Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana
Term: 2021
Important Dates
Argued: March 30, 2022
Decided: June 15, 2022
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
8-1
Majority
Samuel Alito • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch; Chief Justice John Roberts (Parts I and III); Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett (Part III)
Concurring
Sonia Sotomayor; Amy Coney Barrett • Chief Justice John Roberts[1] • Brett Kavanaugh (concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)
Dissenting
Clarence Thomas

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 15, 2022, during the court's October 2021-2022 term. The case was argued before the court on March 30, 2022.

In an 8-1 ruling, the court reversed the California Second District Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts Iskanian because it precludes division of California Private Attorneys General Act lawsuits into individual and non-individual claims through an arbitration agreement. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined in full by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and joined as to all but the footnote by Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.[2] Click here for more information about the ruling.


HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Angie Moriana brought a representative action—an action in which a plaintiff brings a lawsuit on behalf of others—against Viking River Cruises, Inc. (Viking) for violations of California labor code. Viking moved to dismiss the action, arguing that an arbitration agreement Moriana had signed as a condition of her employment required that all employment disputes be arbitrated. The trial court denied Viking's motion citing the California Supreme Court's precedent in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014), finding arbitration agreements that waive the right to bring representative actions under California law unenforceable. After unsuccessful appeals to the California appellate courts, Viking appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the theory that the California Supreme Court's holding in Iskanian was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in EPIC Systems Corp. v. Lewis. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The issue: The case concerned a potential conflict between federal and state arbitration laws in certain types of arbitration proceedings.
  • The question presented: "Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under [the California Private Attorneys General Act]."[3]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the California Second District Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the California Second District Court of Appeal. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 15, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the California Second District Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
    • March 30, 2022: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • December 15, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • May 10, 2021: Viking River Cruises appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • December 9, 2020: The California Supreme Court denied Viking River Cruises' petition for review.
    • September 18, 2020: The California Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the state trial court's order denying Viking River Cruises' motion to compel arbitration.

    Background

    Angie Moriana worked as a sales representative for Viking River Cruises, Inc. (Viking) and signed an arbitration agreement as a condition of her employment. The agreement "required Moriana to waive any right to bring a class, collective, representative, or private attorney general action" for any disputes arising from her employment with Viking.[4] It also contained a provision that gave the arbitrator power to address disagreements over the validity or scope of the agreement itself.

    Moriana sued Viking in California state court "on behalf of the state and all other similarly situated aggrieved employees, alleging various Labor Code violations in a single cause of action" under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).[4] Viking moved to dismiss Moriana's suit and force her to arbitrate her claim, based on the arbitration agreement Moriana signed.[4]

    The trial court denied Viking's motion to dismiss and allowed Moriana's claim to proceed in court. The court cited the California Supreme Court's 2014 holding in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC for precedent, which held that arbitration agreements that waive the right to bring representative actions under PAGA are unenforceable. A representative action is one in which a single representative—in this case, Moriana—brings an action on behalf of similarly-situated parties. Viking argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in EPIC Systems Corp. v. Lewis (2018), which instructed federal courts to enforce individual arbitration agreements on their terms, overruled the California Supreme Court's holding in Iskanian. The trial court rejected this argument, finding that the interested party in PAGA representative claims is the state, not the individual defendant. In other words, the plaintiff is working as a proxy for the state and is not seeking individual relief on their own behalf. They are seeking the "recovery of civil penalties that otherwise would have been assessed and collected by the [state's] Labor Workforce Development Agency."[4]

    Because the trial court found that the issue litigated in Epic was distinct from the facts of Iskanian, it held that Iskanian remained good law and applied it to the present case. On appeal, the California Second District Court of Appeal affirmed.[4] After the California Supreme Court denied Viking's request to take up the case, Viking appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on May 10, 2021.[3]

    Question presented

    The petitioner presented the following question to the court:[3]

    Question presented:
    “ Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under [the California Private Attorneys General Act].[5] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[7]

    Outcome

    In an 8-1 ruling, the court reversed the California Second District Court of Appeal's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts Iskanian because it prevents the division of California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuits into individual and non-individual claims through an arbitration agreement. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined in full by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and joined as to all but the footnote by Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.[2]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:[2]

