Eden Anderson – Class Action Defense

December 11, 2025December 11, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

California Federal Court Holds That Minors Can Be Bound To Arbitration In A Class Action Context

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Eden E. Anderson, and Rebecca S. Bjork

Duane Morris Takeaways: On December 9, 2025, Judge Yvonne Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held in Williams, et al. v. Moon Active Ltd., Case No. 4:25-CV-01626 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025), that when a minor to a contract states her intent to disaffirm “all contracts” with a defendant, such disaffirmance of a contract “as a whole” presents an issue of contract validity for an arbitrator to resolve, and is not a specific challenge to an arbitration clause’s delegation provision that a court must resolve. Under the Williams decision, if a minor wants a court to rule upon the validity of a delegation provision contained within an arbitration agreement, then the minor must specifically disaffirm the delegation provision and not merely the whole of the contract within which the delegation provision appears. As such, this ruling is a required read for corporate counsel managing litigation risks through arbitration program.

Case Background

D.K., a minor, used the defendant’s Coin Master mobile game, which allowed users to purchase coins to spin a slot machine feature. When D.K. created an account to play Coin Master, a pop up screen asked her to confirm she was over 18 and that she had read and agreed to Terms and Conditions (Terms) applicable to her usage, with a hyperlink to those Terms also furnished. The opening paragraph of the Terms mentioned in bold that the Terms included an arbitration clause, and provided a link directly to the section of the Terms containing the arbitration clause. The arbitration clause included a delegation provision whereby any disputes concerning the enforceability, validity, scope or severability were delegated to the arbitrator to resolve.

D.K.’s mother filed a class action lawsuit on her behalf asserting claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations of California’s unfair competition law, and her counsel then sent letters to the defendant indicating that D.K. disaffirmed “all contracts” with the company. Id. at 3. The defendant moved to compel arbitration.

The Decision

The court granted the motion to compel arbitration. The court first addressed whether an arbitration contract had been formed. Because California law permits a minor to contract in the same manner as an adult subject to the power of disaffirmance, and because conspicuous notice of the arbitration clause was furnished, the court held the Terms were a validly formed contract between the parties.

As to whether D.K. had disaffirmed the Terms by sending a letter to the defendant disaffirming “all contracts,” the court agreed with the defendant that such issue was a validity challenge to the Terms as a whole that needed to be resolved by the arbitrator pursuant to the delegation clause. D.K. argued that the delegation clause could not apply since she had disaffirmed the Terms. In rejecting this argument, the court explained that while courts are permitted to decide specific challenges to delegation clauses, it is arbitrators who, pursuant to delegation clauses, are to determine challenges to the validity of an arbitration agreement as a whole. The court found that D.K.’s letter, which disaffirmed “all contracts,” was a challenge to the Terms as a whole because the letter did not single out the arbitration clause or its delegation provision. In so holding, the court distinguished the circumstances that were present in J.R. v. Electronic Arts, 98 Cal.App.5th 1107 (2024) because the minor there has specifically disaffirmed “any” contract rather than “all contracts.”

Implications of the Decision

The Williams decision highlights the importance of the wording used when a minor seeks to disaffirm an arbitration agreement.

Under Williams, for a court to address the validity of a delegation provision within an arbitration agreement, the minor must specifically disaffirm the delegation provision itself and not generally disavow “all contracts.”

September 23, 2025September 23, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Second Circuit Rejects Former Employees’ Attempt To Seek Review Of Arbitral Fees Dispute

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Andrew Quay, and Eden Anderson

Duane Morris Takeaways: A Second Circuit panel of Judges Gerard Lynch, Michael Park, and Beth Robinson reversed the Southern District of New York in Frazier v. X Corp., Case No. 24-1948 (2d Cir. Sept. 2, 2025), holding that X’s (formerly Twitter) refusal to pay ongoing arbitral fees did not amount to a “failure, neglect, or refusal … to arbitrate” that the district court was empowered to remedy under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The Second Circuit explained that under 9 U.S.C. § 4, district courts may only address a narrow category of disputes limited to whether arbitration must occur between particular parties over particular issues. The decision follows related precedent set by the Third, Fifth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits and makes clear that a party’s decision not to abide by the procedural determinations of an arbitrator or arbitral body does not empower a district court to intervene and review.

The decision is an important primer for corporate counsel in handling disputes over ongoing arbitral proceedings.

