Sierra v. Oakley Sales Corp.

Case Updates

In light of its decision in Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that “the Iskanian rule does not conflict with the obectives of the FAA and is not preempted” Therefore, the plaintiff's waiver of his claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act of 2004 are unenforceable.

In its coalition brief, the Chamber urged the Ninth Circuit to affirm the judgment of the district court, which enforced the plaintiff’s arbitration agreement. The brief argues that under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the arbitration agreements are indeed valid and enforceable as a matter of federal law and the claim, under California’s Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) for alleged wage-and-hour violations must be resolved through arbitration on an individual basis. The brief reasons that if the decision were to be overturned, it would aggravate the intent of contracting parties, undermine their existing agreements, and wear away the benefits of arbitration as an alternative to litigation. The brief points out that collective resolution of claims on an aggregate basis is incompatible with the arbitration as envisioned by the FAA and also lacks the simplicity, informality and expediency that are characteristic of arbitration.

The Chamber filed the brief jointly with the Retail Litigation Center, Inc.

Andrew J. Pincus, Archis Parasharami and Scott M. Noveck of Mayer Brown LLP represented the U.S. Chamber as co-counsel to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.