Jama et al v. GCA Services Group, Inc.

Filing 32

ORDER denying 27 motion for reconsideration regarding 24 Order on motion for summary judgment and motion for leave to file amended complaint adding Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC as a required party, filed by Khalif Mahamad, Udham Si ngh, Ahmed F Gelle, Sukdev Singh Basra, Abdikhadar Jama, Aneb Abdinor Hirey, Rogiya Digale, Jama Diria, Jashir Grewal, Lul Salad, Abdisalam Mohamed. All claims against GCA Services have been and remain DISMISSED. Plaintiffs have fourteen days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint; by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (RM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

ABDIKHADAR JAMA, et al.,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiffs,
Case No. C16-0331RSL
v.
GCA SERVICES GROUP, INC.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND
GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendant.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of
Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint Adding Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC as a Required Party.” Dkt. # 27. The
Court renoted the motion to give defendant GCA Services Group, Inc., an opportunity to
respond and has considered its submission in its entirety. Having reviewed the
memoranda and declarations submitted by the parties, the Court finds no reason to
reconsider its prior summary judgment ruling. GCA Services does not operate or provide
baggage handling, ground transportation management, or customer services and is not,
therefore, a “Transportation employer” for purposes of the ordinance. The claims against
GCA Services were properly dismissed and cannot be saved by amendment.
Plaintiffs seek leave to add claims against a different entity, however, on the
ground that Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, is their employer under the economic realities
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND - 1

1

test set forth in Becerra v. Expert Janitorial, LLC, 181 Wn.2d 186, 196-97 (2014).

2

Assuming for purposes of this motion that plaintiffs can allege, consistent with their Rule

3

11 obligations, that Avis is their employer, that it operates a rental car service utilizing a

4

fleet of more than 100 cars, and that it employs at least 25 people, they may be able to

5

assert a plausible claim for relief against that entity. “Every employer, including a joint

6

employer, has the same duties” under the minimum wage laws. Becerra, 181 Wn.2d at

7

196. If plaintiffs were actually employed by Avis under the economic realities test, that

8

company bears the burden (independent of any obligation GCA Services might have) of

9

complying with the ordinance. An employer that meets the definition of “Transportation

10

employer” cannot avoid its wage obligations by entering into a subcontracting agreement

11

that is a mere subterfuge or sham. Plaintiffs will be given an opportunity to allege and

12

prove that that is what happened here.

13
14

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

15

All claims against GCA Services have been and remain DISMISSED. Plaintiffs shall

16

have fourteen days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint adding Avis

17

Budget Car Rental, LLC, as the employer-defendant. If an amended complaint is not

18

timely filed, judgment shall be entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiffs.

19
20

Dated this 4th day of January, 2017.

21
22

A

23

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

24
25
26

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND - 2