Case Background

Plaintiff-Petitioners, seven former employees of Twitter, signed arbitration agreements committing them to resolve any employment-related disputes in binding individual arbitration. The employees filed arbitration demands following their termination, believing that they had been denied severance and had been illegally discriminated against, among other claims. After making certain payments of arbitral fees, Twitter asserted that the arbitration agreements required that the fees be apportioned equally between it and the former employees. The agreements called for a pro-rata split of arbitral fees but incorporate by reference Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services’ (“JAMS”) rules and policies, which required Twitter to pay all but the case initiation fees. The employees sued to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 4, arguing that by refusing to pay the fees allocated to it by the arbitral body, Twitter was “refus[ing] to arbitrate” in accordance with the arbitration agreements.

At issue before the Second Circuit was whether Twitter’s refusal to pay ongoing arbitral fees constituted an outright refusal to arbitrate that the district court was empowered to remedy under 9 U.S.C. § 4. The former employees took the position that by incorporating the arbitral body’s rules in the arbitration agreements, Twitter agreed to be bound by the arbitral body’s initial determination that Twitter was responsible for the disputed fees. Therefore, the former employees argued, the district court could compel Twitter to pay the disputed fees under 9 U.S.C. § 4.

The Decision

The Second Circuit rejected the former employees’ argument.

It held that a party’s decision not to abide by the procedural determinations of an arbitrator or arbitral body is an intra-arbitration delinquency that arbitral bodies are empowered to manage. Therefore, the former employees could not use 9 U.S.C. § 4 as a vehicle to seek judicial review of the arbitral body’s decision not to proceed with the arbitration process.

Implications Of The Decision

The Frazier decision marks another federal circuit keeping the courts out of disputes in ongoing arbitral proceedings over a party’s payment of fees or compliance with arbitral policies. Corporate counsel must consider the limited scope of permitted review under 9 U.S.C. § 4 when facing disputes in ongoing arbitral proceedings, whether over payment of fees or otherwise.

September 8, 2025September 8, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Washington Supreme Court Rules That Job Applicants Need Not Be “Bona Fide” Under The EPOA To Launch Class Actions

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Eden E. Anderson, and Caitlin Capriotti

Duane Morris Takeaways: On September 4, 2025, the Washington Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Branson, et al. v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, et al., Case No. 103394-0 (Wash. Sept. 4, 2025), holding that job applicants are not required to prove they are a “bona fide” or a “good faith” applicant to obtain remedies under the EPOA in class action litigation. The Washington Supreme Court acknowledged, but declined to address, other open issues under the EPOA, which means that state and federal courts in Washington will now be called upon to rule on other unresolved issues under the statute, including whether the EPOA even grants a private right of action to applicants in the first instance.

Case Background

Washington state’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (“EPOA”) was amended in 2022 to require employers to include wage or salary range information in job postings. Soon thereafter, a torrent of class action lawsuits followed, some filed by applicants who had legitimately sought employment, but far more filed by serial plaintiffs seeking recovery of staggering amounts of statutory damages and attorneys’ fees. Before it was further amended in 2025, the EPOA provided for $5,000 in statutory damages per job applicant.

Plaintiffs Lisa Branson and Cherie Burke submitted applications for retail positions with defendant and the job postings to which they applied did not contain the required salary or wage range information. Branson interviewed for the position for which she applied and discussed pay during that interview, but did not accept the position she was offered.

Subsequently, Branson and Burke filed a class action lawsuit invoking their right to statutory damages under the EPOA. Although Branson seemingly was a bona fide job applicant, the defendant filed a motion to bifurcate discovery, arguing that plaintiffs were not the type of “job applicants” the EPOA was intended to protect and that the statute only applies to “bona fide” applicants. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington certified the following question: “What must a Plaintiff prove to be deemed a ‘job applicant’” under the EPOA? The Washington Supreme Court accepted certification to resolve that question.

The Decision

Relying first on the dictionary definition of “applicant,” as “one who applies for something,” the Supreme Court noted that the definition does not rely on the subjective intent of the individual to determine whether a person is an applicant. Thus, the plain meaning of the term means only “one who applies” irrespective of their intent in doing so. The Supreme Court noted that elsewhere in the EPOA the legislature used the phrase “bone fide,” but it did not do so in reference to job applicants, further confirming no such limitation.

The Supreme Court also found telling the fact that the legislature originally considered conferring remedies broadly to “individuals,” but then amended the statute to confer remedies on applicants and employees, suggesting the legislature specifically considered who could obtain remedies and yet did not include any further words of limitation such as “bona fide.” Additionally, the Supreme Court highlighted that although the agency charged with adopting rules implementing the statute, Labor & Industries, originally promulgated draft rules which defined a job applicant as a “good faith” applicant, that definition was withdrawn and never implemented.

The Supreme Court repeatedly noted in the decision that, if the EPOA is to be limited to bona fide or good faith job applicants, the Washington legislature will need to act to make this change.

