Headless PAGA and the Leeper Question: A Defense-Side Analysis of the Appellate Split

The California Supreme Court is deciding whether PAGA plaintiffs can disclaim individual claims while pursuing representative penalties. The answer will reshape every arbitration strategy in the state.

The headless PAGA phenomenon emerged after Viking River and Adolph: plaintiffs began filing PAGA complaints that explicitly disclaimed individual claims to avoid arbitration while maintaining representative claims in court. The Courts of Appeal split — 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 'and' as conjunctive. Balderas v. Fresh Start Harvesting (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 533 and Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 69 held them permitted.

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 (2022). The 2003 Legislature that changed 'or' to 'and' could not have intended to regulate a category that would not exist for nineteen years. One cannot intend what one cannot conceptualize.

The California Supreme Court granted review on its own motion — an extraordinary step — on April 16, 2025. Briefing nearing completion. A decision is expected mid-to-late 2026. Defense counsel should preserve both arbitration and standing challenges in every pending case.