California Trucking Association et al v. Becerra et al

Filing 21

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE, DOC #11 ; (2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE, DOC #18 ; and (3) DENYING AS MOOT EX PARTE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME, DOC #19 . Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 1/14/2019. (sjm)

---~
FILED
I JAN~ 1 4 2019 J .
I
.

1

2
3

CLERK US DI~: :f'i!CT COURT
SOUTHERN 'JISTPiC T CW Ci'\LIFORNIA
BY
~M
DEPUTY

4

5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

California Trucking Association, et al.,

1O

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM

Plaintiffs,

11

V.

12

Attorney General Xavier Becerra, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

ORDER:
(1) GRANTING MOTION TO
INTERVENE, [Doc. 11];
(2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE, [Doc.18]; and
(3) DENYING AS MOOT EXPARTE
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME, [Doc.
19].

16
17

International Brotherhood of Teamsters moves for leave to intervene as of right

18

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and in the alternative, for permissive

19

intervention under Rule 24(b ).

20

GRANTED, and IBT's Motions for Leave and to Shorten Time, [Docs. 18, 19], are

21

DENIED as moot.

22

[Doc. 11.] For the following reasons, the motion is

I.

BACKGROUND

23

Plaintiffs California Trucking Association, Ravinder Singh, and Thomas Odom filed

24

suit on October 25, 2018, to challenge the constitutionality ofindustrial Commission Wage

25

Order No. 9, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West,

26

Inc. v. Superior Court, 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal. 2018). [Doc. 1.] Wage Order 9 establishes

27

minimum wage, overtime, and other basic labor standards protections for employees in the

28

transportation industry, including International Brotherhood of Teamsters' ("IBT")
3: l 8-cv-02458-BEN-BLM

1 members. Plaintiffs' lawsuit contends the Dynamex standard for determining whether a
2

worker in the transportation industry is an employee or independent contractor for purposes

3

of California Wage Orders is preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration

4

Authorization Act and violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

5

[Doc. 1, p. 4.]

6

The IBT now moves to intervene in Plaintiffs' lawsuit as a matter of right under

7

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). Specifically, IBT seeks to intervene to defend

8

against Plaintiffs' claims, which attack the constitutionality of Wage Order 9. In the

9

alternative, IBT seeks permissive intervention under Rule 24(b ). Plaintiffs oppose IBT' s

10

motion. [Doc. 15.] The three Defendant California officials (the Attorney General, the

11

Acting Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations, and the Labor

12

Commissioner) do not oppose. [Doc. 14.]

13
14
15
16
17
18

19

II.

REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERVENTION, RULE 24(a)

For intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), the
proposed intervenor must satisfy four requirements:
(l)the motion must be timely;
(2)the applicant must claim a "significantly protectable interest" in the action;
(3)the disposition of the action must as a practical matter impair or impede the
applicant's ability to protect that interest; and
(4) the applicant's interest may be inadequately represented by the other parties.

20

Allied Concrete and Supply Co. v. Baker, 904 F.3d 1053, 1067 (9th Cir. 2018).

21

evaluating whether Rule 24(a)(2)'s requirements are met, the Court should follow

22

"practical and equitable considerations" and construe the Rule "broadly in favor of

23

proposed intervenors." United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391, 397 (9th Cir.

24

2002). Courts do so because "[a] liberal policy in favor ofintervention serves both efficient

25

resolution of issues and broadened access to the courts." City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d at

26

397-98. The Court considers each Rule 24(a) requirement in turn.

In

27
28
2
3: I 8-cv-02458-BEN-BLM

1

1. Timeliness

2

As to the first requirement, the Court finds IBT's motion to intervene is timely.

3

Three factors are considered: ( 1) the stage of the proceeding at which intervention is

4

sought; (2) any prejudice to existing parties; and (3) the reason for and length of any delay.

5

United States v. Oregon, 913 F.2d 576, 588-89 (9th Cir. 1990). Here, IBT sought to

6

intervene at the very outset oflitigation before any responsive pleading had been filed. The

7

Rule 26( f) conference had not occurred, discovery had not commenced, and the Court has

8

not ruled on any substantive issues. No existing parties contend the timing ofIBT's motion

9

will result in prejudice. Accordingly, this requirement is satisfied. See, e.g., Northwest

10

Forest Resource Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 837 (9th Cir. 1996) (motion to

11

intervene deemed timely because it was filed before any proceedings had taken place with

12

no party prejudice because no substantive rulings were yet made).

13

2. Significantly Protectable Interest

14

Second, IBT must demonstrate a "significantly protectable interest" in the case, a

15

requirement that should be construed expansively. See Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. El

16

Paso Natural Gas Co., 386 U.S. 129, 132-36 (1967). Under the liberal policy favoring

17

intervention, an intervenor's interest is "significantly protectable" under the Ninth Circuit's

18

test when it "is protectable under some law, and ... there is a relationship between the

19

legally protected interest and the claims at issue," such that the intervenor may "suffer a

20

practical impairment of its interests as a result of the pending litigation." Wilderness Soc '.Y

21

v. US. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2011) (en bane).

