Leeper v. Shipt: What the Grant of Review Means for Headless PAGA Claims

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 1001Leeper v. Shipt, Inc.(2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1001 · Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist. · Dec. 30, 2024Every PAGA action necessarily includes both an individual and a representative claim, because § 2699(a) authorizes an action “on behalf of the employee and other current or former employees” and “and” is conjunctive.Does not holdLeeper construed the amended § 2699(a); Galarsa's footnote 2 presumes the Supreme Court will analyze the former version, given the March 2024 filing date.Review granted 2025-04-16 on the court's own motion, S289305. Rodriguez (S290182), Williams (S291199) and CRST Expedited (S292005) are granted-and-held. Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533 alone remains citable published authority on the split.Published characterization and Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 932Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC(2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 932 · Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 5 · Apr. 22, 2025Follows Leeper: a PAGA action necessarily includes an individual claim, and a plaintiff whose own claims are time-barred cannot maintain a representative-only action.Does not holdReview granted and held for Leeper (S291199); Osuna (2025) reaches the opposite result on the limitations point.Review granted and held (S291199).Drafted from the opinion 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 533Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting, Inc.(2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533 · Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 6 · Mar. 20, 2024An employee who does not bring an individual claim may nevertheless bring a PAGA action for herself and other employees; standing has Adolph’s two elements and Viking River’s standing passage does not bind California courts.Does not holdLeeper v. Shipt (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1001 reads § 2699(a) the other way; the question is before the Supreme Court in Leeper (S289305).Filed March 20, 2024; certified for publication April 18, 2024.Drafted from the opinion reached the opposite conclusion, and CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 872CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court(2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 872 · Cal. Ct. App., 5th Dist. · July 7, 2025A PAGA complaint pleading only non-individual claims may proceed under the pre-reform text; the trial court properly denied a motion to compel arbitration of a claim the plaintiff did not plead.Does not holdReview granted September 17, 2025 (S292005) and held for Leeper v. Shipt (S289305); citable for persuasive value only while held.Review granted and held, September 17, 2025 (S292005).Drafted from the opinion — now itself under review — squarely held headless actions permitted under the pre-reform statute. Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 69Parra Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services Ltd., LLC(2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 69 · Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1 · Feb. 26, 2025A complaint pleading only non-individual PAGA claims has no individual claim to compel to arbitration; Leeper is not followed and Balderas’s holding is not dicta.Does not holdReview granted May 14, 2025 (S290182) and held for Leeper; whether a headless complaint is permissible is reserved for a pleading challenge.Review granted and held, May 14, 2025 (S290182).Drafted from the opinion decided less: it affirmed denial of a motion to compel because the complaint pleaded no individual PAGA claim, expressly reserving the permissibility question.

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 complete — the amicus wave closed in January — and the case awaits argument. A decision is expected in late 2026. This is the most consequential pending PAGA decision since Adolph itself.