Whether the FAA requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement that includes a pre-dispute waiver of representative claims, including under PAGA

QUESTION PRESENTED This Petition for Writ of Certiorari (“Petition”) seeks review of an issue of first impression before this Court involving the irreconcilable conflicts between California courts’ interpretation and application of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code section 2698, et seg.) (““PAGA”) that, like a class or collective action, allows aggrieved employees to seek monetary recovery on a representative basis on behalf of other employees. Petitioner YourMechanic, Inc. (“YourMechanic” or “Petitioner”) and Respondent Jonathan Provost (“Provost” or “Respondent”) entered into a binding and enforceable arbitration agreement under the FAA. That agreement requires not only bilateral arbitration of all claims but also arbitration of all threshold issues -— including disputes over arbitrability and whether Respondent was properly classified as an independent contractor. Nevertheless, Respondent sued Petitioner in court and asserted a representative claim on behalf of hundreds of others, contending the pre-dispute waiver of his representative PAGA claim is unenforceable under California law. California courts at all levels hold that such a pre-dispute waiver in an arbitration agreement violates California public policy. They have also held that this state law-created prohibition of pre-dispute waivers is not preempted by the FAA. California’s courts have expanded this flawed reasoning in this case, holding that a clear and unmistakable ii delegation clause requiring arbitration of all threshold disputes is unenforceable and that the predicate issue of whether Respondent was an independent contractor is not arbitrable because Respondent filed a PAGA claim, notwithstanding the fact that only an employee may pursue a PAGA claim on behalf of the State of California (“State”) under the plain language of the PAGA statute. The questions presented are: (1) Whether the FAA requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement that includes a pre-dispute waiver of representative claims, including under PAGA. (2) Whether under the FAA a dispute regarding the arbitrability of a plaintiffs independent contractor classification in a PAGA action must be resolved by an arbitrator pursuant to a valid and enforceable delegation clause. (3) Whether under the FAA a dispute regarding a plaintiff's independent contractor classification is a private contractual dispute that must be arbitrated before the plaintiff may pursue a PAGA action as an “aggrieved employee” where the parties have agreed to arbitrate that threshold dispute.