Three of the nine justices issued a sharply worded dissent disagreeing with the majority’s ruling and expressing their view that the EPOA was not designed to “give bounty seekers an incentive to trawl the internet for noncompliant job postings to obtain a statutory damages award unrelated to any personal harm.” Dissenting Opinion, at 2.

Although the outcome is not what employers were hoping for, there are silver linings in the Branson decision and, in particular, in the Supreme Court’s numerous footnotes. Principally, although it declined to rule on the issue because the argument was not made by the defendant, the Supreme Court chose to highlight in footnote 3 that the EPOA may only confer a private right of action on employers, and limit applicants to filing claims with Labor and Industries. The Supreme Court also chose to emphasize another argument made in amicus briefing in footnote 6 of the decision wherein it highlighted that the remedies available under the EPOA may be too severe and unconstitutional. It declined to rule on that issue too as it also was not an argument made by the defendant. Thus, these issues and many others remain unresolved and may soon be addressed by Washington state and federal courts as the legions of EPOA cases, all stayed pending the Branson ruling, are now litigated.

Implications of the Decision:

The Branson decision is an unfortunate ruling for Washington state employers. An unharmed plaintiff who never had any legitimate interest in a posted job position and whose only goal is to collect money through legal proceedings now has the green light to seek remedies under the EPOA. That said, the Branson decision highlights other defense arguments that can and should be made in all pending EPOA cases. The decision suggests that a private right of action is limited to employees, and that applicants can only seek remedies under the EPOA through administrative proceedings before Labor & Industries.

February 12, 2025February 12, 2025 by Eden Anderson

The Federal Arbitration Act Turns 100

By Eden E. Anderson, Rebecca S. Bjork, Jennifer A. Riley, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) turns 100 years old today.

In enacting the FAA on February 12, 1925, Congress eliminated the power of the states to require that claims be resolved in court when contracting parties instead agree to resolve their claims in arbitration. The FAA’s purpose was to reverse longstanding judicial hostility to arbitration agreements, and to place arbitration agreements on equal footing with other contracts under the law.

As we celebrate the FAA’s 100th birthday, we highlight three key areas in which the FAA’s scope and application have come under scrutiny in recent years.

The Scope Of The Transportation Worker Exemption Remains Unclear

The FAA does not apply to employment contracts of seamen, railroad employees, and workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. The scope of this so-called transportation worker exemption has been a hotbed for litigation in recent years, with the U.S. Supreme Court addressing the issue in multiple decisions. The high court’s decisions in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022), Domino’s Pizza, LLC v. Carmona, et al., 143 S. Ct. 361 (2022), and Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 61 U.S. 246 (2024), emphasized that the transportation worker exemption is to be narrowly construed and that, for the exemption to apply, a worker must play a direct and necessary role in the free flow of goods across borders.

In the wake of these decisions, state and federal courts are now grappling with what that means and whether warehouse workers, last-mile delivery drivers, ride-hailing drivers, and fueling technicians meet the “direct and necessary role” test. While such classes of workers bear little resemblance to the seamen and railroad employees expressly excluded from the FAA’s scope, in jurisdictions hostile to arbitration, including California courts and the Ninth Circuit, the transportation worker exemption has been found to apply. It is therefore important for employers to include language in arbitration agreements that permits alternative enforcement of the agreement under state law if the FAA is found not to apply.

Does EFASHA Exempt Entire Cases From Arbitration?

On March 3, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFASHA). Under the EFASHA, an employee alleging sexual harassment or assault, whether individually or as a class representative, may pursue their claims in court rather than in arbitration, regardless of whether they agreed with their employer to arbitrate their claims.

But what happens when a plaintiff alleges such claims, but also alleges claims that permissibly can be arbitrated? Courts too have begun answering that question. Some courts have concluded that the EFASHA’s statutory language requires that the employee’s entire case remain in court, reasoning that the EFASHA makes a pre-dispute arbitration agreement invalid and unenforceable “with respect to a case” which means the entire case. (9 U.S.C. § 402(a) (emphasis added).) The court so concluded in Johnson v. Everyrealm, Inc., 657 F. Supp. 3d 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), in denying the employer’s motion to compel the plaintiff’s sex harassment, race discrimination, and retaliation claims to arbitration.

The outcome, however, differed in Mera v. SA Hosp. Grp., LLC, 675 F. Supp. 3d 442 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), wherein the plaintiff alleged claims that he experienced a hostile work environment on account of his sexual orientation and that he and other employees suffered state and federal wage and hour infractions. The court there determined that, because the wage and hour claims did not “relate to” the hostile work environment claim, the wage and hour claims could be compelled to arbitration. Id. at 447.

