Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1573_8p6h.pdf
Page Number: 29

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

1 

BARRETT, J., concurring
Opinion of BARRETT, J. 

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  BARRETT,  with  whom  JUSTICE  KAVANAUGH 
joins, and with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins except as to 
the footnote, concurring in part and concurring in the judg-
ment. 

I join Part III of the Court’s opinion.  I agree that reversal
is required under our precedent because PAGA’s procedure 
is akin to other aggregation devices that cannot be imposed 
on a party to an arbitration agreement.  See, e.g., Stolt-Niel-
sen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U. S. 662 (2010); 
AT&T  Mobility  LLC  v.  Concepcion,  563  U. S.  333  (2011); 
Epic Systems Corp. v.  Lewis, 584 U. S. ___ (2018); Lamps 
Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U. S. ___ (2019).  I would say noth-
ing more than that.  The discussion in Parts II and IV of the 
Court’s opinion is unnecessary to the result, and much of it
addresses  disputed  state-law  questions  as  well  as  argu-
ments not pressed or passed upon in this case.* 

—————— 

*The same is true of Part I.