The Leeper Holding Pattern: Running a Defense While Headless PAGA Waits for Fall

Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. (S289305) has been fully briefed since the amicus wave closed in January. Parra Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services (S290182) and CRST Expedited (S292005) sit behind it as grant-and-holds, and the conference minutes have kept adding companions. The court's published 2026 calendar seats no July or August session — the remaining sittings run September through December — and the ninety-day decision clock starts only at argument. The earliest realistic window for an answer to the headless-PAGA question is fall 2026, and winter is likelier.

The split the court will resolve has hardened into a clean map. 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 read section 2699(a)'s 'and' as conjunctive: every PAGA action includes an individual claim, so there is always something to compel to arbitration. 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 and CRST Expedited (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 — the decision that squarely permitted a headless action under the pre-reform statute — read the same word the other way. Parra Rodriguez decided less than it is cited for: it affirmed the denial of a motion to compel because the complaint as drafted pleaded no individual claim, locked the plaintiff into that disclaimer through judicial estoppel, and expressly reserved whether such a complaint is properly pleaded at all.

The holding pattern is not a reason to wait. It is a reason to preserve. In every pending case with an arbitration agreement, the defense should be running both tracks simultaneously: the motion to compel individual claims under Viking River and Adolph, and the standing challenge under section 2699(c)(1) — which, for post-reform notices, requires that the plaintiff personally suffered each violation alleged. A defendant who briefs only the track that matches its prediction of Leeper will spend 2027 explaining the forfeiture.

Two quieter moves belong in the same file. First, plead the judicial-estoppel position Parra Rodriguez validated: if the complaint disclaims individual relief to defeat arbitration, the disclaimer should follow the plaintiff for the life of the case. Second, watch the grant-and-hold list — every addition is a case whose posture the court considered close enough to hold, and the list is a map of the fact patterns the decision will have to govern.

The bottom line: nothing about Leeper rewards prediction, and everything about it rewards preservation. The decision will arrive no earlier than fall. The record you build between now and then decides what you can do with it.