If a plaintiff can allege a plausible claim that triggers the EFASHA’s application, they may be successful in keeping all their claims in court, or possibly only some of them.

We anticipate continued litigation in this area, and an uptick in the assertion of tenuous sex-based harassment claims that might not otherwise have been plead.

Appellate Issues Raised By Recent Case And Legislative Developments

What happens to the trial court proceedings after a decision on a motion to compel arbitration has also been a hotly litigated issue.

In Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court held that, when a federal court finds that a dispute is subject to arbitration and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration, the FAA compels the court to stay, and to not dismiss, the proceeding. Consequently, if a plaintiff’s claims are compelled to arbitration and the district court proceedings stayed, there will be no judgment with an associated right to appeal. Thus, the plaintiff’s only recourse—if they dispute the arbitration ruling—will be to seek permission to pursue an interlocutory appeal or to pursue an appeal of the forum issue long after the fact if and when they lose in arbitration.

Another stay issue that will surely be litigated concerns a 2024 amendment to California’s Code of Civil Procedure. In California, if a motion to compel arbitration is denied and that decision is appealed, there is now no longer an automatic stay of the court proceedings during the pendency of an appeal. As a result, plaintiffs can seemingly proceed with their claims in court while the employer seeks a reversal of the forum issue on appeal, unless the appellant seeks and obtains a stay from the trial court. As this law on its face disfavors arbitrate, we anticipate it will be challenged.

For a more comprehensive summary of FAA-related litigation issues, Duane Morris’s 2025 Wage & Hour Class and Collective Action Review, available here, features an entire Chapter on this topic.

December 4, 2024 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Rhode Island Federal Court Rules That Defendants Waived Their Right To Arbitration By Refusing To Pay AAA Filing Fees

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Rebecca S. Bjork, and Eden E. Anderson

Duane Morris Takeaway: In 5-Star General Store, et al. v. American Express Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217246 (D.R.I. Dec. 2, 2024), Judge Mary McElroy of the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Rhode Island held that the defendants could not move to compel arbitration on the issue of whether it was required to pay filing fees to the American Arbitration Association. This ruling presents an unusual twist to arbitration issues typically resolved by federal courts and is a cautionary warning for companies.

Background

The 5-Star General Store case is an antitrust action brought by merchants who resolved certain claims with American Express entities in arbitration relating to the acceptance of the defendants’ credit cards for purchases at their stores. After the final order was issued, the defendants refused to pay their share of the filing fees to the American Arbitration Association, which totaled more than $17 million. The AAA administratively closed the case and the plaintiffs filed a class action relative to those fees. The defendants moved to compel arbitration of the lawsuit’s claims and to strike the plaintiffs’ class allegations.

The Court’s Ruling

The court denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration on whether they were required to pay the AAA filing fees and denied the defendants’ motion to strike the plaintiffs’ class allegations. The plaintiffs sought to represent more than 5,000 merchants accepting the defendants’ cards. They argued that the defendants had waived their right to arbitration by failing to pay their share of the arbitration fees because they were in default of the agreement under § 3 of the FAA. First, the court ruled that it, not an arbitrator, had the authority to decide whether the defendants defaulted on the arbitration agreement. Although the court found no controlling case law authority directly on point, it decided to follow the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits, which have held that courts may decide whether failure to pay arbitration fees constitutes a default under § 3.

Second, the court focused on whether the defendants were in default of the agreement. Relying on Black’s Law Dictionary, which defines “default” as “the omission or failure to perform a legal or contractual duty; esp., the failure to pay a debt when due,” the court found the issue to be clear and concluded that the defendants defaulted on the arbitration agreement. Id. at *12. It also opined that a second arbitration likely would not fare any better than the first and the parties would end up before the court again.

Third, the court rejected the defendants’ claim that the plaintiffs lacked clean hands and therefore should not be allowed to pursue their claims in court. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs did not change their theory of their case sufficiently when filing the instant case to rescind the defendants’ waiver of arbitration. Therefore, the court denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.

Finally, the court also denied the defendants’ motion to strike the plaintiffs’ class allegations because the class was ascertainable by objective means and the class definition was not “fail safe” because it did not contain a legal conclusion that determines eligibility for class membership. Id. at *32-33. The court further considered and rejected the defendants’ claims that the plaintiffs’ requests for injunctive and declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(c)(4), including certification of issues classes, should be stricken at the pleading stage.

Implications For Companies:

This ruling should serve as a cautionary tale to companies that regularly seek to enforce mandatory arbitration agreements when those agreements require individual arbitration. The defendants’ failure to pay filing fees for thousands of individual arbitrations could lead to a complete waiver of the ability to compel arbitration of the claims in the future.

