The California Arbitration Act governs procedure in state court in compelling arbitration even when the FAA governs the substantive rules regarding arbitration.  Under CCP 1281.2(c), a trial court has discretion to deny arbitration if a party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action with a third party, “arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on common issue of law or fact.”  Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in compelling arbitration of plaintiff’s individual wage and hour claim against employer even though there was a PAGA suit pending against employer over some of the same alleged wage and hour violations.  An individual suit and a PAGA action do not arise from the same transaction.  And denying arbitration would not further the statutory purpose of avoiding conflicting determinations, since the PAGA claim was pending in a different superior court, so there would be different triers of fact (and the possibility of conflicting results) in any event.