Whether state courts can circumvent the Supreme Court's Viking River Cruises decision by refusing to dismiss non-individual Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims after individual claims are compelled to arbitration

No question identified. : extension of time, Lyft’s petition for a writ of certiorari would be due on December 12, 2023. Counsel for respondent Million Seifu has no objection to this application. This Court’s jurisdiction will be invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257. 1. This case involves the preemptive effect of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., on state-law claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. Two Terms ago, applying the FAA, this Court divided PAGA claims subject to an arbitration agreement into two new categories of claims: “individual” claims and “nonindividual” claims. Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. __, 142 S. Ct. 1906, 1924-25 (2022). The Court held that individual claims must be arbitrated, while non-individual claims must be dismissed. Id. at 1925. The latter holding— that the proper disposition of a non-individual claim is a dismissal—quickly became a dead letter in California. In Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that non-individual claims should not be dismissed; instead, they should be stayed or litigated in court. 14 Cal.5th 1104, 1114 (2023). Lower courts in California have applied the same logic (including here in Lyft’s case) and bypassed this Court’s disposition in Viking River. The question at hand is whether, in deviating from this Court’s direction to dismiss non-individual claims, California courts have violated federal law, including the rules in Viking River and in the FAA. 2. Lyft requests a 30-day extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. Undersigned counsel received client authorization to prepare a petition on the evening of November 14, approximately one month before the December 12 filing deadline. Between now and then lies the Thanksgiving holiday. In addition, undersigned counsel has other significant obligations in the days and weeks leading up to the current filing deadline: a. preparing reply briefs supporting post-trial motions due November 27 in Skye Orthobiologics, LLC v. CTM Biomedical, LLC, No. 20-3444 (C.D. Cal.); b. preparing a brief opposing summary adjudication due December 7 in McDougall v. Lyft, Inc., No. CGC-21-596766 (S.F. County Superior Court); and c. consulting for Lyft on two trials, Kavius Harris v. Gary Smith, No. 19STCV32062 in Los Angeles County Superior Court (starts November 27), and Desmond Buksh v. Lyft, Inc., No. 34-2021-00308727 in Sacramento County Superior Court (starts December 11). For these reasons, Lyft respectfully requests that the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case be extended by 30 days, to January 11, 2024. November 16, 2023 “DIL. submitted, _ K. i FELIX SHAFIR Horvitz & Levy LLP 3601 WEST OLIVE AVENUE, 8TH FLOOR BURBANK, CALIFORNIA 91505 (818) 995-0800 email: