Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc.

── Askins v. CRST Expedited, Inc. ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/4/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE TERRY ASKINS, Plaintiff and Appellant, A172921 v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC., AN (San Mateo County IOWA CORPORATION, Super. Ct. No. 19CIV00644) Defendant and Respondent. Plaintiff Terry Askins filed a class action complaint against defendant CRST Expedited, Inc. (CRST) alleging in relevant part a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.; FCRA; all statutory references are to title 15 of the United States Code unless otherwise noted). After the court granted class certification, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 671, 703 (Limon), which held a plaintiff must allege a concrete injury for standing under the FCRA in California courts. CRST successfully moved to decertify the class on the basis Askins failed to identify a concrete harm. On appeal, and contrary to Limon, we conclude the FCRA does not require a concrete injury for standing in California and reverse the decertification order. 1 We reach this conclusion as both the language of the 1 On March 20, 2026, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, Centro Legal De La Raza, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, East Bay Community Law Center, 1 FCRA and its legislative history demonstrate that Congress authorized recovery of statutory damages for failure to comply with the FCRA for a statutory violation, even absent proof of harm. And we find Askins has demonstrated a sufficient interest in his FCRA claim. BACKGROUND Askins applied online for a position with CRST, a trucking company. During the application process, CRST provided Askins with a document that included, among other items, a disclosure that CRST would conduct a background check. During Askins’s employment with CRST, CRST provided him several forms that related in part but not exclusively to background checks. CRST conducted background checks on Askins before and during his employment. Askins filed a class action complaint on behalf of all “Defendants’ current, former and prospective applicants for employment in the United States who applied for a job with Defendants at any time during the period for which a background check was performed beginning five years prior to the filing of this action and ending on the date that final judgment is entered in this action.” The complaint asserted that CRST conducted background checks absent legally compliant disclosure and authorization forms. Based on that assertion, the complaint alleged violations of the FCRA, along with other Housing and Economic Rights Advocates, The Katharine & George Alexander Community Law Center, Legal Assistance for Seniors, Public Counsel, and Public Justice filed an application for leave to file an amici curiae brief on behalf of Askins on the issue of standing. We granted that request. Both the amici curiae brief and CRST’s opposition, filed on May 26, 2026, expanded on the standing arguments raised by the parties in their briefs. We have considered and addressed these arguments in the discussion section below. 2 claims not at issue in this appeal. The complaint identified classes corresponding to the FCRA, among others. Askins subsequently moved for class certification. The motion sought to certify two classes: a “consumer report class” encompassing individuals on whom CRST obtained a consumer report for employment purposes, and a “driver class” encompassing those individuals in the consumer report class who applied for a “driv