Leeper v. Shipt: California Supreme Court Hears Headless PAGA Arbitration Fight on November 3

Leeper v. Shipt goes to oral argument before the California Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, where the justices will decide whether a worker can file a "headless" PAGA lawsuit — one that pleads only representative claims for other employees — and thereby keep the entire case out of individual arbitration. The answer, due by about February 1, 2027 under the state's 90-day rule, will decide whether employers can still use an Arbitration Agreement to split off and arbitrate the plaintiff's own PAGA claim, and it will control dozens of stalled motions to compel across California.

The case, No. S289305, is the second matter on the court's 9:00 a.m. calendar in San Francisco, and the session will be livestreamed. It arrives with unusual momentum. The court took the case on its own motion in April 2025, after a split had already opened among the Courts of Appeal; it has since parked at least two contrary appellate decisions behind it; and in the final week of October 2026 another appellate panel ruled — applying the 2024 PAGA amendments — that a representative-only case can proceed in court. Late-October docket activity in Leeper itself, including a supplemental brief on new authority filed October 23 and a notice of new authority filed October 26, shows the parties still jockeying over which recent decisions the justices should weigh.

This article explains what Leeper v. Shipt is about, how the split developed, what the justices are being asked, the arguments on each side, how the 2024 reforms complicate the picture, when a decision will come, and what each plausible outcome would mean for employers, plaintiffs' counsel, and arbitration providers.

What is Leeper v. Shipt about?

Leeper v. Shipt is about whether a plaintiff under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) can avoid arbitration by suing only on behalf of other workers. Christina Leeper signed an independent contractor agreement with Shipt, Inc., the same-day delivery company owned by Target Corporation, along with an Arbitration Agreement that required her to arbitrate personal claims. In March 2024 she filed a PAGA action alleging that Shipt misclassified her and other shoppers as independent contractors.

Her complaint was drafted with care. It contained a single PAGA cause of action, pleaded only in a representative capacity, and expressly did not seek penalties for violations Leeper herself suffered. Shipt moved to compel arbitration of Leeper's individual PAGA claim anyway, arguing that every PAGA action contains one whether or not the plaintiff pleads it. The trial court accepted Leeper's framing and denied the Motion to Compel Arbitration.

The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division One, reversed in December 2024. In Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1001, the panel read Labor Code section 2699(a) — which then authorized a civil action "on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees" — to mean that any PAGA action necessarily includes both an individual claim and a representative claim. It directed the trial court to compel arbitration of Leeper's individual PAGA claim and to stay the representative claim until the arbitration concluded. The opinion noted that Leeper did not contend her individual claim fell outside the scope of her agreement; her only argument against arbitration was that she had not pleaded one.

What is a headless PAGA claim?

A headless PAGA claim is a PAGA lawsuit in which the plaintiff seeks civil penalties only for Labor Code violations suffered by other employees, deliberately omitting the "individual" component — the penalties tied to violations against the plaintiff personally. The label comes from the image of a representative action with its "head," the named plaintiff's own claim, cut off.

The tactic exists because of how the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court have divided PAGA claims since 2022. Under that framework, the individual component can be sent to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), while the representative component stays in court. If the individual component does not exist at all, there is nothing to compel, and the whole case remains before a judge — with no stay pending arbitration and no risk that an arbitrator's findings on the plaintiff's own claim will undercut her standing.

How Viking River and Adolph set up the Leeper question

Two decisions frame the dispute, and understanding them is necessary to see why the headless strategy matters.

In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the FAA preempts California's former rule, from Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, to the extent it barred dividing a PAGA action into individual and non-individual claims through an arbitration agreement. That was a form of FAA Preemption: employers could enforce agreements requiring the individual piece to be arbitrated. The Court went further and suggested that, once the individual claim was compelled, the plaintiff would lack standing to pursue the remainder.

In Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1104, the California Supreme Court rejected that standing analysis as a matter of state law. A plaintiff whose individual PAGA claim is compelled to arbitration remains an "aggrieved employee" with standing to litigate the non-individual claims in court, and the trial court may stay the court proceedings while the arbitration runs.

