California Trucking Association v. Becerra

Opinion

1 ] : : . CALIFORNIA TRUCKING Case No.: 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs,| ORDER DENYING EX PARTE | "| MOTION FOR STAY Vv. _ [Doe. 103] . BECERRA, etal. ~ Defendants, □ □□ INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Intervenor-Defendant. Intervenor-Defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters moves ex parte to Stay this Court’s January 16, 2020 Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Notably, the Attorney General has not sought a stay. To determine whether a is warranted, the Court considers four factors: whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 US. 418, 433 (2009). “Each factor, however, need not be given equal weight.” Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 2018 WL 4928041, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2018) (citations omitted). Rather, “[t]he first two factors .. . are the

t most critical.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. : As to the first factor, Intervenor contends that because several lower courts have come to differing conclusions on the FAAAA preemption claim underlying the Court’s injunction, the first factor weighs in Intervenor’s favor. A difference of opinion, however, not amount to the requisite “strong showing” that Intervenor “is likely to succeed on merits.” /d. at 433. Put another way, “i]t is not enough that the chance of success on merits be better than negligible.” Jd. at 444 (internal quotation marks and citations jjomitted). As discussed in its preliminary injunction order, the Court found Plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the merits. Intervenor offers no new evidence to support reconsideration of that conclusion. Accordingly, the first factor does not weigh in favor of stay. □ The second factor requires irreparable harm to the movant absent a stay. Intervenor contends this factor weighs in its favor because “the .State would be prevented from enforcing its laws and addressing the widely recognized problem of misclassification of /employees in the trucking industry ...” Doc. 101-1 at 3 (emphasis added). As previously noted, however, it is not the State that moves for a stay; it is Intervenor. The Court is skeptical that Intervenor has standing to challenge a preliminary injunction order on the /State’s behalf due to the allegedly irreparable injury to the State. Regardless, even 19° considering Intervenor’s argument, the Court finds the second factor is not satisfied and does not weigh in Intervenor’s favor. As the Court discussed in its preliminary injunction order, the prior classification standard under Borello remains in effect until a final decision the merits. See Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(a)(1)(3) (“If a court of law rules that the three-part [ABC] test... cannot be applied toa particular context ... then the determination lof employee or independent contractor status in that context shall instead by governed by [Borelfo].”). Thus, Intervenor does not show how the State’s reversion back to its prior. classification standard will result in irreparable injury to the State or Intervenor during the pendency of this action. □ In support of the remaining two factors, Intervenor concludes without support that a

2-190 ap AOASZE BOA DIA

I stay of the preliminary injunction will not injure any other parties, demonstrating the stay in the “public interest.” The Court disagrees. In granting Plaintiffs’ motions for a _ 3 ||temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, the Court found AB-5 provided Plaintiffs an injurious Hobson’s choice: either implementing significant costly compliance measures or risking criminal and civil prosecution. Intervenor does not point any change in circumstances or new evidence to undermine that conclusion. Thus, the Court cannot find the remaining two factors tip the scales in favor of Intervenor’s stay. For the previous reasons, the Nken factors do not weigh in favor of granting a stay, Intervenor’s ex parte motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. . , U1 Date: February £2 2020 A WA / HO f ROGERT. wie , United States District Judge . . oe

□□ . □

R8cyNds8_REN_BI