July 23, 2024 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Ninth Circuit Broadly Applies The FAA’s Transportation Worker Exemption To Fueling Technicians To Green Light Their Class Action And Side-Step Arbitration

By Eden E. Anderson, Rebecca S. Bjork, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Duane Morris Takeaways: On July 19, 2024, in Lopez v. Aircraft Service International, Inc., Case No. 23-55015 (9th Cir. July 19, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) transportation worker exemption applies to an airplane fueling technician. Even though the technician had no hands-on contacts with goods, the Ninth Circuit held that was not required because fuel is necessary to flying the plane that holds the goods. The decision is yet another from the Ninth Circuit broadly applying the FAA’s transportation worker exemption, in spite of multiple recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court directing narrow that loop hole to mandatory arbitration. The Lopez decision presents an obstacle for employers seeking to enforce arbitration agreements and class action waivers within the Ninth Circuit, thereby opening the door to arguments that workers who do not even handle goods in the stream of commerce are exempt from arbitration if their work somehow supports the mechanism by which the goods travel.

Case Background

Danny Lopez worked as a fueling technician at Los Angeles International Airport. He added fuel to airplanes. After Lopez filed a wage & hour class action against his employer, the employer moved to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Lopez was an exempt transportation worker because he was directly involved in the flow of goods in interstate or foreign commerce. It reasoned that, although Lopez did not handle goods in commerce, he was directly involved in the maintenance of the means by which the goods were transported. The employer appealed on the grounds that the FAA’s transportation worker exemption is to be narrowly construed and that Lopez did not have any hands-on contact with goods and direct participation in their movement.

The Ninth Circuit’s Decision

The Ninth Circuit began its analysis by mentioning the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022). In Saxon, the U.S. Supreme Court instructed that the transportation worker exemption is to be narrowly construed and does not turn on the industry within which the work is performed. Saxon held that airline ramp agents are nonetheless transportation workers exempt from the FAA because, in loading and unloading cargo onto airplanes, ramp agents play a “direct and necessary role in the free flow of goods across borders” and are “actively engaged in the transportation of those goods across via the channels of foreign or interstate commerce.” Id. at 458. Perceiving that the transportation worker exemption continued to be misapplied by lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court repeated this same guidance this year in Bissonnette v. Le Page Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024), and cautioned that the exemption should not be applied broadly to all workers who load and unload goods as they pass through the stream of interstate commerce.

While mentioning this recent controlling authority, the Ninth Circuit harkened back to its 2020 analysis of the transportation worker exemption in Rittman v. Amazon.com, Inc., 971 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2004), deeming it consistent with Saxon and Bissonnette. In Rittman, the Ninth Circuit held that Amazon delivery drivers making local, last mile deliveries of products from Amazon warehouses to customers’ homes were exempt transportation workers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce. Applying “the analytical approach applied in Rittman,” the Ninth Circuit concluded that Lopez was an exempt transportation worker because his fueling of airplanes was a “vital component” of the plane’s ability to fly. Id. at 12.

Implications Of The Decision

The Lopez decision is yet another from the Ninth Circuit broadly applying the FAA’s transportation worker exemption, in spite of multiple recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court directing narrow interpretation. The Lopez decision opens the door to arguments that workers who do not even handle goods in the stream of commerce are exempt from arbitration if their work somehow supports the mechanism by which the goods travel.

March 27, 2024 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

California Court Of Appeal Deems Attorneys’ Fees And Costs Awards To Prevailing Plaintiffs Mandatory On Overtime And Minimum Wage Claims

By Eden E. Anderson and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Duane Morris Takeaways: On March 25, 2024, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held in Gramajo v. Joe’s Pizza on Sunset, Inc., Case Nos. B322992/B323024 (Cal. App. Mar. 25, 2024), that awards of attorneys’ fees and costs to prevailing plaintiffs in actions for unpaid minimum or overtime wages are mandatory. Consequently, a trial court lacks discretion to deny fees and costs recovery, even when a plaintiff engages in bad faith litigation tactics and recovers a negligible amount. On a bright note, mandatory fee and cost awards must still be reasonable, and a trial court retains discretion to reduce the amount sought if it is unreasonable.

Case Background

Elinton Gramajo worked as a pizza delivery driver. He sued his employer for failing to pay him minimum and overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to reimburse business expenses, and other related claims. He sought a total recovery of $26,159.23. Coincidentally, that amount was just above the $25,000 jurisdictional threshold for an unlimited civil proceeding. After four years of litigation, the case proceeded to trial. A jury found in Gramajo’s favor, but only on his claims for unpaid minimum and overtime wages. The jury awarded him just $7,659.63.