22

IBT argues its interest in the present case is significantly protectable because it

23

represents the very workers who are protected by Wage Order 9's minimum wage,

24

overtime, and other employment safeguards, as interpreted by Dynamex. 1 Indeed, IBT has

25
26
27
1

28

IBT represents roughly 260,000 members in California who work in various
professions, including as freight drivers, bus drivers, parcel delivery drivers, solid waste
3
3: 18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM

1 challenged numerous companies' misclassifications of employees as independent
2

contractors over the years. If Plaintiffs successfully narrow Wage Order 9's coverage, IBT

3

argues, its members who want to work as employees rather than independent contractors

4

will lose job opportunities they would otherwise be entitled to under Dynamex.

5

Plaintiffs respond that IBT's alleged "interest" is only to safeguard Dynamex, despite

6

that decision's "frustration [of] Congress's intent in deregulating the trucking industry and

7

unlawfully restrict[ing] interstate commerce." [Doc. 15, p. 5-6.] Plaintiffs' argument is

8

not persuasive. Rather than disputing IBT's alleged interest in the lawsuit, Plaintiffs

9

merely argue the merits of the underlying claims IBT seeks to defend against. Moreover,

10

the Ninth Circuit has recognized labor organizations like IBT have "significantly

11

protectable interests," justifying their intervention when businesses challenge the validity

12

of laws promoting labor standards for the labor organizations' members.

13

For example, in Californians for a Safe and Competitive Dump Truck

14

Transportation v. Mendonca, 152 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 1998), the Court considered IBT's

15

intervention to protect its members' interests in receiving appropriate wages. The Ninth

16

Circuit found IBT could intervene as of right because ofIBT members' "significant interest

17

in receiving a prevailing wage for their services." Id. at 1190; see also Allied Concrete,

18

904 F.3d at 1067-68 (reiterating that IBT members had a significant interest in case

19

challenging the applicability of prevailing wage laws to delivery drivers of concrete).

20

Moreover, like the present case, the Eastern District of California recognized IBT has the

21

"requisite protectable interest" in Wage Order 9, as interpreted by Dynamex, "because the

22

misclassification of transportation workers as independent contractors would affect the

23

wages and job opportunities ofIBT members." Western States Trucking Ass 'n v. Schoorl,

24

2018 WL 5920148, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2018). For the same reasons, the Court finds

25

IBT satisfies the second requirement.

26
27

28

and recycling drivers, newspaper drivers, local and interstate delivery and distribution
drivers, and drayage drivers at California seaports.
4
3: l 8-cv-02458-BEN-BLM

1

3. Practical Impairment of Interest

2

As to the related third requirement, whether denying intervention "will result in

3

practical impairment" for IBT's interests, the Ninth Circuit's decisions in Allied Concrete

4

and Mendonca are determinative. In both cases, the Court found the inquiry satisfied

5

because invalidation of the wage law being challenged would impair IBT and its members'

6

interests. Allied Concrete, 904 F.3d at 1068; Mendonca, 152 F.3d at 1190. Likewise, here,

7

IBT argues that an adverse finding invalidating Dynamex's standard for interpreting Wage

8

Order 9 "would impair ... [IBT's] efforts to fight misclassification and to ensure that its

9

members' employers are not underbid by competitors that save costs by misclassifying

10

their drivers as independent contractors." [Doc. 11-1, p. 13.] Indeed, as in Allied Concrete

11

and Mendonca, whether IBT' s interest is impaired turns on whether the law is or is not

12

invalidated. Allied Concrete, 904 F.3d at 1068; Mendonca, 152 F.3d at 1190. Thus, this

13

requirement is also satisfied here.

14

4. Adequate Representation

15

Finally, the fourth requirement asks whether the intervenor's interest is inadequately

16

represented by existing parties. The burden of this requirement "should be treated as

17

minimal" and is satisfied by showing only that "representation of [the intervenor's] interest

18

'may be' inadequate." Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 539 n. 10 (1972)

19

(emphasis added). Moreover, it is not the quality of the existing parties' representation that

20

matters, but instead, whether the existing parties will "undoubtedly make all of the

21

intervenor's arguments" and whether the intervenor "offers a necessary element to the

22

proceedings that would be neglected." Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525,

23

528 (9th Cir. 1983).