After Adolph, the practical shape of a PAGA case with an enforceable arbitration agreement became: individual claim to arbitration, representative claim stayed in court, then resumed. Employers still gained something — delay, an early merits test before an arbitrator, and the possibility that a defense win on the plaintiff's own claim would later be argued as preclusive. Plaintiffs' counsel responded by dropping the individual claim from the pleading altogether. Leeper is the vehicle for deciding whether that pleading choice works.

The appellate split the Supreme Court must resolve

By mid-2025 the Courts of Appeal had divided, and the Supreme Court has since frozen the contrary decisions while it decides Leeper.

Case	Court	Date	Holding on headless PAGA	Current status
Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., 107 Cal.App.5th 1001 (B339670)	2d Dist., Div. 1	Dec. 2024	Every PAGA action includes an individual claim; compel arbitration and stay the rest	Review granted Apr. 16, 2025 (S289305); argued Nov. 3, 2026
Rodriguez v. Packers Sanitation Services (D083400)	4th Dist.	Feb. 26, 2025	Trial court must accept the plaintiff's description of the claim's scope; denial of motion to compel affirmed	Review granted May 14, 2025 (S290182), held for Leeper
CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court, 112 Cal.App.5th 872 (F088569)	5th Dist.	2025	Statute ambiguous; headless action may proceed under pre-2024 PAGA; post-amendment version expressly not decided	Review granted Sept. 17, 2025 (S292005), held for Leeper
Ruling reported by Law360 on Oct. 27, 2026 (agricultural equipment employer; former service technician)	Court of Appeal	Late Oct. 2026	Representative-only claims permitted even after 2024 amendments; denial of motion to compel affirmed	Recently filed; review status unknown

At least one other appellate decision in early 2025 followed Leeper's reading of the statute. The Rodriguez court's approach was narrower than an outright rejection of Leeper: it held that a trial court deciding a motion to compel should take the plaintiff at her word about what her PAGA claim includes, and it declined to decide the broader statutory question. CRST went further, finding the statutory language ambiguous and resolving the ambiguity in favor of PAGA's enforcement purpose. In CRST, the plaintiff, Sanchez, had his individual claims sent to arbitration, then voluntarily dismissed them and pressed on with the representative claim alone.

Because Rodriguez and CRST are under review, they cannot be cited as binding precedent while Leeper is pending; under California's rules on grants of review they carry only persuasive value and can be cited to show the conflict.

What exactly will the justices decide?

The April 16, 2025 order limited briefing and argument to two questions. First, whether every PAGA action necessarily includes both individual and non-individual PAGA claims, regardless of whether the complaint specifically alleges individual claims. Second, whether a plaintiff may choose to bring only a non-individual PAGA action.

The questions are linked but not identical. The court could hold that a PAGA action does not automatically include an individual claim (rejecting the Court of Appeal's statutory reading) and then decide separately whether a plaintiff is free to omit it. Or it could hold that the individual claim is inherent and cannot be pleaded away, which would end the headless strategy statewide for the version of the statute at issue.

The arguments on each side

For Leeper and the worker-side amici. The Impact Fund filed an amicus brief on January 7, 2026, joined by the National Employment Law Project, Asian Law Caucus, Bet Tzedek, Centro Legal de la Raza, Legal Aid at Work, Wage Justice Center, Western Center on Law and Poverty, and Worksafe. Their core argument is that the Court of Appeal's reading undermines the Legislature's intent: PAGA deputizes workers to recover penalties for the state, a plaintiff is the master of her complaint, and nothing in the statute forces her to seek penalties for her own injuries as a condition of enforcing the law on behalf of others. CRST's reasoning — that the text is ambiguous and PAGA's remedial, enforcement-driven purpose should break the tie — supplies the doctrinal path.

For Shipt, Target, and business amici. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Retail Litigation Center filed amicus briefs urging the court to hold that plaintiffs may not bring headless PAGA actions. Their position tracks the Court of Appeal: the statutory phrase authorizing an action on behalf of the plaintiff "and" other employees describes a claim that necessarily includes the plaintiff's own, and a pleading device should not be allowed to circumvent an arbitration agreement that both Viking River and Adolph say may be enforced as to the individual claim. Shipt has asked the court to affirm the order compelling arbitration.

