The California Supreme Court granted review in Leeper v. Shipt on its own motion — an extraordinary procedural step that signals the Court views this as a defining question for PAGA's future. The issue is whether a plaintiff can file a PAGA representative action while disclaiming any individual PAGA claim, thereby avoiding arbitration entirely.
The appellate split is sharp. Leeper v. Shipt (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1001 and Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 932 held headless actions prohibited, reading the word 'and' in section 2699(a) as conjunctive — requiring both an individual and a representative claim. Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533 and Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 69 reached the opposite conclusion, permitting headless claims to proceed.
The deepest flaw in the defense argument is temporal: the distinction between 'individual' and 'representative' PAGA claims was invented by the U.S. Supreme Court in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana (2022). The 2003 Legislature that amended section 2699 could not have intended to regulate a category that would not exist for nineteen years. One cannot intend what one cannot conceptualize.
For defense counsel, the practical question is what to do right now. The answer is to preserve both positions in every pending case: move to compel arbitration of individual claims under Viking River and Adolph, and simultaneously challenge standing for the representative claims. If the Supreme Court holds headless claims are not permitted, employers with arbitration agreements will have effectively neutralized PAGA. If the Court permits them, the arbitration strategy shifts to standing challenges under the 2024 reforms — section 2699(c)(1) now requires that the plaintiff 'personally suffered' each violation alleged in the representative claim.
Briefing is nearing completion. A decision is expected mid-to-late 2026. This is the most consequential pending PAGA decision since Adolph itself.