Can I File a Headless PAGA Claim in California?

Direct answer. In the Fifth District, a California worker may file a Private Attorneys General Act case that brings only nonindividual claims, sometimes called a headless PAGA claim. Castillo v. Belkorp AG, LLP held those claims are not sent to arbitration, including under the PAGA rules that took effect on July 1, 2024. Other Courts of Appeal disagree, and the California Supreme Court is reviewing the split.

Key takeaways

• A headless PAGA action seeks civil penalties for other aggrieved employees, not the plaintiff's own individual PAGA claim.
• The Fifth District declined to follow Leeper v. Shipt, Inc., which held a PAGA action must include both kinds of claims. Leeper is pending in the California Supreme Court.
• The July 1, 2024 amendments still require you to have personally experienced each alleged Labor Code violation within the one-year period.
• Those amendments did not, in this court's view, force you to plead an individual PAGA claim.
• The employer's arbitration agreement was not enforced against the nonindividual claims. This is not a statewide final rule.

What Castillo filed

Steven Castillo worked for Belkorp AG, LLP as a service technician from May 2021 until his termination in late January 2024. When he was hired he signed an arbitration agreement. It required employment disputes to be arbitrated individually and waived class and collective actions. If a court found the waiver unenforceable, class or collective claims had to be brought in court, not before the arbitrator.

In November 2024 he gave the Labor and Workforce Development Agency written notice of alleged Labor Code violations. The agency did not respond within the statutory period, so he became authorized to seek PAGA penalties as the agency's proxy. In February 2025 he sued in Stanislaus County, case No. CV-25-001186. The complaint had one PAGA cause of action. It said he was bringing an exclusively representative action for other current and former aggrieved employees and was not prosecuting individual PAGA claims.

Belkorp moved to compel arbitration. It argued, relying on Leeper, that every PAGA action must include both individual and nonindividual claims, and that the individual claims belonged in arbitration. The trial court denied the motion. Belkorp appealed.

What the court held

On October 23, 2026, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed in a published opinion, Castillo v. Belkorp AG, LLP, F090527. Read the official opinion. Justice Harrell wrote the opinion.

Leeper read the word "and" in the PAGA statute to mean a PAGA action must contain both an individual claim and a nonindividual claim. The Fifth District declined to follow that reading. It followed its own earlier view, and decisions such as CRST and Galarsa, that an aggrieved employee may bring a PAGA action made up only of nonindividual claims. The court noted that review has been granted in Leeper and in related cases, so trial courts have been using the conflict while the Supreme Court considers it.

Belkorp argued the July 1, 2024 amendments closed that path. The amended definition of an aggrieved employee requires the person to have been employed by the alleged violator and to have personally suffered each of the violations alleged during the one-year limitations period. The Fifth District held that this language is about standing and about which violations can support penalties. It does not say a PAGA action must include an individual claim. An employee who personally experienced the violations can still choose to pursue only nonindividual penalties for those same violations.

The court also held the arbitration agreement could not be enforced against that case. Nonindividual PAGA claims are brought as a proxy for the state. The Federal Arbitration Act, as applied in Viking River and Adolph, can split individual and nonindividual claims when both are pleaded. It does not require arbitration of nonindividual claims. If the employee brings only those claims, there is no individual PAGA claim to send to arbitration. Denying the motion did not, in the court's view, violate federal or state policy favoring arbitration.

The denial of the motion to compel was affirmed. Castillo was awarded his costs on appeal. The opinion does not decide whether the Labor Code was violated, and it does not award penalties.

What this means for you

PAGA is not a substitute for your own unpaid wages. Most of a PAGA penalty goes to the state. Your individual wage claim, if you have one, is a different claim with its own deadlines. Our wage and hour page describes overtime, meal breaks, and off-the-clock work. The deadline checker is the place to start on timing.

1. List the violations you personally experienced and the dates. After July 1, 2024, Castillo still requires that personal experience for each alleged violation inside the one-year period.
2. Do not assume a headless case works in every courthouse. This is a Fifth District decision. Leeper went the other way, and the Supreme Court has granted review. A case filed in another district can come out differently.
3. Read the arbitration agreement before you plead. Castillo did not erase arbitration agreements. It held this nonindividual-only PAGA case was not arbitrable. Individual wage claims can still be affected. See when employers try to force arbitration and Labor Code 432.6.
4. Keep pay records. Timecards, schedules, and final paystubs are what make a personally experienced violation specific.
5. Ask about fees separately from PAGA penalties. If we don't win, you owe Starpoint Law nothing: no attorney fee and no case costs. That firm promise is explained in the employment lawyer cost guide. It is not a feature of the PAGA statute.

Castillo is summarized with the other October decisions in our October 2026 roundup.

Frequently asked questions

What is a headless PAGA claim?

A PAGA case that seeks only nonindividual penalties for other aggrieved employees, not the plaintiff's own individual PAGA claim.

Did Castillo allow that case?

Yes, in the Fifth District, including under the rules effective July 1, 2024. The court declined to follow Leeper, which is under review.

Must I have personally suffered the violation?

Yes. You must have personally experienced each alleged violation within the one-year period. The 2024 amendments did not remove that.

Does arbitration apply to a headless PAGA case?

Not in this Fifth District decision. Other courts disagree, and the California Supreme Court has related cases under review.

Is this the rule everywhere in California?

No. Castillo binds the Fifth District. Do not assume another district will follow it while the Supreme Court reviews the conflict.

The information on this website is not legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Talk with Starpoint Law. Call 310-424-9971 or request a free consultation. Starpoint Law is a California-only plaintiff's firm with offices in Century City and Sherman Oaks. If we don't win, you owe Starpoint Law nothing: no attorney fee and no case costs.