
    Martina HERNANDEZ, an individual, appearing individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DMSI STAFFING, LLC; Ross Stores, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 15-15366
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2017  San Francisco, California
    Filed February 16, 2017
    Neal Jordan Fialkow, Esquire, Law Office of Neal Fialkow, Pasadena, CA, Sahag Majarían, II, Esquire, Attorney, Sahag Majarían Ii Law Offices, Tarzana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    David B. Simpson, Gregory Donald Wol-flick, Esquire, Attorney, Wolflick & Simpson, Glendale, CA, for Defendants-Appellants
    Before: BERZON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
      The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. •
    
   MEMORANDUM

Defendants DMSI Staffing, LLC and Ross Stores, Inc. appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to compel arbitration of Martina Hernandez’s representative California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) claim. The Defendants argue Hernandez is bound by her agreement with her employers to arbitrate all disputes regarding her employment on an individual basis.

Under California law, “an employment agreement [that] compels the waiver of representative claims under the PAGA, [ ] is contrary to public policy and unenforceable.” Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Gal.4th 348, 384, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 289, 327 P.3d 129 (2014). The Iska-nian rule is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., 803 F.3d 425, 427 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he Iskanian rule does not stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA’s objectives, and is not preempted.”); see also Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 848 F.3d 1201, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to compel individual arbitration of Hernandez’s PAGA claim.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     