In LaCour v. Marshalls of California (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 455, the Court of Appeal held that an ambiguous severance clause executed prior to Viking River can prevent the bifurcation of PAGA claims between court and arbitration. Focusing on contract interpretation, the court found that because the agreement’s broad PAGA waiver was invalid under Iskanian, the specific severance language required excising the entire provision rather than salvaging an "individual" arbitration component. The court reasoned that parties signing older agreements could not have mutually intended to arbitrate individual PAGA claims—a legal framework established by Viking Riveryears after drafting.

This decision may shield employees from PAGA bifurcation under older arbitration agreements, provided the contract's severance language is ambiguous, ensuring the entire representative action remains in a judicial forum.

In Wise v. Tesla Motors, Inc. (2025) 117 Cal. App. 5th 325, the Court of Appeal held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt Civ. Code § 1642, which requires separate documents from the same transaction to be read as a single agreement. While the court agreed that unconscionable terms in a collateral nondisclosure agreement (NDA) could be considered alongside the arbitration agreement, it ruled that under the severability test from Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 478, illegal provisions must be severed if they do not "permeate" the central purpose of arbitration. Because the offensive bond waiver and burden of proof terms were collateral and easily removable, the court reversed the trial court's refusal to compel arbitration.

This decision confirms that California's "single agreement" rule remains a valid tool for analyzing unconscionability, but emphasizes a strong judicial preference for severing specific illegal clauses to preserve the overall enforceability of arbitration agreements.

In Quilala v. Securitas Security Services USA (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 75, the Court of Appeal held that trial courts have a threshold duty to determine if the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) bars arbitration, even if the parties do not expressly invoke it. Relying on New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira (2019) 586 U.S. 105, the court clarified that determining whether a dispute falls within the Federal Arbitration Act's scope is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Furthermore, the court held that because the EFAA applies to an entire "case" rather than just specific "claims," a single allegation of sexual harassment is sufficient to keep all related causes of action in court.

This decision shifts the burden to the judiciary to identify EFAA bars and reinforces the "case-wide" anti-arbitration rule, ensuring that plaintiffs with hybrid harassment and other claims can litigate their entire action in a public forum.

In Sierra Pacific Industries Wage and Hour Cases (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1038, the Court of Appeal held that an employer may waive its right to arbitrate through conduct inconsistent with an intent to enforce that right, even before the right becomes technically enforceable. Applying the "abandonment" standard from Quach v. California Commerce Club, Inc. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 562, the court found that by withholding arbitration agreements for years while actively litigating class discovery, the defendant abandoned its right to compel arbitration post-certification. The court further clarified that discovery sanctions issued alongside a denial of a motion to compel are generally unappealable.

This decision warns employers that strategic delays in asserting arbitration rights during the pre-certification phase of a class action can result in a permanent waiver, reinforcing that California courts will prioritize the "intent to arbitrate" over technical arguments regarding ripeness or enforceability.

In Gurganus v. IGS Solutions LLC (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 327, the Court of Appeal held an arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because it included "expansive" nonmutual carve-outs for employer claims and, when read with a concurrently signed confidentiality agreement, also prevented informal witness discovery. Affirming the denial of the motion to compel, the court held that because these multiple unconscionable provisions permeated the agreement, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to sever them.

This decision confirms that courts will analyze all contemporaneously signed employment documents as a single contract and solidifies that a provision barring informal witness discovery is a key unconscionable term that can help void an entire agreement.

In Galarsa v. Dolgen California (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1, the Court of Appeal held that the threshold question of a PAGA plaintiff's "aggrieved employee" standing is not an arbitrable dispute subject to a private arbitration agreement. Affirming the denial of a motion to compel, the court also ruled that a "headless" PAGA action (alleging violations suffered only by other employees) is permissible under pre-2024 law. The court reasoned that standing to sue on behalf of the state is a dispute between the LWDA and the employer, not the individual employee and employer.

This decision provides an avenue for plaintiffs litigating pre-2024 PAGA claims to avoid arbitration on the gateway issue of standing, preventing employers from securing a preclusive finding in the arbitral forum that could kill the representative court action.

