Kenny Tran – Class Action Defense

July 7, 2026July 7, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

FAA Exemptions Now Incorporated Into California Law

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Daniel D. Spencer, and Kenny T. Tran

Duane Morris Takeaways: On June 30, 2026, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2155 (AB 2155), which amends California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281 to provide that any arbitration agreement deemed unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is likewise unenforceable under the California Arbitration Act (CAA). The amendment is designed to align California law with federal law by ensuring that the same limitations, exceptions, and exemptions governing the enforceability of arbitration agreements under the FAA also apply under the CAA.

Overview

AB 2155 expressly incorporates two significant FAA exemptions into the CAA, including: (1) the “transportation worker” exemption, which applies to contracts of employment for seamen, railroad employees, and other classes of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce; and (2) the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA), which renders predispute arbitration agreements unenforceable with respect to claims involving sexual assault or sexual harassment disputes.

AB 2155 becomes effective on January 1, 2027, and the legislation contains no indication that it applies retroactively. Prior to this amendment, employers frequently argued that even if the FAA did not govern an arbitration agreement, the agreement remained enforceable under the CAA because California law did not recognize the FAA’s transportation worker exemption. AB 2155 eliminates that argument. Beginning January 1, 2027, if an arbitration agreement is unenforceable under the FAA due to the transportation worker exemption, it will likewise be unenforceable under the CAA.

Implications for Employers

Employers, particularly those whose operations involve interstate commerce, should review their arbitration agreements and dispute resolution strategies in anticipation of AB 2155’s effective date. The amendment is likely to increase litigation challenging the enforceability of arbitration agreements, including class and representative actions brought by transportation workers and claims falling within the scope of the EFAA.

June 4, 2026June 4, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

“Transfer, Not Dismissal” — Arizona Federal Court Confirms That 28 U.S.C. Section 1631 Applies To Personal Jurisdiction

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Jamar D. Davis, and Kenny Tran

Duane Morris Takeaways: On June 1, 2026, in Andrew Harrington et al. v. Cracker Barrel Country Store Inc., No. 21-CV-000940, 2026 WL 1532921 (D. Ariz. June 1, 2026), Judge Diane J. Humetewa of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, reaffirmed the Ninth Circuit’s determination that 28 U.S.C. section 1631 does apply to personal jurisdiction issues.

The ruling serves as a blueprint for corporate counsel on jurisdictional defenses in nationwide wage & hour lawsuits

Case Background

Plaintiffs, former Cracker Barrel employees, brought an FLSA collective action seeking redress for alleged failure to pay proper wages. Id. at *1. Cracker Barrel filed a Motion to Dismiss due to the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Id. A subset of the Plaintiffs who did not continue with arbitration refused to relent, filing a First Amended Complaint asserting that that their signed arbitration agreements were invalid because the Plaintiffs were minors when they signed the agreements. Id. Again, Cracker Barrel filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction as none of the named Plaintiffs were from Arizona or worked in Cracker Barrel Arizona stores. Id. The Court subsequently granted Cracker Barrel’s second Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Id. Remaining steadfast, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint adding an Arizona Cracker Barrel employee as a plaintiff. Id. In denying Cracker Barrel’s third Motion to Dismiss, the Court held that the addition of the Arizona Cracker Barrel employee cured the jurisdictional defect. Id.

Following the grant of conditional certification, Cracker Barrel filed a Motion to Certify an Interlocutory Appeal. Id. The Court certified for appeal two questions, including, “[w]hether Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, San Francisco Cnty., 582 U.S. 255, 265 (2017), prevents a District Court from sending notice under Section 216(b) of the FLSA to individuals over whom the Court lacks specific personal jurisdiction.” Id. The Ninth Circuit answered in the affirmative and held that “Bristol-Myers applies in collective actions under the FLSA and to that end, specific personal jurisdiction must be analyzed for every individual plaintiff proceeding under the collective action.” Id. In real word application, this meant that the Plaintiffs attempt to cure their Second Amended Complaint by adding an Arizona Cracker Barrel employee was ineffective as specific personal jurisdiction must be satisfied for all Plaintiffs in the collective action. Id. In other words, the Ninth Circuit determined that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the non-Arizona Plaintiffs. Id. at *3.

In response, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Sever and Transfer Non-Arizona Plaintiffs to the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts. Id. at *1.

