Whether a mutual pre-dispute agreement to arbitrate all claims arising from the employment relationship is enforceable as to PAGA claims asserted by an employee-plaintiff

QUESTION PRESENTED This case arises from the same scenario that was recently addressed in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1578, 596 U.S.__, 142 S. Ct. 1906 (June 15, 2022). California Petitioners ForwardLine Financial, LLC, and ForwardLine Payment Services, LLC (collectively “ForwardLine”) hired Respondent Brandon Ahlmann, and the parties agreed to arbitrate “any and all claims” arising from that employment relationship” and to “pursue arbitration solely in an individual capacity, and not as a representative or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding.” When Ahlmann was later fired, he filed a complaint against ForwardLine under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (““PAGA”), Cal. Labor Code § 2698 et seq. The California courts rejected ForwardLine’s efforts to compel arbitration based on their conclusion that Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, 59 Cal.4th 348 (2014), precluded arbitration of PAGA claims. Subsequently, this Court decided Viking River Cruises and held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts Iskanian to the extent the latter bars enforcement of agreements to arbitrate individual PAGA claims brought by the employee who claims to have suffered the Labor Code violations. The question presented is: Whether, in light of Viking River Cruises, a mutual pre-dispute agreement to arbitrate all claims arising from the employment relationship is enforceable as to PAGA claims asserted by an employee-plaintiff arising ii QUESTION PRESENTED Continued from Labor Code violations allegedly committed against him, and whether the intervening development of this holding in Viking River Cruises calls for the Court to grant the writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand the case for reconsideration (“GVR”). iii PARTIES The following individuals or entities are or were