Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1573_8p6h.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

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

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–1573 
_________________ 

VIKING RIVER CRUISES, INC., PETITIONER v. 
ANGIE MORIANA 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF 
CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

[June 15, 2022] 

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concurring. 
I join the Court’s opinion in full.  The Court faithfully ap-
plies precedent to hold that California’s anti-waiver rule for 
claims under the State’s Labor Code Private Attorneys Gen-
eral  Act  of  2004  (PAGA)  is  pre-empted  only  “insofar  as  it 
precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-
individual  claims  through  an  agreement  to  arbitrate.” 
Ante, at 20.  In its analysis of the parties’ contentions, the
Court also details several important limitations on the pre-
emptive  effect  of  the  Federal  Arbitration  Act  (FAA).   See 
ante, at 11–17.  As a whole, the Court’s opinion makes clear 
that California is not powerless to address its sovereign con-
cern that it cannot adequately enforce its Labor Code with-
out assistance from private attorneys general. 

The Court concludes that the FAA poses no bar to the ad-
judication of respondent Angie Moriana’s “non-individual” 
PAGA claims, but that PAGA itself “provides no mechanism
to enable a court to adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims 
once an individual claim has been committed to a separate 
proceeding.”  Ante, at 21.  Thus, the Court reasons, based 
on available guidance from California courts, that Moriana 
lacks “statutory standing” under PAGA to litigate her “non-
individual”  claims  separately  in  state  court.    Ibid.  Of 
course, if this Court’s understanding of state law is wrong,
California courts, in an appropriate case, will have the last