Gramajo then sought to recover a whopping $296,920 in attorneys’ fees, and $26,932.84 in costs. The trial court denied any recovery. It found that Gramajo acted in bad faith by artificially inflating his damages claim to justify filing the case as an unlimited civil proceeding. As evidence of bad faith, the trial court highlighted that, although Gramajo sought $10,822.16 in unreimbursed expenses, he submitted no evidence at trial to support that claim. He also alleged an equitable claim for injunctive relief, but then never pursued that claim. Additionally, the trial court found that the case had been “severely over litigated” with Gramajo noticing 14 depositions and serving 15 sets of written discovery requests, while ultimately using just 12 exhibits at trial. Id. at 4.

The trial court’s denial of Gramajo’s motion for fees and costs was premised upon § 1033(a) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which vests discretion in a trial court to deny attorneys’ fees and costs recovery when a plaintiff recovers less than the $25,000 jurisdictional minimum for an unlimited civil case. Gramajo appealed.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

On appeal, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District reversed.

It held that § 1194(a) of the California Labor Code applied, and not § 1033(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 1194(a) of the Labor Code provides than a plaintiff who prevails in an action for unpaid minimum or overtime wages “is entitled to recover in a civil action . . . reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit.” The Court of Appeal reasoned that § 1194(a) mandates a fee award to a prevailing plaintiff who alleges unpaid minimum and/or overtime wages, and that it was more specific than § 1033(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and more recently enacted.

On a bright note, the Court of Appeal cautioned that its reversal “should not be read as license for attorneys litigating minimum and overtime wages cases to over-file their cases or request unreasonable and excessive cost awards free of consequence” and that § 1194(a) mandates only the recovery of a “reasonable fee and cost award.” Id. at 15. While remanding that issue to the trial court, the Court of Appeal highlighted an example of a fee award it deemed reasonable. It noted that, in Harrington v. Payroll Entertainment Services, Inc., 160 Cal.App.4th 590 (2008), the plaintiff recovered just $10,500 in unpaid overtime wages and was awarded attorneys’ fees of just $500.

Implications Of The Decision

While it is an unfortunate outcome that attorneys’ fees and costs awards in overtime and minimum wage cases are mandatory to a prevailing plaintiff, and not entirely discretionary, the silver lining in Gramajo is that a trial court at least retains discretion to award only what is reasonable.

February 19, 2024 by Eden Anderson

Illinois Federal Court Orders Samsung To Defend 806 Individual BIPA Claims In Arbitration And Pay $311,000 In Arbitration Filing Fees

By Eden E. Anderson, Rebecca Bjork, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Duane Morris Takeaways: On February 15, 2024, the Judge Harry Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a motion to compel arbitration in Hoeg et al. v. Samsung Electronics of America, Inc., Case No. 23-CV-1951 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2024), and sent 806 individual privacy claims to arbitration and ordered Samsung to pay $311,000 to cover its share of arbitration filing fees in those matters. The decision highlights the potential downsides of class action waivers in arbitration agreements, as well as the importance of coupling a class action waiver with a well-crafted mass arbitration provision designed to streamline arbitration proceedings and, hopefully, limit exposure and litigation costs.

Case Background

Samsung required customers to execute agreements to binding arbitration and those agreements waive the right to pursue class claims. The arbitration agreements provided that electronic acceptance, opening product packaging, product usage, or product retention amounted to acceptance of the arbitration agreement.

In 2022, 806 customers, all of whom alleged they had purchased and used Samsung products, filed individual arbitration actions against Samsung alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (“BIPA”). After Samsung failed to pay $311,000 in arbitration filing fees due in the matters, AAA administratively closed the cases in January 2023. The plaintiffs then moved to compel arbitration.

The Court’s Decision

The Court granted the motion to compel arbitration and, in doing so, was highly critical of Samsung’s tactics in seeking to stall the prosecution of the claims. The Court found that the plaintiffs alleged they purchased and used Samsung products, and thereby assented to arbitration. While Samsung argued those allegations were conclusory and did not show the existence of agreements to arbitrate, the Court noted that Samsung’s approach “flips the evidentiary burden on its head” because, as the party opposing arbitration, it was Samsung’s burden to dispute the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. Id. at 9.

As to its failure to pay the arbitration filing fees, the Court expressed great displeasure with Samsung, noting that its “repeated failure to pay after multiple deadlines, without any showing of hardship, is a classic refusal to pay scheme in violation of Section 4” of the Federal Arbitration Act. Id. at 15. The Court also highlighted that Samsung’s tactics had delayed plaintiffs’ prosecution of their claims for two years. The Court further denied Samsung’s request that the matters be stayed so that it could pursue an appeal and ordered Samsung to pay the outstanding arbitration fees.

