Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Sorokunov v. NetApp: An Arbitration Loss Precluded PAGA Standing on the Same Issues

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 20, 2026

Sorokunov examines the downstream effect of a final individual arbitration award on representative PAGA standing when both proceedings depend on the same alleged Labor Code violations.

Commission and PAGA claims followed a resignation

A salesperson alleged that NetApp unlawfully capped commissions under a windfall provision. He asserted individual Labor Code claims and sought PAGA penalties after providing statutory notice.

The individual claims went to arbitration

The court compelled arbitration under the parties’ agreement. The arbitrator rejected each individual claim, and the superior court confirmed the award while the representative PAGA theory remained in court.

Issue preclusion resolved aggrieved-employee status

PAGA standing required the plaintiff to have suffered a Labor Code violation. Because the confirmed award necessarily decided the same alleged violations against him, issue preclusion prevented relitigation of that predicate even though the State was not a party to arbitration.

Disposition

The court affirmed judgment for NetApp, including confirmation of the award and judgment on the pleadings. The result depended on the identity and final resolution of the issues, not a categorical rule that arbitration always extinguishes PAGA standing.

Key takeaways

• Map the exact issues shared by individual and PAGA claims.
• A confirmed award can have preclusive consequences beyond arbitration.
• PAGA standing still requires an underlying violation suffered by the plaintiff.
• Preserve objections to arbitration and award confirmation at each stage.