`
`
`
`
`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