Uber Argues That PAGA Has a Third Standing Requirement and That the Defendant Doesn't Meet It

C.

Uber also argues that PAGA contains a third standing requirement — the action must “be . . . brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees” (§ 2699, subd. (a)) — and that Adolph cannot satisfy this requirement with respect to non-individual claims upon being compelled to arbitrate individual claims.

But even if we were to agree with Uber’s reading of the statute, Adolph would have standing. Adolph filed a PAGA complaint seeking recovery “on behalf of himself . . . and other current or former employees.” (§ 2699, subd. (a).) “Even though Viking [River] requires the trial court to bifurcate and order individual PAGA claims to arbitration when an appropriate arbitration agreement exists, the individual PAGA claims in arbitration remain part of the same lawsuit as the representative claims remaining in court. Thus, plaintiffs are pursuing a single PAGA action ‘on behalf of [themselves] and other current or former employees,’ albeit across two fora.” (Piplack, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 1292.)