Ludlow v. Flowers Foods, Inc. et al

Filing 174

ORDER: (1) Granting Defendants' motion to stay; (2) Denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (3) Deferring ruling on Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF Nos. 90 , 91 , 116 , 123 , 135 , 140 ). Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 2/18/2020. (jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

13

DANIEL LUDLOW, an individual and on
behalf of others similarly-situated; and
WILLIAM LANCASTER, individually
and on behalf of others similarly-situated,

14

Plaintiffs,

12

15

ORDER: (1) GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY;
(2) DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; AND
(3) DEFERRING RULING ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

v.

16

Case No.: 18-CV-1190 JLS (JLB)

FLOWERS FOODS, INC., a Georgia
Corporation; FLOWERS BAKERIES,
LLC, a Georgia limited liability company;
and FLOWERS FINANCE, LLC, a
limited liability company,

17
18
19
20

(ECF Nos. 90, 91, 116, 123, 135, 140)

Defendants.

21

Presently before the Court is Defendants Flowers Foods, Inc.; Flowers Bakeries,

22

LLC; and Flowers Finance, LLC’s Motion to Stay (“Mot.,” ECF No. 116). Also before

23

the Court are Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 121) and

24

Defendants’ Reply in Support of (“Reply,” ECF No. 122) the Motion; Plaintiffs’ three

25

Notices of Supplemental Authority (ECF No. 126, 131, 167), to which Defendants filed

26

Objections (ECF Nos. 128, 138, 168); and Defendants’ four Notices of Supplemental

27

Authority (ECF Nos. 144, 151, 166, 172). After reviewing the Parties’ arguments and the

28

law, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Stay.
1
18-CV-1190 JLS (JLB)

1

BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiffs Daniel Ludlow and William Lancaster work as distributors for Defendants

3

Flowers Foods, Inc.; Flowers Bakeries, LLC; and Flowers Finance, LLC. First Amended

4

Compl., ECF No. 56 at 5–6. All of Plaintiffs’ claims stem from their allegation that

5

Defendants intentionally misclassified them as independent contractors instead of

6

employees, thereby denying Plaintiffs certain rights and benefits afforded to employees,

7

including overtime wages, rest and meal periods, payment for all time worked, accurate

8

wage statements, indemnification for expenses, and protection from unlawful wage

9

deductions. Id. at 2.

10

After this litigation commenced, the California Supreme Court announced in

11

Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), a new standard

12

to distinguish independent contractors from employees: the “ABC Test.” Id. at 916. The

13

Dynamex Court made clear that the ABC Test prospectively replaced the former

14

multifactor standard set forth in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial

15

Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989), see Dynamex, 4 Cal. 5th at 964, but did not state whether

16

the ABC Test would apply retroactively. See generally id. The Ninth Circuit subsequently

17

decided that the ABC Test applies retroactively, see Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l,

18

Inc., 923 F.3d 575 (9th Cir. 2019); however, on rehearing, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its

19

ruling and certified the question to the California Supreme Court. See Vazquez v. Jan-Pro

20

Franchising Int’l, Inc., No. 17-16096, 2019 WL 4648399 (9th Cir. Sep. 24, 2019). On

21

November 20, 2019, the California Supreme Court granted the Ninth Circuit’s request for

22

certification. See Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., No. S258191 (Cal. Nov. 20,

23

2019).

24

LEGAL STANDARD

25

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court

26

to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for

27

itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In

28

the interests of judicial economy, a court may grant a stay pending the outcome of other
2
18-CV-1190 JLS (JLB)

1

legal proceedings related to the case. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d

2

857, 863–64 (9th Cir. 1979). When determining whether to stay an action, a court must

3

weigh competing interests that the granting or denial of a stay will affect, including:

4

(1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay;” (2) “the hardship

5

or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward;” and (3) “the orderly

6

course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and

7

questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300

8

F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55). “If there is even a fair

9

possibility that the stay for which [the movant] prays for will work damage to someone

10

else,” the movant “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to

11

go forward.” Id. (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). “The proponent of a stay bears the

12

burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis,

13

299 U.S. at 255).

14

ANALYSIS
Defendants ask the Court to stay this action pending the California Supreme Court’s

15
16

ruling on whether the ABC Test applies retroactively.1 Mot. at 2.

17

I.

The Balance of Hardship or Inequity Between Plaintiffs and Defendants

18

First, the Court must balance the “possible damage [to Plaintiffs] which may result

19

from the granting of a stay,” with “the hardship or inequity which [Defendants] may suffer

20

in being required to go forward.” CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268.

21

Plaintiffs contend they will be “severely prejudiced” if the Court issues a stay.

