Federal Arbitration Act did not preempt California law barring enforcement of an arbitration agreement against an employee's clams under the California Private Attorney General Act. Sakkub v, Luxotttica Retail N. Am., Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17071 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2015).
District Court denied motion to dismiss former employees' claims that company (a) violated HRS § 388-6 by violating an implicit promise to comply with applicable law in paying wages and reimbursing expenses, and (b) was unjustly enriched by retaining their labor, services and goods without compensation or reimbursement. Pelayo v. Platinum Limousine Serv., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133666 (D. Haw. Sept. 30, 2015).
Note: We analyze cases to learn rules the courts will follow or disappoint us if they don't. Rules that the courts follow allow us to behave and provide explanations they accept. But competent advocates may limit the rules to the facts of the case where they are discussed, or expand rules by showing that differences in other cases are irrelevant.