The Court’s Decision

Plaintiffs cited three statues, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1404, 1406, and 1631, to advance their motion. Id. at *2. The Court found that Section 1404 did not apply to Plaintiffs’ Motion. Id. The Court also clarified that Section 1406 did not apply to Plaintiffs’ Motion as the statute is appropriate when making an attempt to transfer a case if the initial court is not in the proper venue. Id. The Court noted that that venue “is not a jurisdiction component” and that Section 1406 is only proper if the defendant moved to dismiss (or transfer) for improper venue. Id.

The Court observed that Section 1631 did not apply to Plaintiffs’ Motion as it “is used specifically to cure deficiencies in jurisdiction.” Id. The statute, however, hinges on a “want of jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. All circuits agree that “want of jurisdiction” applies to subject matter jurisdiction; however, there is a circuit split on whether the term applies to personal jurisdiction. Harrington, 2026 2026 WL 1532921, at *2. The Ninth Circuit typically finds that Section 1631 applies to personal jurisdiction. Id.

In the end, the Court made the decision to sever the non-Arizona plaintiffs and transfer their claims to the District Court of Massachusetts because there was a “want of jurisdiction” for the non-Arizona plaintiffs and because the legislative history, plain text, and the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Section 1631 (that the statute applies to personal jurisdiction) allowed for the transfer. Id. at 3.

Implications For Employers

Employers should remain diligent to confirm that personal jurisdiction applies for each plaintiff proceeding under a collective action. This is because attempts by the plaintiff’s bar to retain jurisdiction with the addition of a single plaintiff who is a resident of the location for the presiding court are futile. Further, this decision reaffirms the application of the Ninth Circuit’s reading of Section 1631 — namely, that “want of jurisdiction” applies to personal jurisdiction issues. Companies defending nationwide wage and hour actions should closely evaluate whether transfer motions can be used strategically when personal jurisdiction defects exist, especially in cases involving large groups of opt-in plaintiffs from multiple states.

February 4, 2026February 4, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

“No Actual Harm Required” – California Court Of Appeal Kicks Open The Door For Standing Under The ICRAA

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Daniel D. Spencer, Katherine L. Alphonso, and Kenny T. Tran

Duane Morris Takeaways: On January 21, 2026, in Yeh v. Barrington Pacific, LLC, Case No. B337904, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 30 (Cal. App. Jan. 21, 2026), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that plaintiffs have standing to sue under the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) without showing any actual injury because the statute authorizes a $10,000 minimum recovery untethered to any actual harm. At the same time, the Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claims, reinforcing that UCL standing remains firmly rooted in concrete economic loss that cannot be manufactured from purely technical statutory violations.

Case Background

Barrington Pacific, LLC (Barrington) and its related entities own and operate multiple apartment complexes across Los Angeles, all managed under a centralized process. Id. at *3. Prospective tenants were required to complete a standardized rental application, authorize background screening, and pay a nonrefundable $41.50 application fee. Id. at *4. That fee was expressly allocated to obtaining credit reports, eviction histories, and resident screening reports, as well as processing internal costs. Id. Each applicant signed a written authorization permitting Barrington to obtain background information “including, but not limited to, resident screening and credit checking.” Id.

Between November 2020 and July 2022, more than 100 applicants, who were ultimately approved as tenants, filed individual lawsuits alleging Barrington violated the ICRAA’s disclosure requirements. Id. The alleged violations were procedural in nature, including failure to provide plaintiffs with a means of requesting a copy of such reports, failure to identify the consumer reporting agency, failure to disclose the scope of the investigative consumer reports procured, and failure to offer or provide copies of the reports. Id. at *4-5. Notably, no plaintiff alleged inaccurate information, denial of housing, identity theft, or any adverse consequence whatsoever. Id. at *7. Three plaintiffs also asserted UCL claims premised on the same alleged ICRAA violations. Id. at *5.

After the cases were related and consolidated, with Yeh designated as the lead action, Barrington moved for summary judgment. Id. at *5. Barrington argued that plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not show concrete injury, relying heavily on Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc., 84 Cal.App.5th 671 (2002), which held that uninjured plaintiffs lack standing under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when claims are based solely on statutory violations. The trial court agreed, concluding that the ICRAA’s $10,000 provision did not create standing through statutory penalty and that plaintiffs suffered no harm because they became tenants and alleged no inaccuracies in any of the information Barrington had. Id. at *6-7. Summary judgment was entered for Barrington on both the ICRAA and UCL claims. Id. at *6.