In Villalobos v. Maersk, Inc. (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1170, the Court of Appeal held that generally incorporating AAA rules by reference does not meet the "clear and unmistakable" standard to delegate arbitrability if the employee would need a three-step process to find the actual delegation clause. The court also affirmed that when the California Arbitration Act (CAA) governs (not the FAA), Labor Code § 229 bars arbitration of waiting time penalty claims (Lab. Code § 203), and Viking River's preemption does not apply, rendering the entire PAGA claim non-arbitrable.

This decision reinforces that vague incorporation is insufficient notice for delegation and confirms that § 229 remains a powerful tool to keep wage and PAGA claims in court when the CAA applies.

In Wilson v. Tap Worldwide, LLC (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 1077, the Court of Appeal reversed an attorney's fee award, holding that a defendant's arbitration fee payment arriving one business day late does not constitute "abandonment" under Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.98. Applying the new standard from Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 310, the court held that abandonment (and its fee-shifting remedy) requires the payment lapse to be "willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent."

This decision is one of the first to apply Hohenshelt, confirming that the statute's severe penalties are no longer available for minor, non-willful payment errors and effectively ending "gotcha" motions to vacate arbitration based on technical payment timing issues.

In Platt v. Sodexo, S.A. (9th Cir. 2025) 148 F.4th 709, the Ninth Circuit held that an employee's continued participation in an ERISA plan does not constitute consent to a unilaterally added arbitration provision for their individual claims. However, for fiduciary duty claims on behalf of the Plan (§ 502 (a)(2)), the court held the Plan itself is the consenting party. Despite finding the Plan did consent via an amendment clause, the court still found the agreement unenforceable because its representative action waiver violated the effective vindication doctrine by preventing the plaintiff from seeking statutory, plan-wide relief under § 409 (a).

This decision protects ERISA plaintiffs on two fronts, requiring affirmative consent for individual claims and invalidating representative action waivers that attempt to bar plan-wide fiduciary duty claims.

In Silva v. Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1311, the Court of Appeal held that an arbitration agreement and a separate employment agreement, when executed as parts of substantially one transaction, must be read together as one contract under Civ. Code § 1642, even without explicit cross-references.

Affirming the denial of a motion to compel, the court found the combined effect of the two agreements created "notable substantive unconscionability" by imposing nonmutual arbitration obligations and remedies. The court also affirmed the trial court's discretion to refuse to sever the unconscionable terms.

In Velarde v. Monroe Operations, LLC (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1009, the Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, holding that severe procedural unconscionability can itself render the agreement unenforceable. The court found the employer's "express misleading" was so significant that it rendered the agreement unconscionable without the court needing to analyze its other substantively unfair terms.

This decision confirms that fraudulent conduct during the execution of an arbitration agreement can be a fatal flaw, voiding the entire contract regardless of its content.

In Ford v. The Silver F, Inc. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 553, the Court of Appeal held that a pre-Viking River arbitration agreement carving out "representative PAGA claims" bars arbitration of all PAGA claims, including the "individual" component. The court affirmed the denial of a motion to compel, finding that at the time of drafting, PAGA claims were considered indivisible, and the parties intended a broad exclusion.

Following Mondragon v. Sunrun Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 592, this decision confirms that employers cannot retroactively apply Viking River's individual/representative split to ambiguous carve-outs that were clearly intended to exclude PAGA entirely.

In Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 69, the Court of Appeal held that a court cannot compel arbitration of an individual PAGA claim if the plaintiff's complaint explicitly pleads the claim in a representative capacity only. Affirming the denial of the motion to compel, the court held that the complaint's allegations are determinative, and since no individual claim was asserted, there was nothing to arbitrate.

This decision creates a direct and explicit split with Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1001, which it expressly disapproved. It provides a clear roadmap for plaintiffs to avoid Viking River arbitration by pleading, though it leaves open a potential defense challenge that such a "representative only" complaint fails to state a valid PAGA claim under the statute.

In Ramirez v. Charter Communications, Inc. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1297, the Court of Appeal, on remand from the California Supreme Court, refused to sever unconscionable provisions from an arbitration agreement and instead affirmed the trial court's order voiding the entire agreement. The court reasoned that the agreement's "multiple defects" indicated a deliberate intent to secure an unfair advantage, and that severance would "impermissibly rewrite" the contract.

This decision confirms that California courts will not repair arbitration agreements that are permeated with unconscionability, as doing so would encourage employers to draft one-sided contracts.

