throbber
Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 253 Filed 01/26/22 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`
`SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN (State Bar No. 310719)
`(sliss@llrlaw.com)
`THOMAS FOWLER, pro hac vice
`(tfowler@llrlaw.com)
`LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
`729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
`Boston, MA 02116
`Telephone:
`(617) 994-5800
`Facsimile:
`(617) 994-5801
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff RAEF LAWSON
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`RAEF LAWSON, individually and on behalf of
`all other similarly situated individuals, and in
`his capacity as Private Attorney General
`Representative
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GRUBHUB HOLDINGS INC. and GRUBHUB
`INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`Case No. 15-cv-05128 JSC
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`BEFORE THE HON. JACQUELINE SCOTT
`CORLEY
`
`Hearing:
`Date: March 3, 2022
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Place: Courtroom F
`Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley
`
`PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05128
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 253 Filed 01/26/22 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on Thursday, March 3, 2022, or as soon thereafter as
`
`the matter may be heard before the Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley by videoconference
`
`pursuant to General Order 72-2, or if the Court orders, in Courtroom F of the United States
`
`District Court, Northern District of California, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th floor,
`
`San Francisco, California 94102, Plaintiff Raef Lawson will and hereby does move this Court for
`
`Summary Judgment.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiff moves for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff‘s employment status,
`
`GrubHub‘s liability for the Labor Code violations alleged in this case, and on the issue of
`
`10
`
`whether Plaintiff was an aggrieved employee for the purposes of pursuing a representative action
`
`11
`
`under the Private Attorneys General Act (―PAGA‖), Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. Following the
`
`12
`
`conclusion of the bench trial held in this matter, the Court issued its Opinion (Dkt. 221, Lawson
`
`13
`
`v. GrubHub, Inc., 302 F. Supp. 3d (S.D. Cal. 2018)) holding that Plaintiff was an independent
`
`14
`
`contractor under the California common law employment status test set forth in S.G. Borello &
`
`15
`
`Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341, 349-55 (1989), and thus entering
`
`16
`
`judgment in favor of GrubHub (Dkt. 222). On September 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit in Lawson
`
`17
`
`v. Grubhub, Inc., 13 F.4th 908, 917 (9th Cir. 2021), vacated the Court‘s decision and remanded
`
`18
`
`the case. The Ninth Circuit held that: (1) the ABC test adopted by the California Supreme Court
`
`19
`
`should be applied to Plaintiff‘s minimum wage and overtime claims; (2) this Court should
`
`20
`
`determine whether the ABC test also applies to Plaintiff‘s expense reimbursement claim; and (3)
`
`21
`
`Plaintiff‘s claims under the ABC test are not abated by Proposition 22. See Lawson, 13 F.4th at
`
`22
`
`913-17.
`
`23
`
`In light of the Ninth Circuit‘s decision, Plaintiff asks the Court to find – on the basis of
`
`24
`
`the full evidentiary record that was developed during the bench trial in this matter – that Plaintiff
`
`25
`
`was GrubHub‘s employee under the ABC test, which applies not only to Plaintiff‘s minimum
`
`26
`
`wage and overtime claims, but also to his expense reimbursement claim. Plaintiff also seeks a
`
`27
`
`finding that GrubHub failed to pay minimum wage on a number of days in violation of Cal. Lab.
`
`28
`
`
`
`i
`PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05128
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 253 Filed 01/26/22 Page 3 of 32
`
`
`
`Code §§ 1194 and 1197, failed to pay overtime for the week of November 30, 2015, in violation
`
`of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1198, 510, and 554, and did not reimburse Plaintiff‘s necessary
`
`business expenses in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802. As such, Plaintiff requests that the
`
`Court hold that Plaintiff is an aggrieved employee for the purposes of PAGA and that the parties
`
`may proceed to the next phase of this case in which Plaintiff will pursue his representative
`
`PAGA claims on behalf of the State and other GrubHub drivers throughout California.
