18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

234 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition federal comity and therefore did not extend to state court proceedings. Id . at *15. Thus, the Court declined to forgo jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action on the basis that the PAGA actions were first filed before the state court. Defendant also contended that the Court should dismiss or stay Plaintiff’s PAGA claim under a doctrine established by Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States , 424 U.S. 800 (1976) (the " Colorado River Doctrine"). The Court held that the balance of factors favored against holding that the Colorado Rive r Doctrine applied, particularly because PAGA actions would not resolve all issues before the Court, as they would not will not resolve the alleged California Labor Code violations. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay the action. Martinez, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50101 (D. N.Mex. March 17, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of delivery drivers, filed a class action alleging that Defendant misclassified drivers as independent contractors and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation and minimum wages in violation of the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (“NMMWA”). Plaintiffs asserted that they worked for independent service providers to deliver packages on behalf of Defendant and were paid a day-rate, rather than by the hour or package delivered and that they regularly worked over 40 hours per week without receiving any premium payment for overtime hours worked. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that payment of a "day rate" fell within an exception to the NMMWA for "fixed rate schedules." Id . at *2. Defendant also argued that it could not be held jointly and severally liable with the independent service provider companies for any alleged violations of the Act, because New Mexico abolished joint and several liability in most situations. Id . The Court determined that whatever the precise definition of "flat rate schedules" in § 50-4-21(C)(4) was, it did not encompass the concept of a fixed day rate that compensated an employee per unit of time worked, without respect to unit of work completed or a standardized estimate of payment per job. Id . at *21. As a result, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. In addition, the Court ruled that whether Defendant was jointly and severally liable was not relevant legal question presented in the complaint, and it thereby declined to consider the argument. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Nicolas, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96225 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of rideshare drivers, filed a class action alleging that Defendant misclassified drivers as independent contractors and thereby failed to pay them minimum wages and overtime compensation, failed to provide proper wage statements, and failed to pay timely eared wages upon separation of employment in violation of the California Labor Code. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted. Defendant asserted that Plaintiffs could not plausibly allege that they were "employees" under current California law due to the recently enacted Proposition 22, which provided that any app-based driver was an independent contractor and not an employee. Id . at *7. The Court assumed Plaintiffs qualified as employees when asserting their claims, and found that even with the assumption, Plaintiffs failed to advance sufficient facts to state a viable claim against Defendant. As to Plaintiffs’ minimum wage violation claim, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to explain how they calculated the hours that they allegedly worked and failed to allege the amount they were paid for the time worked. The Court ruled that Plaintiffs relied on their time logged-on to the Uber App waiting for requests between rides when asserting an average effective wage rate. The Court reasoned that Plaintiffs could not show that the time qualified as compensable. The Court further determined that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for overtime compensation violations because they neglected to allege that they actually worked over 40 hours in any workweek. As to Plaintiffs’ claim for failure to pay timely wages upon separation, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs’ allegations were entirely too vague to state a claim. Finally, as to the inaccurate wage statements claim, the Court opined that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that Defendant’s conduct created any injury to them. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Oman, et al. v. Delta Air Lines, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 2808 (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2021). Plaintiffs, four current or former flight attendants, filed a class action alleging that Defendant violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. The District Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit found that the District Court correctly granted Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiffs’ minimum wage claim because the California Supreme Court previously had held that Defendant complied with California’s minimum wage laws. Further, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the District Court’s entry of summary judgment in Defendant’s favor on the timing-of-pay and wage statement claims asserted by Plaintiffs Eichmann, Flores, and Lehr, because the