Juan Saravia v. Dynamex, Inc. et al

Filing 81

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AND SEEKING FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Responses due by 9/2/2015 at noon.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 8/24/15. (whalc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

JUAN SARAVIA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

12

Plaintiff,

13

No. C 14-05003 WHA
v.

15
16

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND SEEKING FURTHER
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

DYNAMEX, INC., DYNAMEX FLEET
SERVICES, LLC, DYNAMEX
OPERATIONS EAST, LLC, and
DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST, LLC,
Defendants.

14

/

17
18
19
20

For good cause shown, plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to file an amended
complaint is hereby GRANTED.
Meanwhile, the Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions following limited discovery

21

and is continuing to work on defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and plaintiff’s motion to

22

facilitate notice. The Court seeks further information on several issues that pertain to the

23

pending motions. By SEPTEMBER 2, AT NOON, the parties shall each submit briefs NOT TO

24
25
26
27
28

EXCEED FIFTEEN PAGES,

double-spaced with no footnotes and limited single-spaced material

that respond to the supplemental briefs already submitted. Please also address the following:
•

Does Texas law or California law apply to questions of
unconscionability? In addressing this issue, the parties shall
specifically address whether Texas law conflicts with
any “fundamental policy” of California law that pertains to
enforcement of the delegation clause in particular, as well as
the other unconscionability arguments raised by plaintiff.

1

•

What is the role of each of the three agreements between Dynamex
West and plaintiff or JJ Express as a basis for plaintiff’s claims?

•

Assuming arguendo that the delegation clause of the 2011
agreement is enforceable, but the incorporation of the AAA rules
in the 2012 agreement is not, what relief is appropriate?

•

Assuming arguendo that the Court finds incorporation of the
AAA rules can only be “clear and unmistakable” evidence of
intent to delegate the issue of arbitrability where the parties
involved are “sophisticated,” should plaintiff be considered
“sophisticated” according to the facts in the record?

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Dated: August 24, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2