Implications Of The Decision

The Hoeg decision highlights the potential downsides of class action waivers, which have spurred the plaintiffs’ bar to pursue hundreds or even thousands of individual arbitrations all at once. The decision also underscores the importance of adding a mass arbitration provision to an arbitration agreement. Such a provision, if well-crafted, may serve to streamline those proceedings, facilitate resolution, and limit exposure. Some jurisdictions have enacted laws aimed at punishing a retailer’s or employer’s failure to pay arbitration fees. For example, in California, if arbitration fees are not timely paid, it results in a material breach of the arbitration agreement and could lead to the imposition of sanctions including “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, incurred by the employee or consumer as a result of the material breach.” (Cal. Civil Code § 1281.99.)

February 15, 2024 by Eden Anderson

Ninth Circuit Holds That Federal Courts Must Apply Adolph In PAGA Cases, With A Concurring Opinion Addressing Whether Individual Arbitration Will Have Preclusive Effect

By Eden E. Anderson, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Jennifer A. Riley

Duane Morris Takeaways: On February 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, No. 22-16486 (9th Cir. Feb. 12, 2024). It held that federal courts must follow the statutory standing analysis of the California Supreme Court in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., and not the U.S. Supreme Court’s different interpretation in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana. Additionally, in his concurrence, Judge Kenneth Lee opined that issues decided in individual arbitration of a PAGA claim should not have preclusive effect on the bigger non-individual PAGA claim.

Case Background

The plaintiff in Johnson alleged PAGA claims against her former employer based on the employer’s alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Applying all aspects of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, the district court compelled Johnson’s individual PAGA claims to arbitration and dismissed her non-individual PAGA claims for lack of statutory standing. While the case was on appeal, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., which held that a PAGA plaintiff retains standing to maintain non-individual PAGA claims even after their individual PAGA claims are compelled to arbitration.

At issue on appeal in Johnson v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC was whether the non-individual PAGA claims should have been dismissed.

The Ninth Circuit’s Decision

The Ninth Circuit held that federal courts must follow the statutory standing analysis of the California Supreme Court in Adolph, and not the U.S. Supreme Court’s different interpretation in Viking River. It thus vacated the ruling dismissing the non-individual PAGA claims and remanded the case to the district court to apply Adolph.

The Johnson decision is of further interest because of the concurring opinion of Judge Kenneth Lee. His concurrence addressed the next big question in PAGA cases, i.e., the extent to which issues decided by the arbitrator in resolving individual PAGA claims will be binding in court in the litigation of the non-individual PAGA claims. Judge Lee noted that individual arbitration is often “low-stakes” for companies, who sometimes even send non-lawyers, such as paralegals, to arbitration proceedings because the amount at issue is not worth a lawyer’s higher hourly rates. However, as Judge Lee noted, if legal conclusions or factual findings in individual arbitration are binding, then companies would have little choice but to bring in the “legal cavalry” and devote substantial resources in individual arbitration, which would undermineg the efficiency of those proceedings, which is the whole “point” of enforcing arbitration agreements according to their terms. Judge Lee reasoned that there is thus a “lurking tension” between the FAA and the suggestion in Adolph that issue preclusion can apply to the outcome of arbitration of an individual PAGA action. Judge Lee expressed his view that application of issue preclusion in this context would contravene the FAA.

Implications For Employers

Whether in state or federal court in a PAGA action, the Ninth Circuit made clear that Adolph must be applied. The concurring opinion in Johnson provides employers facing adverse rulings in individual arbitration with good arguments against the application of issue preclusion in the non-individual PAGA claim proceedings.

January 18, 2024 by Eden Anderson

California Supreme Court Rules That Lack Of Manageability Is An Improper Basis Upon Which To Strike A PAGA Claim, But Leaves Open Due Process Challenges

By Eden E. Anderson, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Jennifer A. Riley

Duane Morris Takeaways: On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, No. S274340 (Cal. Jan. 18, 2024). It is a game changer for employers operating in California. The Supreme Court held, in a unanimous decision, that trial courts lack inherent authority to dismiss claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 – the “PAGA”- with prejudice due to lack of manageability. The Supreme Court declined to address whether, and under what circumstances, a defendant’s right to due process might ever support striking a PAGA claim. As such, the decision in Estrada is a required read for employers and their decision-makers.

Case Background

Jorge Estrada filed a putative class and PAGA action against his former employer asserting, as relevant here, meal period violations. After two classes comprised of 157 individuals were certified, the case was tried to the bench. The trial court ultimately decertified the classes, finding there were too many individualized issues to support class-wide treatment. Although the trial court awarded relief to four individual plaintiffs, it dismissed the non-individual PAGA claim on the grounds that it was not manageable.