`
`Dated: January 26, 2022
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`RAEF LAWSON,
`
`By his attorneys,
`
`/s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan_____________________
`Shannon Liss-Riordan (State Bar No. 310719)
`Thomas Fowler, pro hac vice
`LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
`729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 994-5800
`Email: sliss@llrlaw.com, tfowler@llrlaw.com
`
`ii
`PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05128
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 253 Filed 01/26/22 Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ................................................................. 2
`
`III.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND........................................................ 2
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`B.
`
`The Court‘s Findings of Fact After Trial Dictate that Plaintiff was an
`Employee Under the ABC Test .............................................................................. 6
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`The Court‘s findings regarding whether Plaintiff‘s work was a part
`of GrubHub‘s regular course of business make clear that GrubHub
`cannot satisfy Prong B of the ABC test, meaning Plaintiff was an
`employee ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`The Court‘s findings that Plaintiff was not engaged in a distinct
`occupation or business means that GrubHub also cannot satisfy
`Prong C of the ABC test ........................................................................... 11
`
`C.
`
`The ABC Test applies to Plaintiff‘s expense reimbursement claim ..................... 14
`
`D.
`
`GrubHub is Liable for Expense Reimbursement, Minimum Wage, and
`Overtime Violations .............................................................................................. 18
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`GrubHub failed to reimburse Plaintiff for business expenses that he
`necessarily incurred in direct consequence of performing deliveries
`for GrubHub .............................................................................................. 18
`
`GrubHub failed to pay Plaintiff overtime for the week of
`November 30, 2015 ................................................................................... 20
`
`iii.
`
`GrubHub failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wage on certain days ............. 21
`
`E.
`
`GrubHub is Derivatively Liable Under the Unfair Competition Law, Cal.
`Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. ........................................ 22
`
`F.
`
`Plaintiff is an Aggrieved Employee for the Purposes of PAGA ........................... 22
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05128
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 253 Filed 01/26/22 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Angelotti v. Walt Disney Co.,
`192 Cal. App. 4th 1394 (2011) ......................................................................................... 11
`
`Armenta v. Osmose, Inc.,
`135 Cal. App. 4th 314 (Cal. App. Dec. 29, 2005) ............................................................ 21
`
`Armour & Co. v. Wantock,
`323 U.S. 126 (1944) .......................................................................................................... 21
`
`Awuah v. Coverall North America, Inc.,
`707 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D. Mass. 2010) ................................................................................. 10
`
`Carey v. Gatehouse Media, Inc.,
`92 Mass. App. Ct. 801 (2018) ................................................................................. 9, 10, 11
`
`Castellanos v. State of California,
`2021 WL 3730951 (Aug. 20, 2021) .................................................................................. 23
`
`Dalton v. Lee Publ‘ns, Inc.,
`270 F.R.D. 555 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ...................................................................................... 19
`
`Duffey v. Tender Heart Home Care Agency, LLC,
`31 Cal. App. 5th 232 (2019) ............................................................................................. 17
`
`Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court,
`179 Cal. Rptr. 3d 69 (Cal. App. Ct. 2014) ........................................................................ 14
`
`Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court,
`4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018) ................................................................................................. passim
`
`Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc.,
`154 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2007) ......................................................................................... 14, 16
`
`Fleece on Earth v. Dep‘t of Emple. & Training,
`923 A.2d 594 (Vt. 2007) ............................................................................................. 12, 13
`
`Gonzales v. San Gabriel Transit, Inc.,
`40 Cal. App. 5th 1131 (Oct. 8, 2019)...................................................................... 2, 15, 17
`
`Gonzales v. San Gabriel Transit, Inc.,
`456 P.3d 1 (Jan. 16, 2020) ................................................................................................ 15
`
`Gonzales v. San Gabriel Transit, Inc.,
`481 P.3d 1144 (Cal. March 17, 2021) ............................................................................... 15
`
`iv
`PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05128
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 253 Filed 01/26/22 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`Goro v. Flowers Foods, Inc.,
`2021 WL 4295294 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2021) .............................................................. 2, 16
`
`Harris v. Super. Ct.,
`53 Cal. 4th 170 (2011) ...................................................................................................... 16
`
`Hassell v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
`2021 WL 2531076 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2021) .................................................................. 23
`
`Hennig v. Indus. Welfare Comm.,
`46 Cal. 3d 1262 (1988) ..................................................................................................... 22
`
`Huff v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.,
`23 Cal. App. 5th 745 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) ....................................................................... 23
`
`James v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
`2021 WL 2476809 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2021) .................................................................. 23
`
`Johnson v. VCG-IS, LLC,
`Case No. 30-2015-00802813, Preliminary Ruling Granting Plaintiff‘s Motion for
`Summary Judgment (Super. Ct. Cal. Aug. 30, 2018) ......................................................... 9
`
`Johnson v. VCG-IS, LLC,
`Case No. 30-2015-00802813-CU-CR-CXC, Ruling on Motion in Limine (Super.