The late-October filings. The docket shows a supplemental brief on new authority filed October 23, 2026, which discusses recently decided cases including Prime Healthcare Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (Gavriiloglou) — a Court of Appeal decision holding that an arbitrator's finding on an individual Labor Code claim did not preclude the representative PAGA action — and the Ninth Circuit's April 2026 decision in O'Dell v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. A notice of new authority followed on October 26 flagging a decision published Friday, October 23. Expect the justices to probe how those decisions, and the post-amendment appellate ruling, bear on the questions presented.

Does Leeper v. Shipt apply to PAGA claims filed after the 2024 reforms?

Probably not directly, and that is the most underappreciated feature of the case. Leeper filed in March 2024, before the 2024 PAGA reform legislation (AB 2288 and SB 92) took effect. Those amendments apply to PAGA notices filed on or after June 19, 2024, and they rewrote key parts of section 2699, including the standing provision, which now requires that the plaintiff personally suffered a violation within PAGA's one-year limitations period.

The reform package also changed the economics: the employee share of recovered penalties rose from 25 percent to 35 percent, and new caps limit penalties to 15 percent of the otherwise available amount for employers that took all reasonable steps to comply before receiving notice, or 30 percent for those that did so within 60 days afterward.

Because Leeper construes the pre-amendment statute, a decision for Shipt would not automatically resolve headless pleading under the new text, and a decision for Leeper would not automatically bless it either. CRST expressly reserved the post-amendment question. The October 2026 appellate decision is the first reported ruling to confront it, holding that the amendments narrowed standing but did not require employees to pursue individual claims alongside representative ones, which left nothing for the employer to arbitrate. If the justices write broadly — about what a PAGA claim fundamentally is — the opinion will govern both regimes. If they write narrowly about the old text, the fight over post-reform cases will start again in the Courts of Appeal.

Can a PAGA plaintiff avoid arbitration by dropping individual claims?

Today the answer depends on where the case is pending and which statute applies. Trial courts are divided: the Second District's Leeper opinion, though under review, may be cited for persuasive value and supports compelling arbitration of an individual claim whether or not it is pleaded, while the Rodriguez, CRST, and October 2026 decisions support letting a representative-only complaint stay in court. Some trial courts have instead deferred ruling on motions to compel until the Supreme Court rules. After Leeper is decided, the answer will be uniform across the state for the pre-amendment statute and likely persuasive, if not controlling, for post-reform cases.

When will the California Supreme Court decide Leeper v. Shipt?

The decision is due within 90 days after the case is submitted, which ordinarily happens at the close of oral argument. Article VI, section 19 of the California Constitution bars a judge from drawing salary while a cause remains undecided more than 90 days after submission, and the court treats that as a firm deadline. If Leeper is submitted on November 3, 2026, the opinion should issue no later than about February 1, 2027. The court can vacate submission and order supplemental briefing, which resets the clock, but it does so rarely.

Leeper v. Shipt timeline

Date	Event
March 2024	Leeper files a representative-only PAGA action against Shipt
June 19, 2024	2024 PAGA amendments begin applying to new notices
December 2024	Court of Appeal (2d Dist., Div. 1) reverses denial of motion to compel
February 26, 2025	Rodriguez (4th Dist.) affirms denial of motion to compel
April 16, 2025	Supreme Court grants review on its own motion (S289305)
May 14, 2025	Review granted and held in Rodriguez (S290182)
September 17, 2025	Review granted and held in CRST Expedited (S292005)
January 7, 2026	Impact Fund coalition and business amici file briefs
October 23 and 26, 2026	Supplemental brief and notice of new authority filed
October 27, 2026	Law360 reports post-amendment appellate ruling allowing representative-only claims
November 3, 2026	Oral argument, 9:00 a.m. session, San Francisco
About February 1, 2027	Outer limit for decision under the 90-day rule

What happens to pending headless PAGA cases while Leeper is decided?

They wait. Rodriguez and CRST are formally held pending Leeper, and once Leeper is decided the Supreme Court will typically dispose of held cases by transferring them back to the Courts of Appeal with directions to reconsider in light of the new opinion. In trial courts, some pending motions to compel in representative-only PAGA cases have been continued or stayed, and parties that lost such motions have filed appeals that will be measured against the eventual holding. Employers and plaintiffs alike should expect a wave of renewed motions within weeks of the opinion.

Three ways the court could rule

Outcome	What the court holds	Effect on pending cases
Affirm (Shipt wins)	Every PAGA action includes an individual claim that cannot be pleaded away	Employers renew motions to compel; individual claims go to arbitration and representative claims are stayed under Adolph
Reverse (Leeper wins)	A plaintiff may bring only a non-individual action	Representative-only cases proceed in court without arbitration; arbitration agreements lose most of their value against PAGA
Narrow ruling	Statute ambiguous, or decision limited to pre-amendment PAGA	Pre-reform cases resolved; post-reform pleading litigated anew, starting from the October 2026 appellate ruling

An affirmance would not necessarily end in arbitration for the representative claim; under Adolph, the non-individual claims would return to court after the arbitration. But it would restore the sequencing advantage employers have relied on since 2022. A reversal would also leave open whether the FAA itself requires a different answer — an argument that business amici have previewed and that could set up a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, though Viking River addressed waivers and division of claims rather than how a plaintiff may plead.

What it means for employers, plaintiffs' counsel, and arbitration providers

For employers and drafters. Arbitration programs that rely on compelling the individual PAGA claim should be reviewed for a Leeper reversal scenario. Clauses typically include a Class Action Waiver, a waiver of representative PAGA claims (unenforceable as to non-individual claims after Adolph), and a Severability Clause; drafters should confirm that the agreement's treatment of PAGA works under both outcomes and that it does not depend on the individual claim being present. Employers defending post-reform cases should track the October 2026 appellate ruling closely, because it is the leading authority on the amended statute until the Supreme Court says otherwise.

For plaintiffs' counsel. A reversal would validate representative-only pleading as the standard way to keep PAGA cases out of arbitration, and the 2024 reforms' one-year personal-violation standing rule would remain the main gatekeeping requirement. An affirmance would mean each PAGA case with an enforceable agreement begins with an individual arbitration, so counsel will weigh that cost, the prospect of a stay, and preclusion risk — now partly mitigated by Prime Healthcare's holding that an arbitrator's ruling on an individual Labor Code claim does not bar the representative action.

For arbitration providers and Mass Arbitration practice. If Shipt prevails, every PAGA case against an employer with an arbitration program generates at least one individual arbitration, and in large workforces with coordinated filings those individual PAGA arbitrations could multiply, with the employer typically paying the filing and arbitrator fees under the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and JAMS employment rules. If Leeper prevails, PAGA disputes move largely out of the provider docket and into court, removing one source of employment arbitration volume.

For workers and the state. PAGA penalties are split between the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and aggrieved employees, now 65/35 after the reforms. A ruling that keeps representative claims in court without an arbitration detour speeds the path to those penalties; a ruling for Shipt adds a step but, after Adolph, does not extinguish the representative claim.

FAQ

What is Leeper v. Shipt about?

It asks whether a California worker suing under PAGA can plead only representative claims for other employees and thereby avoid having her own individual claim compelled to arbitration. The Court of Appeal said no in December 2024; the California Supreme Court reviews that ruling on November 3, 2026.

When is the Leeper v. Shipt oral argument?

Oral argument is Tuesday, November 3, 2026, as the second case in the California Supreme Court's 9:00 a.m. session in San Francisco, and it will be livestreamed.

When will the California Supreme Court decide Leeper v. Shipt?

Within 90 days of submission under article VI, section 19 of the California Constitution. If the case is submitted at argument, the decision should issue by about February 1, 2027.

Does Leeper v. Shipt apply to PAGA claims filed after the 2024 reforms?

Not automatically. Leeper's case was filed in March 2024 under the pre-amendment statute, and the 2024 amendments apply to notices filed on or after June 19, 2024. Unless the court writes broadly, post-reform headless pleading will be decided separately, with an October 2026 appellate ruling currently allowing it.

What is a headless PAGA claim?

A PAGA action that seeks penalties only for violations against other employees and omits the plaintiff's own individual claim, so that there is nothing for the employer to compel to arbitration.

How does Leeper relate to Viking River and Adolph v. Uber?

Viking River (2022) allowed employers to compel arbitration of the individual PAGA claim, and Adolph (2023) held the plaintiff keeps standing to litigate the representative claim in court afterward. Leeper decides whether a plaintiff can sidestep that sequence by never pleading an individual claim in the first place.