Play all audios:
In _Moriana_, a plaintiff whose employment contract required her to waive her right to bring a private attorney general action sued her employer under California’s Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA) for allegedly violating California labor law. _Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc_., No. B297327, 2020 WL 5584508, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 2020). Under PAGA, a plaintiff
can seek damages against her employer on behalf of herself and other employees if the State declines to intervene in the case. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, at 8, _Moriana _(20-1573).
Those employees receive a quarter of any monetary recovery, with the remaining three-quarters going to the State. _Id. _at 9._ _The California Supreme Court has held that _Concepcion_ does
not require arbitration of a PAGA claim because such claims represent a dispute between an employer and the State, whereas the aim of the FAA is to ensure efficient resolution of disputes
over a litigant’s private rights. _Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC_, 59 Cal. 4th 348, 384 (Cal. 2014). (The Ninth Circuit has also rejected a challenge to _Iskanian_, though
on the grounds that PAGA actions do not raise the same efficiency concerns as class actions.) The _Viking Cruises_ cert. petition argues that _Iskanian_ is nearly identical to _Concepcion_,
in that both involved the State declining to enforce an arbitration agreement pursuant to an important public interest and asks the Supreme Court to overrule _Iskanian_. Petition for Writ of
Certiorari, at 2-3, _Moriana _(20-1573). The second case, _HRB Tax Group v. Snarr_, involves a California rule governing “public injunctions,” which are defined as injunctions that have
“‘the primary purpose and effect of’ prohibiting unlawful acts that threaten future injury to the general public.’” _Snarr v. HRB Tax Group, Inc._, 839 Fed.Appx. 53, 54 (9th Cir. 2020)
(quoting _McGill v. Citibank, N.A._, 393 P.3d 85, 90 (Cal. 2017)). California case law makes unenforceable a contract that waives the right to seek public injunctive relief in all forums._
Snarr_, 389 Fed. Appx. at 54. In _Snarr_, the plaintiff sought a public injunction against HRB, claiming the tax preparation company misleadingly steered tax filers away from a free service
and toward a paid one, in violation of California consumer protection laws. _Id. _at 55. The plaintiff’s arbitration agreement with HRB forbids public injunctions and so is unenforceable
under California law, and the Ninth Circuit refused to compel arbitration of the plaintiff’s claim. _Id. _at 54 In so doing, the court relied on _Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc._, 928 F.3d 819
(9th Cir. 2019), a prior circuit case holding that the FAA does not preempt the public-injunction rule. _Blair_ rests on the premises that, unlike the ban on class-action waivers at issue in
_Concepcion_, the public-injunction rule does not single out arbitration and does not undermine the purported efficiency and informality of bilateral arbitration, given that a plaintiff can
seek a public injunction in a bilateral arbitration without resort to class-certification procedures. _Id_. at 827-29