The California Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal reversed as to the ICRAA, holding plaintiffs need not prove actual harm to bring an ICRAA claim. Id. at *25. Central to the Court of Appeal’s analysis was Civil Code section 1786.50(a)(1), which permits recovery of “[a]ny actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or, except in the case of class actions, ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whichever sum is greater.” Id. at *19. Emphasizing the disjunctive “or,” the Court of Appeal concluded that actual damages and the $10,000 amount are alternative remedies, not cumulative or interdependent. Id. at *20. The Court of Appeal relied on a line of recent California decisions recognizing that statutory schemes may confer standing through statutory damages or penalties untethered from actual harm. It cited Chai v. Velocity Investments, LLC, 108 Cal.App.5th 1030 (2025), Guracar v. California Capital Insurance Co., 111 Cal.App.5th 337 (2024), and Kashanian v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc., 114 Cal.App.5th 1037 (2025), each of which held that statutory damages provisions create standing even where plaintiffs admit no concrete injury. Id. at *11-16. Like those statutes, the ICRAA creates informational rights and attaches a fixed monetary consequence to their violation in order to punish and deter noncompliance. Id. at *18.

The Court of Appeal expressly declined to follow Limon, explaining that its reasoning was tied to the FCRA’s distinct statutory language and federal Article III standing concerns. See Limon, supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at 700-03. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the legislative materials make clear that the “ICRAA was designed to overcome the FCRA’s practical limitations by ensuring that consumers could obtain a nontrivial recovery and thus would be motivated to enforce ICRAA, even when actual damages were nonexistent.” Id. at *24-25. Legislative history also showed the California Legislature intentionally set a minimum recovery, which was $300 in 1975 and has since been increased to $10,000, to incentivize enforcement and compliance. Id. at *25. Of note, opponents of the ICRAA’s enactment criticized the statute precisely because it would impose liability “without regard to whether the individual has ever suffered damages,” further confirming that this result was not accidental but deliberate. Id. at *24.

The Court’s Reasoning on the UCL Claims

Where the opinion strongly favors the defense bar is its treatment of the UCL claims, the Court of Appeal affirmed summary adjudication, holding that Business and Professions Code section 17204 requires injury in fact and loss of money or property, regardless of whether the predicate statute allows recovery without harm. Id. at *31-32. Relying on cases such as Peterson v. Cellco Partnership, 164 Cal.App.4th 1583 (2008), the Court of Appeal reiterated that private UCL standing demands real economic injury. Id. at *31. Per Peterson, a private plaintiff must make a twofold showing: “he or she must demonstrate injury in fact and a loss of money or property caused by unfair competition.” Peterson, 164 Cal.App.4th at 1590.

Here, the Plaintiffs’ theory that the $41.50 application fee constituted lost money failed outright. Id. at *32. They argued that they were harmed because they were required to pay for a report that they were not given a copy of. Id. The Court of Appeal disagreed – the rental application described how the $41.50 non-refundable processing fee would be used to screen applicants with respect to their credit history and other background information. Id. Moreover, the application broke down the elements of the $41.50 fee: $22.99 for credit and screening reports, and $18.51 in costs, including overhead and soft costs, related to the processing of the application. Id. Since the application did not suggest that the $41.50 fee was for a consumer report to be provided to the applicant, the Court of Appeal determined that Plaintiffs received precisely what they paid for: the processing and consideration of their rental applications, which resulted in their approval as tenants. Id. at *32-33. Finally, any failure to provide plaintiffs with copies of their consumer reports within three days also does not constitute an injury because plaintiffs failed to allege any concrete or particularized harm as a result of the delay. Id. at *33.

The Court of Appeal emphasized that applicants paid for screening and processing, received exactly that, and were approved as tenants. Id. The alleged failure to timely provide copies of reports did not deprive plaintiffs of property, cause lost opportunities, or result in financial harm. Id. Technical noncompliance alone was not enough.

Implications for Companies

The takeaway here is twofold.

First, Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies (ICRAs) under the ICRAA, loosely defined as any person who, for compensation, gathers or communicates information regarding a consumer’s character, reputation, or personal characteristics, usually obtained through extensive, often more personal investigative methods — such as interviews or public record checks — should carefully audit ICRAA disclosures as plaintiffs can proceed without needing to prove actual harm. This decision underscores the ICRAA as a strict liability statute with teeth, and technical compliance matters even when no one is harmed.

Second, this case confirms that California courts remain unwilling to dilute UCL standing requirements. Even in an era of expansive statutory enforcement, courts continue to draw a hard line against no injury, no loss UCL claims. This ruling provides powerful authority to limit exposure by cutting off UCL claims early where plaintiffs cannot show injury in fact and a loss of money or property.