After removal, defendants moved to compel arbitration on the basis that Urbino had executed an Arbitration Agreement agreeing to arbitrate all claims against the company, including PAGA and representative action claims. The District Court maintained its federal jurisdiction, and denied defendants' motion to compel arbitration, distinguishing representative PAGA action waivers from class action waivers enforced by the U.S. Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. Defendants appealed the District Court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration, and Urbino cross-appealed the District Court's refusal to remand the case to state court. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the PAGA dispute, and remanded the action to state court for resolution – leaving undecided the issue of whether an arbitration agreement's waiver of a PAGA representative action claim is enforceable. The latter issue is pending before the California Supreme Court in Iskanian v.