California Trucking Association et al v. Becerra et al

Filing 46

ORDER Granting #28 Defendants' and #29 Intervenor-Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted, and this action is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 9/24/2019. (rmc) (sjt).

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

CALIFORNIA TRUCKING
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

13

v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL XAVIER
BECERRA, et al.,

14
15
16

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
AND INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT’S
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
[Docs. 28, 29]

Plaintiffs,

11
12

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

Defendants,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS,

17

Intervenor-Defendant.

18
19

Defendants Xavier Becerra, Andre Schoorl, and Julie Su, as well as Intervenor-

20

Defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First

21

Amended Complaint in its entirety. Docs. 28, 29. For the following reasons, the motions

22

are GRANTED.

23

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

24

suit on October 25, 2018, to challenge the constitutionality of and enjoin enforcement of

25

California’s Industrial Commission Wage Order No. 9, as interpreted by the California

26

Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1

27

(Cal. 2018). The Dynamex Court set forth a new standard, the “ABC test,” for determining

28
1
3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM

1

whether a worker qualifies as an “employee” for purposes of Wage Order 9.1 Doc. 1.

2

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, contending

3

that Wage Order 9, as enforced under the Dynamex standard, is preempted by the Federal

4

Aviation Administration Authorization Act and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act and

5

violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Doc. 25, p. 4.

6

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that, on September 18, 2019, Governor

7

Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 5 (“AB-5”), which concerns Wage Order 9

8

and the labor standard set forth in Dynamex. See Krystal, Inc. v. China United Transport,

9

Inc., 2017 WL 6940544, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2017) (explaining that under Fed. R.

10

Evid. 201(b)(2), a court may take judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to reasonable

11

dispute because it “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy

12

cannot reasonably be questioned”). This change in California law, at this time, raises

13

federal questions of mootness and standing, necessitating dismissal of this action without

14

prejudice.

15

AB-5’s effective date of January 1, 2020 raises standing questions related to whether

16

an imminent and concrete injury exists sufficient to confer standing on Plaintiffs. The new

17

law leaves unclear whether Defendants will enforce the Dynamex decision against

18

Plaintiffs before AB-5 takes effect. See MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118,

19

127 (2007) (Standing requires the plaintiffs to show a dispute that is “definite and concrete,

20

touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests, and that it be real and

21

substantial and admit of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as

22

distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of

23

facts.”).

24

Moreover, the passage of AB-5 also raises questions of mootness. Article III of the

25

United States Constitution confers jurisdiction on federal courts over “cases” and

26
27
28

1

Wage Order 9 establishes minimum wage, overtime, and other basic labor
standards protections for employees in the transportation industry.
2
3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM

1

“controversies.” A federal court does not have jurisdiction to hear cases that are neither

2

ripe for review nor “moot.” “Mootness is the ‘doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The

3

requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing)

4

must continue throughout its existence (mootness).”

5

Blatchford, 38 F.3d 1505, 1509 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, the State of California passed a law

6

potentially affecting Wage Order 9 and the test set forth in Dynamex, which will not take

7

effect until January 1, 2020. Because of this change in the law, Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, as it is

8

currently plead, leaves the Court with “theoretical possibilities,” which it is not authorized

9

to decide. See id. at 1510 (“Federal courts are not authorized to address such theoretical

10

possibilities.”) (“A statutory change . . . is usually enough to render a case moot . . .”).

11

Accordingly, at this time, this action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing

12

and for mootness.

Native Village of Noatak v.

13

For the previous reasons, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED, and this

14

action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.2 Plaintiffs may file an amended

15

complaint within 60 days of the date of this Order.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Date: September 24, 2019

19

__________________________________
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court makes no findings on the merits of the parties’ arguments within their
motions to dismiss. Therefore, those arguments may be reasserted.
3
3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM