Henry v. Central Freight Lines, Inc.

Filing 105

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 11/12/19 GRANTING 91 Motion to Stay the Action until the California Supreme Court answers the Ninth Circuit's certified question. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Ricky Henry,

11
12
13
14

No.

2:16-cv-00280-JAM-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.
Central Freight Lines, Inc.,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STAY ACTION

Defendant.

15
16

Ricky Henry (“Henry” or “Plaintiff”) worked for Central

17

Freight Lines, Inc. (“CFL” or “Defendant”) as a truck driver from

18

April 2014 to February 2015.

19

illegally misclassified him, and other putative class member-

20

truck drivers, as independent contractors to deny them statutory

21

benefits owed under the California Labor Code.

22

Henry, and the putative class members, were properly classified

23

as independent contractors and therefore not entitled to certain

24

protections and benefits under the California Labor Code.

25

Henry alleges CFL intentionally and

CFL contends that

Since this Court’s decision on CFL’s Motion for Summary

26

Judgment and Henry’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Order,

27

ECF No. 87, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its prior ruling in

28

Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., 923 F.3d 575 (9th
1

1

Cir. 2019), and certified to the California Supreme Court the

2

question of whether the “ABC Test” announced in Dynamex Ops. W.

3

Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018) applies

4

retroactively.

5

930 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2019); and Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising

6

Int’l, Inc., 939 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2019).

7

Supreme Court has since decided to rule on the question.

8

No. 94-1.

9

this issue.

10
11

See Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc.,

The California
See ECF

CFL moves to stay the action pending resolution of
CFL Mot., ECF. No. 91.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS
Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Action.1

12
13

I.

14

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The parties are intimately familiar with the events leading

15

up to this motion, as they were described in depth in this

16

Court’s previously issued Order.

17

such, they will not be repeated here.

See Order, ECF No. 87.

As

18
19

II.

OPINION

20

A. Request for Judicial Notice

21

A court may take judicial notice of a fact “that is not

22

subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known

23

within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction” or “can be

24

accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy

25

cannot reasonably be questioned.”

Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

A

26
27
28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for November 5, 2019.
2
1

1

court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another

2

court “not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other

3

litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation

4

and related findings.”

5

767, 774 (2nd Cir. 1991).

6

notice of “adjudicative facts not subject to reasonable

7

dispute.”

8

1994) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

9
10

Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d.
Likewise, a court may take judicial

United States v. Chapel, 41 F.3d 1338, 1342 (9th Cir.

Defendant requests judicial notice of the following:
1. ECF No. 1 in California Truck Association v. Becerra,

11

No, 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2018).

12

2. ECF No. 45 in California Truck Association v. Becerra,

13

No, 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2018).

14

3. Judge Staton’s Order staying the action in Bruers v.

15

Flowers Foods, Inc., No. 18-cv-01442-JLS-ADS (C.D. Cal

16

Aug. 7, 2019).

17

Def.’s RJN at 1, ECF No. 94-1.

18

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of the following:

19

1. The full text of Assembly Bill No. 5, signed by

20
21
22

Governor Newson on September 18, 2019.
Plf.’s RJN at 1, ECF No. 95-1.
The Court agrees that the adjudicative facts Defendant and

23

Plaintiff identify are proper subjects of judicial notice.

Both

24

Defendant’s and Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are,

25

therefore, GRANTED.

26

B. Legal Standard

27

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power

28

inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes
3

1

on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for

2

counsel, and for litigants.”

3

248, 254 (1936).

4

stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent

5

proceedings which bear upon the case.”

6

Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979).

7

The decision whether to stay an action is committed to the

8

“sound discretion” of the district court and is based on

9

weighing “the competing interests which will be affected by the

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.

Accordingly, “a] trial court may . . . enter a

Leyva v. Certified

10

granting or refusal to grant a stay . . . .”

11

Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).

12

CMAX, Inc. v.

Among these competing interests are: (1) the possible

13

damage which may result from the granting of a stay, (2) the

14

hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required

15

to go forward, and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in

16

terms of the simplifying or complicating issues, proof, and

17

questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.

18

Id.

19

establishing its need.”

20

(1997).

21
22
23

Finally, “the proponent of a stay bears the burden of
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708

C. Analysis
1.

Retroactivity of the ABC Test

Ensuring that justice proceeds in an ordered manner is the

24

interest that controls here.

The Ninth Circuit recently

25

certified the question of whether Dynamex applies retroactively.

26

The California Supreme Court agreed to answer that question as a

27

matter of state law.

28

size of any of the putative classes and impact the criteria this

That ruling will significantly impact the

4

1

Court must consider when deciding class certification.

2

for the California Supreme Court’s decision will allow this Court

3

to adjudicate the issues before it with far greater certainty.

4

For this reason, a stay is appropriate.

5

Waiting

In opposition to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff argues the

6

California Legislature has definitively mandated that the ABC

7

Test is retroactive with the passage of Assembly Bill 5 (“AB-5”).

8

Henry Opp’n, ECF No. 95.

9

this argument.

The chronology of events cuts against

The Ninth Circuit certified the question to the

10

California Supreme Court after Governor Newson signed AB-5 into

11

law.

12

the Ninth Circuit and other district courts have stayed

13

proceedings pending resolution of this issue.

14

Grubhub, Inc., No. 18-15386, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05128-JSC (N.D.

15

Cal. 2019); and Bruers v. Flowers Foods, Inc., D.C. No. 18-cv-

16

01442-JLS (C.D. Cal. 2019).

17

See Vazquez, 939 F.3d at 1049; and ECF No. 95-1.

And both

See Raef Lawson v.

Proceeding with class certification under the assumption the

18

California Supreme Court will apply Dynamex retroactively could

19

very well lead to inefficiencies and a waste of resources for

20

both the parties and the Court.

21

prejudicial given the costs he has already expended preparing for

22

class certification.

23

Court proceeds with class certification and Dynamex is found not

24

to be retroactive, the parties will have to relitigate the issue—

25

an even more costly venture.

26

courts before us, this Court declines to take that path.

27
28

Plaintiff argues a stay would be

Henry Opp’n, ECF No. 95 at 9.

But if this

Like the Ninth Circuit and district

In sum, with multiple motions pending before this Court, see
ECF No. 88; and ECF No. 96, a stay awaiting clarity on Dynamex’s
5

1

retroactivity would allow for a more orderly disposition of these

2

motions.

3

resolution from the California Supreme Court is GRANTED.

4
5

Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Action to await

2.

Preemption of the ABC Test by the FAAAA

Defendant also argues this Court should stay this case given

6

an intra-circuit split about whether the Federal Aviation

7

Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”) preempts the ABC Test.

8

See CFL Mot., ECF. No. 91 at 2–3.

9

on this issue.

This Court has already ruled

See Order, ECF No. 87 at 15–17.

Absent new

10

evidence or an intervening change of controlling law, Defendant’s

11

argument is insufficient to disrupt this Court’s previous

12

finding.

Thus, a stay is not warranted on these grounds.

13
14

III.

ORDER

15

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS

16

Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Action until the California

17

Supreme Court answers the Ninth Circuit’s certified question.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 12, 2019

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6