22

Opp’n at 11–15. Plaintiffs first contend that a stay will result in the loss or deterioration

23

of evidence causing prejudice to Plaintiffs. Id. at 11–12. Plaintiffs argue that, as time

24
25
26
27
28

In their Motion, Defendants also ask the Court to issue a stay pending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in
Western States Trucking Association v. Andre Schoorl, et al., No. 19-15974 (9th Cir.), on the question of
whether the Federal Aviation and Administrative Authorization Act (“FAAAA”) preempts prong “B” of
the ABC Test. Mot. at 2. While this Motion was pending, that appeal was voluntarily dismissed, see 2019
WL 5212963 (9th Cir. Sept. 5, 2019), “so FAAAA preemption is no longer at issue” for the purposes of
this Motion. See Reply at 2 n.1.
1

3
18-CV-1190 JLS (JLB)

1

passes, their “memories and their ability to recall facts” will fade and pertinent witnesses

2

may become unavailable. Id. at 11. But this does not amount to prejudice sufficient to

3

deny the stay. Discovery proceedings have already taken place “and hence there is

4

presumably no problem of preserving evidence.” See CMAX, 300 F.2d at 269; see also

5

Burnell v. Swift Transportation Co., No. EDCV1000809VAPOPX, 2011 WL 13352810,

6

at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2011) (“While the risk of lost evidence is inherent in every stay,

7

Plaintiffs’ risk in this case is mitigated considerably by the fact that they already have

8

received some informal discovery.”). And “[i]f there were such a problem” preserving

9

evidence, “application [can] be made . . . to permit further discovery proceedings.” See

10

CMAX, 300 F.2d at 269.

11

Plaintiffs also contend that the indefinite length and anticipated lengthy stay would

12

be prejudicial. Mot. at 12–14. While staying this case will certainly delay proceedings,

13

the Court finds that because the California Supreme Court has now granted the Ninth

14

Circuit’s request and will answer the question expeditiously, any wait for an answer to this

15

important issue would be neither indefinite nor unreasonable. See Burnell, 2011 WL

16

13352810, at *5 (finding stay pending California Supreme Court decision “cannot be said

17

to be ‘indefinite’”).

18

Finally, Plaintiffs contend that a stay would prolong the alleged “continuing harm”

19

caused by the misclassification of Plaintiffs as independent contractors, Opp’n at 12, and

20

delay Plaintiffs from receiving the injunctive and monetary relief they seek. Id. at 14–15.

21

The Court finds these reasons unavailing as well. Mere delay in receiving damages is an

22

insufficient basis to deny a stay. See Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110–112

23

(9th Cir. 2005). Further, the fact that Plaintiffs have not moved for a preliminary injunction

24

to stop the alleged harm and did not file their case for several years after the alleged harm

25

began lessens the Court’s concerns about delaying prospective relief and the harm

26

continuing. See Gustavson v. Mars, Inc., No. 13-CV-04537-LHK, 2014 WL 6986421, at

27

*3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014); see also Quinn-White v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No.

28

CV164300PSGAGRX, 2016 WL 11519285, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016) (finding that
4
18-CV-1190 JLS (JLB)

1

“two years hav[ing] . . . lapsed between Plaintiffs’ injuries and the filing of the Complaint”

2

weighed against finding prejudice to plaintiffs).

3

Turning to the potential prejudice from proceeding without a stay, Defendants

4

contend that moving forward without a clear answer on the Dynamex’s retroactivity “could

5

result in [the Parties] ‘unnecessarily expend[ing] resources engaging in motion practice

6

and planning and preparing for trial . . . [based] on the wrong standard.’” Mot. at 9 (quoting

7

In re Taco Bell Wage & Hour Actions, No. 1:07-CV-01314-OWW, 2011 WL 3846727, at

8

*4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011)). The Court agrees that this would amount to a hardship on

9

Defendants—and Plaintiffs as well—and weighs in favor of granting the stay. Preparing

10

for trial without a clear answer on Dynamex’s retroactivity would cause unnecessary work

11

for the Parties (and the Court), amounting to a hardship in this case.

12

Having weighed the Parties potential hardships, the Court finds Plaintiffs have not

13

shown a “fair possibility” that a stay will cause prejudice, CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268, while

14

Defendants have made a “clear case of hardship” absent a stay. See id.

15

II.

The Orderly Course of Justice

16

Next, the Court must consider “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of

17

the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be

18

expected to result from a stay.” Id.

19

Defendants contend that waiting to determine whether the ABC Test applies

20

retroactively would promote judicial efficiency and avoid waste of the Parties’ resources.

21

Mot. at 6–8. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification. ECF No. 90. The motion

22

raises questions about whether the ABC Test should apply retroactively. See generally id.

23

According to Defendants, the outcome of these motions “may depend upon which test

24

applies—Borello or ‘ABC.’” Mot. at 7 (quoting Bruers v. Flowers Foods, Inc., No.

25

818CV01442JLSADS, 2019 WL 5867434, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2019)). Waiting for a

26

decision by the California Supreme Court in Vazquez and getting a definitive answer on

27

Dynamex’s retroactivity would simplify the issues remaining and avoid the potential of

28

wasting resources addressing a standard that is not applicable. Id.
5
18-CV-1190 JLS (JLB)

1

Plaintiffs disagree, arguing that the ABC Test will apply regardless of how the

2

California Supreme Court rules in Vazquez and, thus, there is no need to wait for an answer

3

on this question. Opp’n at 8–11. Further, Plaintiffs contend that the Borello and ABC tests

4

have significant overlap, making the determination as to which test applies insignificant to

5

the ultimate outcome. Id. at 9–10. For these reasons, Plaintiffs contend that the disposition

6

of the pending motions and trial “will largely be the same for the entire claims period

7

regardless of Dynamex’s retroactivity.” Id. at 10.

8

On the facts of this case, the Court finds that “the prospect of narrowing the factual

9

and legal issues . . . justifies a stay.” Cf. Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112. “Proceeding with

10

class certification under the assumption the California Supreme Court will apply Dynamex

11

retroactively could very well lead to inefficiencies and a waste of resources for both the

12

parties and the Court.” Henry v. Cent. Freight Lines, Inc., No. 216CV00280JAMEFB,

13

2019 WL 5960140, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2019).

14

contentions, the differences between the Borello standard and the ABC Test are

15

significant—indeed, they could be dispositive. The ABC Test dispenses with many of the

16

Borello secondary factors, gives different weight to the factors that do overlap, and forces

17

the hiring entity to establish all of the ABC Test’s prongs to establish that a worker is an

18

independent contractor, rather than show the balance of the applicable factors weighs in

19

their favor. See Dynamex, 4 Cal. 5th at 957–63. These differences are so striking that

20

courts have acknowledged that Dynamex represented a “sea change” in this area of law, W.

21

States Trucking Ass’n v. Schoorl, 377 F. Supp. 3d 1056, 1067 (E.D. Cal. 2019), and “upset

22

a settled legal principle.” Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., No. 15-CV-05128-JSC, 2018 WL

23

6190316, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2018).

And contrary to Plaintiffs’

24

“In sum, with multiple motions pending before this Court, . . . a stay awaiting clarity

25

on Dynamex’s retroactivity would allow for a more orderly disposition of these motions.”

26

See Henry, 2019 WL 5960140, at *3.

27

///

28

///
6
18-CV-1190 JLS (JLB)

1

III.

The Overall Balance Favors Granting the Stay

2

After considering each of the required factors, the Court finds that a stay is

3

appropriate because the “weighing of the hardships favors the granting of a stay” and “it

4

will serve the interests of judicial economy by allowing for development of . . . [a

5

potentially dispositive] legal issue[].” See Cal. Trout, Inc. v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,

6

115 F. Supp. 3d 1102, 1117 (C.D. Cal. 2015). The Court therefore exercises its discretion

7

to grant a stay pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Vazquez. See Bruers,

8

2019 WL 5867434, at *5 (granting stay pending decision by the California Supreme Court

9

on Dynamex’s retroactivity); Henry, 2019 WL 5960140, at *3 (same); see also Haitayan

10

v. 7-Eleven, Inc., CV 17-7454 DSF (ASx), 2019 WL 2620729, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29,

11

2019) (staying action pending Ninth Circuit’s original consideration of Vazquez); Lawson

12

v. Grubhub, Inc., No. 18-15386, 2019 WL 5876923, at *1 (9th Cir. Sept. 26, 2019) (staying

13

appeal pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in Vazquez).

14

CONCLUSION

15

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Stay (ECF No.

16

116) pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Vazquez answering whether

17

Dynamex applies retroactively. Because the issues briefed by the Parties will change

18

substantially after this issue is decided, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

19

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 90) and associated Motions to File

20

Documents Under Seal (ECF Nos. 91, 135, 140). Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the

21

Pleadings, however, does not implicate the Dynamex retroactivity issue and therefore

22

denying and refiling the Motion is not necessary; accordingly, the Court will DEFER

23

RULING ON the Motion (ECF No. 123) until after the stay is lifted.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 18, 2020

26
27
28
7
18-CV-1190 JLS (JLB)