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.

First, Uber contends that unless Adolph’s non-individual claims are dismissed, his PAGA action will run afoul of Viking River

Uber makes several arguments in urging that a PAGA plaintiff loses standing to litigate non-individual claims in court

Next, Uber contends that a PAGA plaintiff must have a “financial stake in the outcome of the case”

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

Uber does not explain why pursuing some remedies in arbitration and others in court requires the PAGA action to be treated like an action severed...