Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1573_8p6h.pdf
Page Number: 24

20 

VIKING RIVER CRUISES, INC. v. MORIANA 

Opinion of the Court 

same arbitral proceeding.

The effect of Iskanian’s rule mandating this mechanism
is to coerce parties into withholding PAGA claims from ar-
bitration.  Liberal rules of claim joinder presuppose a back-
drop in which litigants assert their own claims and those of
a limited class of other parties who are usually connected 
with  the  plaintiff  by  virtue  of  a  distinctive  legal  relation-
ship—such as that between shareholders and a corporation
or between a parent and a minor child.  PAGA departs from
that norm by granting the power to enforce a subset of Cal-
ifornia public law to every employee in the State.  This com-
bination of standing to act on behalf of a sovereign and man-
datory freeform joinder allows plaintiffs to unite a massive 
number of claims in a single-package suit.  But as we have 
said, “[a]rbitration is poorly suited to the higher stakes” of 
massive-scale disputes of this kind.  Concepcion, 563 U. S., 
at  350.  The  absence  of  “multilayered  review”  in  arbitral
proceedings “makes it more likely that errors will go uncor-
rected.”  Ibid.  And suits featuring a vast number of claims
entail the same “risk of ‘in terrorem’ settlements that class 
actions entail.”  Ibid.  As a result, Iskanian’s indivisibility
rule  effectively  coerces  parties  to  opt  for  a  judicial  forum 
rather than “forgo[ing] the procedural rigor and appellate 
review of the courts in order to realize the benefits of pri-
vate  dispute  resolution.”    Stolt-Nielsen,  559  U. S.,  at  685; 
see also Concepcion, 563 U. S., at 350–351.  This result is 
incompatible with the FAA. 

IV 
We hold that the FAA preempts the rule of Iskanian in-
sofar as it precludes division of PAGA actions into individ-
ual and non-individual claims through an agreement to ar-
bitrate.  This  holding  compels  reversal  in  this  case.  The 
agreement between Viking and Moriana purported to waive
“representative” PAGA claims.  Under Iskanian, this provi-
sion was invalid if construed as a wholesale waiver of PAGA