    “ ... We hold that the FAA preempts the rule of Iskanian insofar as it precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate. This holding compels reversal in this case. The agreement between Viking and Moriana purported to waive “representative” PAGA claims. Under Iskanian, this provision was invalid if construed as a wholesale waiver of PAGA claims. And under our holding, that aspect of Iskanian is not preempted by the FAA, so the agreement remains invalid insofar as it is interpreted in that manner. But the severability clause in the agreement provides that if the waiver provision is invalid in some respect, any “portion” of the waiver that remains valid must still be “enforced in arbitration.” Based on this clause, Viking was entitled to enforce the agreement insofar as it mandated arbitration of Moriana’s individual PAGA claim. The lower courts refused to do so based on the rule that PAGA actions cannot be divided into individual and non-individual claims. Under our holding, that rule is preempted, so Viking is entitled to compel arbitration of Moriana’s individual claim.


    The remaining question is what the lower courts should have done with Moriana’s non-individual claims. Under our holding in this case, those claims may not be dismissed simply because they are “representative.” Iskanian’s rule remains valid to that extent. But as we see it, PAGA provides no mechanism to enable a court to adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has been committed to a separate proceeding. Under PAGA’s standing requirement, a plaintiff can maintain non-individual PAGA claims in an action only by virtue of also maintaining an individual claim in that action. See Cal. Lab. Code Ann. §§2699(a), (c). When an employee’s own dispute is pared away from a PAGA action, the employee is no different from a member of the general public, and PAGA does not allow such persons to maintain suit. See Kim, 9 Cal. 5th, at 90, 459 P. 3d, at 1133 (“PAGA’s standing requirement was meant to be a departure from the ‘general public’ . . . stand- ing originally allowed” under other California statutes). As a result, Moriana lacks statutory standing to continue to maintain her non-individual claims in court, and the correct course is to dismiss her remaining claims.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Samuel Alito

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Sotomayor

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[2]

    “ I join the Court’s opinion in full. ... In its analysis of the parties’ contentions, the Court also details several important limitations on the preemptive effect of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). ... As a whole, the Court’s opinion makes clear that California is not powerless to address its sovereign concern that it cannot adequately enforce its Labor Code without assistance from private attorneys general.


    The Court concludes that the FAA poses no bar to the adjudication of respondent Angie Moriana’s “non-individual” PAGA claims, but that PAGA itself “provides no mechanism to enable a court to adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has been committed to a separate proceeding.” Ante, at 21. Thus, the Court reasons, based on available guidance from California courts, that Moriana lacks “statutory standing” under PAGA to litigate her “non-individual” claims separately in state court. Ibid. Of course, if this Court’s understanding of state law is wrong, California courts, in an appropriate case, will have the last word. Alternatively, if this Court’s understanding is right, the California Legislature is free to modify the scope of statutory standing under PAGA within state and federal constitutional limits. With this understanding, I join the Court’s opinion.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Justice Barrett

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined in full by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and joined as to all but the footnote by Chief Justice John Roberts.

    In her concurrence, Justice Barrett wrote:[2]

    “ I join Part III of the Court’s opinion. I agree that reversal is required under our precedent because PAGA’s procedure is akin to other aggregation devices that cannot be imposed on a party to an arbitration agreement. ... I would say nothing more than that. The discussion in Parts II and IV of the Court’s opinion is unnecessary to the result, and much of it addresses disputed state-law questions as well as arguments not pressed or passed upon in this case.[8][5] ”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

    In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote:[2]

    “ I continue to adhere to the view that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §1 et seq., does not apply to proceedings in state courts. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265, 285–297 (1995) (THOMAS, J., dis- senting); see also Kindred Nursing Centers L. P. v. Clark, 581 U. S. 246, 257 (2017) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (collecting cases). Accordingly, the FAA does not require California’s courts to enforce an arbitration agreement that forbids an employee to invoke the State’s Private Attorneys General Act. On that basis, I would affirm the judgment of the California Court of Appeal.[5] ”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2021-2022

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[9]

    The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.[10] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.[11]

    The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Joined the concurrence as to all but the footnote
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 U.S. Supreme Court, Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, decided June 15, 2022
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana: PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI," filed May 10, 2021
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 California Second District Court of Appeal, Moriana v. Viking River Cruises, Inc., decided September 18, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued March 30, 2022
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued March 30, 2022
    8. ↑ The same is true of Part I.
    9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
    10. ↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
    11. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Viking_River_Cruises,_Inc._v._Moriana&oldid=9117235"