Does the Federal Arbitration Act require the complete severance of arbitrable individual PAGA claims from non-individual PAGA claims, with the individual PAGA claims committed to a separate proceeding?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 638 (2022), this Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate individual claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act codified in Labor Code section 2698, et seg. (“PAGA”). Id. In so doing, this Court abrogated California’s “indivisibility” rule, which previously held that actions under the PAGA “cannot be divided into individual and non-individual claims.” Id. at 660-62; see Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 327 P.3d 129 (Cal. 2014). Instead, this Court held that the arbitrable individual PAGA claim must be “pared away” from the non-individual claim and be “committed to a separate proceeding.” Jd. Despite this Court’s holding, in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 532 P.3d 682 (2023), the California Supreme Court held that PAGA claims constitute “a single action” such that the individual claim compelled to arbitration is not “pared away” but remains linked to the non-individual claim pending in the court for standing purposes. Jd. at 1124. Relying on Adolph, both the Ninth Circuit and California courts continue to refuse to sever the arbitrable individual claim from the non-individual claim. The question presented is: Does the Federal Arbitration Act require the complete severance of arbitrable individual PAGA claims from non-individual PAGA claims, with the individual PAGA claims committed to a separate proceeding?