On appeal, Estrada argued that PAGA claims have no manageability requirement, and the Court of Appeal agreed in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., 76 Cal.App.5th 685 (2022). The Court of Appeal reasoned that class action requirements do not apply in PAGA actions and, therefore, the manageability requirement rooted in class action procedure was inapplicable. Further, the Court of Appeal reasoned that “[a]llowing courts to dismiss PAGA claims based on manageability would interfere with PAGA’s express design as a law enforcement mechanism.” Id. at 712. The Court of Appeal acknowledged the difficulty that employers and trial courts face with PAGA claims involving thousands of allegedly aggrieved employees, each with unique factual circumstances, but concluded that dismissal for lack of manageability was not an available tool for a trial court to utilize.

The Court of Appeal in Estrada recognized its holding was contrary to the holding in Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 68 Cal.App.5th 746 (2021), and created a split in authority. In Wesson, the trial court struck a PAGA claim as unmanageable, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The claims at issue in Wesson involved the alleged misclassification of 345 store managers. The employer’s exemption affirmative defense turned on individualized issues as to each manager’s performance of exempt versus non-exempt tasks which varied based on a number of factors including store size, sales volume, staffing levels, labor budgets, store hours, customer traffic, all of which varied across the stores. The split in authority prompted the California Supreme Court to grant review in Estrada.

The California Supreme Court’s Decision

At the outset, the California Supreme Court noted that the issue before it was whether trial courts possess inherent authority to “strike” PAGA claims for lack of manageability, defining the word “strike” to mean a dismissal with prejudice. Jan. 18 Opinion at 7. The Supreme Court then addressed, and rejected, the employer’s argument that trial courts possess inherent authority to, for judicial economy purposes, strike any claim a plaintiff asserts. The Supreme Court explained that the power to dismiss a claim with prejudice is limited to cases involving a failure to prosecute, frivolous claims, or egregious misconduct, and that judicial economy does not warrant the dismissal of any claim.

The Supreme Court rejected the employer’s argument that the manageability requirement for class actions should be imported into PAGA actions. It reasoned that there are three structural differences between class actions and PAGA representative actions that warrant treating these claims differently, as well as differences in jurisprudential history. The three structural differences cited by the Supreme Court were: (1) that plaintiffs in PAGA actions are not required to establish superiority or predominance of common issues; (2) PAGA’s purpose is to maximize enforcement of labor laws; and (3) that the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) can impose civil penalties for Labor Code violations without considering manageability.

As to jurisprudential history differences, the Supreme Court noted that, unlike class actions which were an “invention of equity,” PAGA actions are not “creatures of equity.” Id. at 30. Thus, while class action jurisprudence developed to create various common law requirements for class actions that are not set forth in California’s class action statute, the PAGA statute provides detailed statutory requirements for maintaining a PAGA claim, thereby constraining trial courts from using “extra-statutory inherent authority to strike PAGA claims that the Legislature has authorized.” Id. at 31. Because PAGA’s express wording permits a plaintiff who has suffered one labor code violation to seek civil penalties on behalf of other employees for “violations that vary widely in nature,” imposing a manageability requirement would “defeat the purpose of statute.” Id. at 32.

The Supreme Court declined to address whether, and under what circumstances, a defendant’s right to due process might ever support striking a PAGA claim other than to note that any such authority would be “narrow authority of last resort.” Id. at 41. Although the employer argued its due process rights would be violated if the PAGA claims against it were re-tried, the Supreme Court noted that the employer had only offered the testimony of two employees in the original trial and, thus, the due process issue was “hypothetical.” Id. at 40. The Supreme Court, however, agreed that employers have a due process right to present an affirmative defense, but emphasized that an employer has no due process right to present the testimony of an “unlimited number of individual employees” or “each allegedly aggrieved employee.” Id. at 40.

The Supreme Court concluded by noting that trial courts have “numerous tools” to manage complex cases, and suggested that the “extent of liability” in a PAGA case can be determined by surveys or statistical methods that estimate the number of aggrieved employees. Id. at 41. The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof in a PAGA case remains with plaintiffs who should endeavor to be “prudent in their approach to PAGA claims” and that, if “a plaintiff alleges widespread violations of the Labor Code . . . but cannot prove them in an efficient manner, it does not seem unreasonable for the punishment assessed to be minimal.” Id. at 44.

Implications For Employers

The Estrada opinion strikes a blow to employers facing PAGA claims by removing lack of manageability as a ground for dismissal. While the California Supreme Court encouraged PAGA plaintiffs to be prudent to their approach to their PAGA theories, in practice, such prudence is uncommon. On the bright side, the decision leaves open an employer’s ability to seek dismissal on due process grounds.