`Ct. Cal. July 18, 2018) ................................................................................................ 14, 17
`
`Lawson v. GrubHub, Inc. et al.,
`302 F. Supp. 3d 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ..................................................................... passim
`
`Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc.,
`13 F.4th 908 (9th Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................... passim
`
`Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc.,
`2017 WL 2951608 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2017) ............................................................... 9, 19
`
`Martinez v. Combs,
`49 Cal. 4th 35 (2010) .................................................................................................... 5, 17
`
`Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc.,
`60 Cal. 4th 833 (2015) ...................................................................................................... 21
`
`Morillion v. Royal Packing Co.,
`22 Cal. 4th 575 (2000) ...................................................................................................... 20
`
`O‘Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
`2013 2L 6354534 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013) ...................................................................... 22
`
`v
`PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05128
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 253 Filed 01/26/22 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`O‘Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
`311 F.R.D. 547 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...................................................................................... 19
`
`Owino v. CoreCivic, Inc.,
`2019 WL 1367815 (S.D. Cal. March 26, 2019)................................................................ 16
`
`People v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
`56 Cal. App. 266 (Cal. App. Ct. 2020) ............................................................................... 8
`
`Razak v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
`2017 WL 4052417 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2017) ................................................................... 20
`
`Rogers v. Lyft, Inc.,
`452 F. Supp. 3d 904 (N.D. Cal. April 7, 2020) ................................................................... 8
`
`S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep‘t of Indus. Relations,
`48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) ................................................................................................ passim
`
`See‘s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court,
`210 Cal. App. 4th 889 (2012) ........................................................................................... 20
`
`Skidmore v. Swift & Co.,
`323 U.S. 134 (1944) .......................................................................................................... 21
`
`Stuart v. RadioShack Corp.,
`2009 WL 281941 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2009) ...................................................................... 19
`
`Stubbs v. Covenant Sec. Servs., Ltd.,
`2015 WL 5521984 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2015) ................................................................ 11
`
`USS-POSCO Indus. v. Case,
`244 Cal. App. 4th 197 (2016) ........................................................................................... 18
`
`Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.,
`10 Cal. 5th 944 (2021) .............................................................................................. 4, 8, 15
`
`Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.,
`939 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................ 4
`
`Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana,
`No. 20-1573 ........................................................................................................................ 3
`
`Zellagui v. MCD Pizza, Inc.,
`59 F. Supp. 3d 712 (E.D. Pa. 2014) .................................................................................. 21
`
`Statutes
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 1194 .................................................................................................. 3, 18, 20, 21
`
`vi
`PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05128
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 253 Filed 01/26/22 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 1197 ........................................................................................................ 3, 18, 21
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 1198 .............................................................................................................. 3, 18
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 2750.3(a)(1) ...................................................................................................... 16
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 2776 .................................................................................................................. 13
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 2785(b) .............................................................................................................. 14
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 510 .......................................................................................................... 3, 18, 20
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 554 ................................................................................................................ 3, 18
`
`Private Attorneys General Act (―PAGA‖),
`Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq. ................................................................................... 2, 3, 23
`
`Unfair Competition Law,
`Cal. Business and Professions Code Sections, 17200 et seq. ........................................... 22
`
`Other Authorities
`
`DLSE Opinion Letter,
`May 3, 2019 .................................................................................................................. 2, 15
`
`Regulations
`
`29 CFR 553.221 ............................................................................................................................ 21
`
`Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 11090, § 3 ............................................................................................... 20
`
`Wage Order No. 9-2001, ¶ 9 (B),
`Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §11090 .................................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05128
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 253 Filed 01/26/22 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On September 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit in Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., 13 F.4th 908 (9th
`
`Cir. 2021), vacated the Court‘s Opinion of February 8, 2018 (Dkt. 221) and remanded the case
`
`for consideration in light of the ABC test established by Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v.
`
`Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and codified by the California legislature as Assembly
`
`Bill 5 (hereinafter ―A.B. 5‖). Now, it is for the Court to decide whether, under the record already
`
`developed in full in this case, Plaintiff was GrubHub‘s employee, applying the ABC test, and
`
`whether GrubHub is liable for violations of the California Labor Code.
`
`Under the ABC test, there can be no doubt that Plaintiff was GrubHub‘s employee, based
`
`on findings that this Court has already made following a full bench trial. Most obviously, Prong
`
`B of the ABC test requires GrubHub to demonstrate that Plaintiff worked outside GrubHub‘s
`
`usual course of business. See Dynamex, 4 Cal. 5th at 956-57. This Court has already determined
`
`that Plaintiff‘s services as a food delivery driver were a part of GrubHub‘s regular food delivery
`
`business. See Lawson v. GrubHub, Inc. et al., 302 F. Supp. 3d 1071, 1091 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
`
`While this factual finding was one of many factors to be balanced under the Borello common law
`
`test, this holding is dispositive under the ABC test and means that Plaintiff was GrubHub‘s
`
`employee.
`
`While the Court need not even reach Prongs A and C of the ABC test, the Court‘s factual
`
`findings made following the bench trial also indicate that GrubHub cannot satisfy those prongs.
`
`While GrubHub may argue that a new trial is warranted in light of the application of the ABC
`
`test, no new trial is necessary – the facts relevant to the ABC test have already been fully
`
`developed in the bench trial, as they are all also pertinent to the Borello common law test (just
`
`applied in a different way under the ABC test). Given the fact that GrubHub cannot meet its
`
`burden to satisfy any of the ABC test prongs (let alone all three), the Court should proceed to
`
`grant summary judgment in Plaintiff‘s favor.
`
`Moreover, there is no doubt that the ABC test applies to not only Plaintiff‘s minimum
`
`1
`PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05128
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 253 Filed 01/26/22 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`wage and overtime claims but also his expense reimbursement claim under Cal. Lab. Code §
`
`2802. The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and recent courts have agreed
`
`that expense reimbursement claims such as Plaintiff‘s are governed by the ABC test. See Goro v.
`
`Flowers Foods, Inc., 2021 WL 4295294, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2021); Gonzales v. San
`
`Gabriel Transit, Inc., 40 Cal. App. 5th 1131 (Oct. 8, 2019); DLSE Letter (attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit A). Thus, Plaintiff was an employee for purposes of all claims at issue in this case.
`
`Because the Court held previously that Plaintiff was an independent contractor rather
`
`than an employee, it has not yet determined whether GrubHub is liable for minimum wage,
`
`overtime, and expense reimbursement violations. See Lawson, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 1093. Now,
`
`10
`
`however, the Court should proceed and make such findings of liability, as is explained in pages
`
`11
`
`73-82 of Plaintiffs‘ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Dkt. 217).
`
`12
`
`Finally, as GrubHub is liable for these violations of the California Labor Code, Plaintiff
`
`13
`
`is an ―aggrieved employee‖ for the purposes of the Private Attorneys General Act (―PAGA‖),
`
`14
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq., and the Court should thus direct the parties to proceed with the
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`PAGA representative phase of this case.
`
`II.
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Whether Plaintiff was GrubHub‘s employee under the ABC test.
`
`Whether the Dynamex ABC test is applicable to Plaintiff‘s claims for failure to
`
`reimburse necessary business expenses.
`
`
`
`3. Whether GrubHub is liable for its failures to pay minimum wage and overtime as
`
`required by California law and failed to reimburse Plaintiff for his necessary business expenses.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Whether Plaintiff is an aggrieved employee for the purposes of PAGA, meaning
`
`that the parties can now proceed to the PAGA representative phase of this case.
`
`III.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`GrubHub operates a food delivery service that employs many thousands of delivery
`
`drivers around the country, including in California, but classifies them as independent
`
`2
`PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05128
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 253 Filed 01/26/22 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`contractors. See Lawson, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 1073. GrubHub dispatches delivery drivers
`
`throughout the country via an on demand dispatch system. Id. at 1078-79. By misclassifying its
`
`drivers, including Plaintiff, as independent contractors, GrubHub has been able to reap
`
`substantial savings in labor costs by avoiding compliance with the California Labor Code,
`
`including ensuring drivers receive minimum wage and overtime and reimbursing drivers for the
`
`cost of using and maintaining their vehicles for its delivery service. (Plaintiff‘s Post-Trial Brief
`
`at 38-41, 73-82, Dkt. 217.) Plaintiff-Appellant Raef Lawson worked as a GrubHub delivery
`
`driver from October 2015 to February 2016, delivering food to GrubHub‘s customers in Los
`
`Angeles, California. See Lawson, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 1073.
`
`10
`
`Plaintiff brought claims under the California Labor Code and as a representative action
`
`11
`
`under PAGA, Cal. Lab. Code § 2698 et seq., alleging that GrubHub misclassified him and other
`
`12
`
`delivery drivers across California as independent contractors and thereby violated the Labor
`
`13
`
`Code by failing to pay minimum wage (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1197 and 1194), failing to pay a time-
`
`14
`
`and-a-half overtime premium for hours worked in excess of forty per week or eight per day (Cal.
`
`15
`
`Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1198, 510, and 554), and failing to reimburse for necessary business
`
`16
`
`expenses (Cal. Lab. Code § 2802). (Second Am. Compl., Dkt. 41.) Prior to trial, the parties
`
`17
`
`stipulated to bifurcate the case by focusing first on whether Plaintiff was misclassified (and thus
`
`18
`
`was an ―aggrieved employee‖ under PAGA) and deferring the question of what PAGA penalties
`
`19
`
`may be owed on account of GrubHub‘s alleged misclassification of drivers across California.
`
`20
`
`(Stipulation, Dkt. 122.)1
`
`21
`
`The Court presided over a bench trial on Plaintiff‘s claims that lasted from September 5-
`
`22
`
`12, 2017. See Lawson, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 1073. On January 2, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a Notice
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`of Supplemental Authority informing the Court that the California Supreme Court had ordered
`
`1
`GrubHub may request that this Court stay this matter pending the Supreme Court‘s
`consideration of whether representative PAGA claims can be compelled to arbitration in Viking
`River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, No. 20-1573. The Court should proceed to decide summary
`judgment, given the fact that Plaintiff here is not bound by an arbitration agreement and has
`individual claims as well. The impact of Viking River Cruises can be determined in the next
`phase of this litigation.
`
`3
`PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05128
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 253 Filed 01/26/22 Page 12 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`the parties in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No.
`
`S222732, to brief whether the Supreme Court should adopt an ―ABC‖ test for misclassification.
`
`The Court issued its decision on February 8, 2018, determining that Plaintiff was properly
`
`classified as an independent contractor under Borello – the Court did not consider the ABC test.
`
`See Lawson, 302 F. Supp. 3d at 1072-93. Plaintiff timely appealed the Court‘s decision to the
`
`Ninth Circuit. (Notice of Appeal, Dkt. 226.)
`
`On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Dynamex
`
`Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), in which the court adopted the
`
`ABC test, which supplanted the common law test that this Court had applied under Borello. On
`
`10
`
`September 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Indicative Ruling (Dkt. 240) pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`11
`
`Civ. P. 62.1, asking the Court to indicate that, in light of Dynamex, if the Ninth Circuit were to
`
`12
`
`remand the case, the Court would grant a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`13
`
`60(b), or at least that the application of Dynamex raised a substantial issue. The Court held on
`
`14
`
`November 28, 2018, that it would decline to ―definitively rule that it would vacate the
`
`15
`
`judgment,‖ but that ―the motion does raise a substantial issue‖. (Order at 1, Dkt. 249.) The
`
`16
`
`reason that the Court declined to rule that it would vacate the judgment was primarily that it was
`
`17
`
`not clear whether or not Dynamex would apply retroactively. (Order at 10-11, Dkt. 249.)
`
`18
`
`The Ninth Circuit ordered the parties to proceed with briefing on the merits (Ninth Cir.
`
`19
`
`Dkt. 22) but then stayed the appeal (Ninth Cir. Dkt. 72) pending the California Supreme Court‘s
`
`20
`
`consideration of the question certified to it by the Ninth Circuit in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro
`
`21
`
`Franchising International, Inc., 939 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2019), whether Dynamex would
`
`22
`
`apply retroactively. The California Supreme Court answered the certified question on January
`
`23
`
`14, 2021, holding that Dynamex applies retroactively. See Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising
`
`24
`
`International, Inc., 10 Cal. 5th 944, 950-58 (2021).
`
`25
`
`On September 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision vacating this Court‘s
`
`26
`
`holding that Plaintiff was properly classified as an independent contractor. See Lawson, 13 F.4th
`
`27
`
`at 916-17. The Ninth Circuit held that the ABC test applies retroactively to Plaintiff‘s minimum
`
`28
`
`
`
`4
`PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05128
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 253 Filed 01/26/22 Page 13 of 32
`
`
`
`wage and overtime claims and remanded those claims to this Court to analyze the ABC test in
`
`the first instance. See id. With regard to Plaintiff‘s expense reimbursement claim, the Ninth
`
`Circuit directed this Court to decide in the first instance whether the ABC test applies.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`In Dynamex, the Supreme Court recognized that the multi-factor Borello test has led to
`
`uncertainty and manipulation by putative employers and that an ―ABC‖ test would better satisfy
`
`the ―history and purpose of the suffer or permit to work standard in California‘s wage orders.‖
`
`Dynamex, 4 Cal. 5th at 956-57. Citing its decision in Martinez v. Combs, 49 Cal. 4th 35 (2010),
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`which set forth three definitions of ―to employ‖ under California law: ―(a) to exercise control
`
`11
`
`over the wages, hours or working conditions, or (b) to suffer or permit to work, or (c) to engage,
`
`12
`
`thereby creating a common law employment relationship,‖ id. at 64, the Dynamex Court
`
`13
`
`explained the ―suffer or permit‖ standard is ―exceptionally broad,‖ ―must be liberally construed,‖
`
`14
`
`and applies to the employee/independent contractor inquiry. Dynamex, 4 Cal. 5th at 954.
`
`15
`
`Thus, under the ABC test (which is far stricter than the multi-factor Borello test), the
`
`16
`
`worker is presumed to be an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the employer
`
`17
`
`can meet its burden to meet each of the three ABC factors. Dynamex, 4 Cal. 5th at 956-57. Those
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`factors require the putative employer to demonstrate that:
`
`(A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection
`with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the
`work and in fact; and
`
`(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity‘s
`business; and
`
`(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade,
`occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.‖
`
`24
`
`Id. The ABC test is conjunctive, meaning that if the Court holds that an employer cannot satisfy
`
`25
`
`any one of those factors, the inquiry ends, and the worker must be considered to be an employee.
`
`26
`
`Id. at 966 (each prong of the ABC test ―may be independently determinative of the employee or
`
`27
`
`independent contractor question‖).
`
`28
`
`
`
`5
`PLAINTIFF‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:15-cv-05128
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 253 Filed 01/26/22 Page 14 of 32
`
`
`
`Moreover, while this case was stayed, the California legislature enacted Assembly Bill 5
`
`(―A.B. 5‖), which went into effect on January 1, 2020, in order to codify the Dynamex ABC test.
`
`The ABC test was thus integrated into the California Labor Code as Section 2775. Under both
`
`Dynamex and the subsequently enacted A.B. 5, the ABC test governs the claims in this case.
`
`Here, as explained infra in Section II.B, the Court has already held in its Opinion of February 8,
`
`2018 (Dkt. 221), that Plaintiff worked within GrubHub‘s usual course of business, meaning that
`
`GrubHub cannot satisfy on Prong B, and Plaintiff is therefore GrubHub‘s employee. Likewise,
`
`GrubHub cannot demonstrate that it demons

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket