s individual claim.  PAGA provides no mechanism 
to  enable  a  court  to  adjudicate  non-individual  PAGA  claims  once  an 
individual claim has been committed to a separate proceeding.  And 
under PAGA’s standing requirement, a plaintiff has standing to main-
tain  non-individual  PAGA  claims  in  an  action  only  by  virtue  of  also 
maintaining an individual claim in that action.  As a result, Moriana 
would lack statutory standing to maintain her non-individual claims
in court, and the correct course was to dismiss her remaining claims. 
Pp. 20–21. 

Reversed and remanded. 

ALITO,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  BREYER,  SO-
TOMAYOR,  KAGAN,  and  GORSUCH,  JJ.,  joined,  in  which  ROBERTS,  C. J., 
joined as to Parts I and III, and in which KAVANAUGH and BARRETT, JJ., 
joined as to Part III.  SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a concurring opinion.  BARRETT, 
J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in
which KAVANAUGH, J., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J, joined as to 
all but the footnote.  THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.