In Arzate v. ACE American Insurance Company (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1191, the Court of Appeal held that a trial court's order lifting an arbitration stay and finding the defendant had waived arbitration is immediately appealable. The court ruled such an order is the "functional equivalent" of an order denying a motion to compel and that under the parties’ agreement, Plaintiff was required to initiate arbitration.

This decision confirms a defendant's right to appeal a post-stay waiver finding and clarifies that the burden of initiating arbitration remains a question of contractual interpretation.

In Vo v. Technology Credit Union (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 632, the Court of Appeal held that an arbitration agreement incorporating JAMS rules is not substantively unconscionable on the basis of discovery limitations, because JAMS Rule 17(b) provides the arbitrator with authority to order non-party discovery.

The court reversed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration and expressly disapproved the contrary holding in Aixtron, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc. (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 360, holding that it was based on an impermissible assumption that third parties might refuse an arbitrator's discovery order.

In Casey v. Superior Court (D.R. Horton Inc.) (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 575, the Court of Appeal held that the federal EFAA preempts conflicting state law that would otherwise compel arbitration of sexual harassment claims, even if the parties' agreement contains a state law choice-of-law provision. The court found that because the dispute involved interstate commerce, the EFAA applies and cannot be sidestepped by a contractual choice-of-law clause. The court also held that the EFAA renders the arbitration agreement unenforceable as to all of the plaintiff's claims, not just the sexual harassment count.

This decision confirms that the EFAA provides a powerful bar to arbitration for an entire case, overriding contractual attempts to select state law.

In Nabors Corporate Services, Inc. v. City of Long Beach (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 540, the Court of Appeal held that a subcontractor may seek indemnity under Labor Code § 1781 from a higher-tiered contractor for prevailing wage violations, even when the underlying wage claims were resolved via an arbitration award.

The court reasoned that a confirmed arbitration award has the same force and effect as a court judgment for the purposes of the statute. However, the court also affirmed that Labor Code § 1784, which creates different indemnity rights, does not apply retroactively to conduct that occurred before its 2022 enactment.

In Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1001, the Court of Appeal held that all PAGA actions necessarily include an "individual claim" subject to arbitration, even if the plaintiff only pleads a representative action. Reversing the denial of a motion to compel, the court held that Labor Code § 2699 (a) inherently bundles an individual claim within any PAGA suit.

This ruling revives a key defense argument that PAGA claims are inherently divisible for arbitration, teeing up the issue for Supreme Court review.

In Rodriguez v. Lawrence Equipment, Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 645, the Court of Appeal held that an arbitrator's final ruling against a plaintiff on their individual Labor Code claims can preclude that plaintiff's standing to pursue a subsequent PAGA claim based on the same alleged violations. Applying the doctrine of issue preclusion, the court reasoned that if the arbitrator necessarily decided the plaintiff was not an "aggrieved employee" (i.e., suffered no violation), the plaintiff loses the necessary standing to represent the state.

This decision confirms that the procedural separation of PAGA claims does not bar the preclusive effect of an adverse arbitration award, making the outcome of the individual arbitration determinative of PAGA standing.

In Liu v. Miniso Depot CA, Inc. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 791, the Court of Appeal held that when a plaintiff asserts at least one sexual harassment claim governed by the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), the entire action is rendered non-arbitrable. The court affirmed the denial of a motion to compel, finding that the EFAA's language precludes arbitration of all associated claims.

This decision significantly expands the EFAA's impact in mixed-claim lawsuits by preventing the severance and arbitration of non-sexual harassment claims.

In Diaz v. Macy’s West Stores, Inc. (9th Cir. 2024) 101 F.4th 697, the Ninth Circuit held that when an employee's individual PAGA claim is compelled to arbitration, their non-individual (representative) PAGA claims are stayed in court, not dismissed. Following the California Supreme Court's controlling decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, the court affirmed that a plaintiff retains standing to pursue the representative claims in court after the individual arbitration is complete.

This decision confirms the Adolph procedure is the rule in the Ninth Circuit, preventing the dismissal of representative PAGA claims when an individual claim is arbitrated.

In Mondragon v. Sunrun Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 592, the Court of Appeal held that incorporating AAA rules by reference does not "clearly and unmistakably" delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator for unsophisticated employees. The court also affirmed the denial of a motion to compel, holding that the Viking River rule does not apply when an agreement explicitly carves out all PAGA claims.

This decision confirms that courts decide arbitrability absent exceptionally clear delegation and that employers are bound by their own explicit PAGA carve-outs.