24

Courts routinely grant labor unions leave to intervene in lawsuits filed against

25

California public officials to invalidate state laws protecting the union members'

26

employment interests. For such cases, courts recognize that the interests of the labor

27

intervenors in protecting their members are more "narrow" and "parochial" than California

28

State officials' broad and more abstract interest in defending the laws of the State. See,
5
3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM

\

1 e.g., Allied Concrete and Supply Co. v. Baker, 904 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2018) ("IBT's
2

interests are potentially more narrow than the public's at large, and the State's

3

representation of those interests 'may have been inadequate.") (emphasis in original)

4

(quoting Mendonca, 152 F.3d at 1190); Air Conditioning Trade Ass 'n v. Baker, 2012 WL

5

3205422, at *5 (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2012) (granting labor organization leave to intervene as

6

of right in contractors' challenge to standards for expansion of state-approved

7

apprenticeship programs based on finding that representation by existing parties was

8

inadequate because "the state defendants have a broader interest than [the union] as the

9

proposed intervenor"); Golden Gate Rest. Ass 'n v. City and County ofSan Francisco, 2007

10

WL 1052820, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2007) ("[T]he Unions' members here have a personal

11

interest in the enforcement of the Ordinance" because "the Defendant City and County of

12

San Francisco represents the public generally, including businesses and employers who

13

may claim to be harmed by the passage of the Ordinance.").

14

Plaintiffs argue the existing State defendants will adequately represent IBT's

15

interests by virtue of defending their own law. The Ninth Circuit's findings in Mendonca

16

and Allied Concrete, however, are dispositive on this issue and say otherwise. See Allied

17

Concrete, 904 F.3d at 168; Mendonca, 152 F.3d at 1190. In both cases, the Ninth Circuit

18

considered whether the State defendants "adequately" represented IBT's interests in cases

19

in which plaintiffs challenged state wage laws. And in both cases, the Ninth Circuit found

20

the State defendants' representation of IBT's interests "may have been inadequate,"

21

thereby requiring intervention as of right. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that "because

22

the employment interests of IBT's members were potentially more narrow and parochial

23

than the interests of the public at large, IBT demonstrated that the representations of its

24

interests by [existing parties] may have been inadequate." Mendonca, 152 F.3d at 1190;

25

see also Allied Concrete, 904 F.3d at 168 (reversing district court's denial of intervention

26

as of right to IBT for same reasons); see also Western States Trucking Ass 'n v. Schoorl,

27

2018 WL 5920148, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2018) (in similar lawsuit alleging

28

unconstitutionality of Wage Order 9 against State defendants, finding the Ninth Circuit's
6
3: 18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM

1 decisions dispositive on the "adequacy" requirement, thereby mandating IBT's
2

intervention as of right).

3

IBT makes the same argument here. As IBT emphasizes, "California officials must

4

represent not only the interests of employees who benefit from the Dynamex rule, but also

5

the interests of companies that may oppose the increased regulation of their businesses,

6

and the interests of the general public." [Doc. 11-1, p. 15.] IB T further argues that because

7

"state officials may change their positions over time based on input from other stakeholders

8

or be replaced by officials who do not share the same views," its interests may not be

9

adequately represented where IBT "has a more specific interest in ensuring that companies

10

do not undercut labor standards by misclassifying workers as independent contractors."

11

[Id.]

12

members, "its position is less susceptible to changes." [Id.]

IBT contends that because of its legal obligation to represent the interests of its

13

Finally, IBT argues that its intimate and detailed knowledge of the trucking industry

14

and the effects of classifying workers as independent contracts "offers a necessary element

15

to the proceedings that would be neglected" without IBT's participation.

16

Rebellion v. Watt, 713 F.2d 525, 528 (9th Cir. 1983) (explaining that the intervenor's

17

expertise and different perspective offered "a necessary element" that would be neglected).

18

For example, IBT points to assertions about the trucking industry in Plaintiffs' Complaint,

19

assertions that IBT argues cannot fairly be left to the State defendants to potentially leave

20

unchallenged. Indeed, IBT's Motion for Leave to File a Memorandum in Support of

21

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss reflects the unique expertise IBT argues is "a necessary

22

element." See Doc. 18-1 ("In the proposed ... brief, the IBT offers unique legal authority

23

not otherwise cited by the parties, ... identifies an additional reason why plaintiff[] does

24

not have standing to assert its claims," and "presents its analysis from the distinct

25

perspective of the workers who are directly impacted by the [Wage Order's] protections.").

26

Accordingly, IBT has carried its "minimal" burden of showing the State defendants'

Sagebrush

27
28
7
3: 18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM

1 representation 'may be' inadequate." Because IBT has satisfied Rule 24(a)(2)'s four
2

requirements, IBT is entitled to intervene as a matter of right. 2

3

III.

CONCLUSION

4

For the previous reasons, IBT' s Motion for Leave to Intervene, [Doc. 11,] is

5

GRANTED. Because this Order grants IBT leave to intervene, its Motion for Leave to

6

File Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. 18], is DENIED

7

as moot. The Court will consider IBT's papers, [Doc. 18-2], in support of Defendants'

8

Motion to Dismiss in ruling upon Defendants' motion, [Doc. 19]. Likewise, IBT' s Ex

9

Parte Motion to Shorten Time for Motion for Leave and to Participate in Hearing, [Doc.

10

19], is also DENIED as moot. As an intervenor, IBT may participate in the hearing.

11
12
13

ERED.

f

Date: January
NITEZ
t Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

Because the Court finds IBT may intervene as of right, it need not determine
whether intervention is alternatively appropriate under Rule 24(b ).
8
3: l 8-cv-02458-BEN-BLM