Diaz v. Macy's West Stores, Inc.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date: April 5, 2023

Issue on Appeal: Whether an arbitration agreement that excludes class and collective actions nonetheless requires arbitration of representative claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

RLC’s Position: The RLC argues that arbitration is a matter of consent and that courts cannot require businesses to arbitrate representative PAGA claims absent clear agreement to do so. Because PAGA claims function like class or collective actions—aggregating large numbers of claims and creating significant liability exposure—forcing arbitration of those claims undermines the efficiency and cost-saving benefits of arbitration. The RLC further contends that agreements excluding class and collective actions should be understood to exclude representative PAGA claims, and that requiring otherwise would disrupt established expectations across the retail industry.

Other Amici: National Retail Federation.

Counsel: Steven P. Lehotsky, Andrew B. Davis, and Drew F. Waldbeser, Lehotsky Keller LLP.