Ignacio Garate, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lincare, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IGNACIO GARATE, on behalf of himself Case No.: 24-cv-768-CAB-MSB and all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER REQUESTING A Plaintiff, 13 SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE v. RECORD REGARDING 14 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO LINCARE, INC., 15 COMPEL ARBITRATION, DISMISS Defendant. CLASS CLAIMS, AND STAY 16 PROCEEDINGS 17 18 19 On May 24, 2024, Defendant Lincare, Inc. filed a motion to compel arbitration, 20 dismiss claims, and stay proceedings. [Doc. No. 6.] On June 14, 2024, Plaintiff Ignacio 21 Garate filed an opposition. [Doc. No. 8.] On June 21, 2024, Defendant filed a reply. [Doc. 22 No. 9.] Having reviewed the submissions, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the parties to 23 supplement the record only as to whether Plaintiff is exempt from the Federal Arbitration 24 Act as a transportation worker. 25 Defendant moves to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act 26 (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §1, et seq., on the grounds that Plaintiff entered into a valid and 27 enforceable arbitration agreement (“Arbitration Agreement”) requiring arbitration of his 28 individual claims and a waiver of his right to initiate or participate in class-wide claims. 1 Plaintiff challenges the enforceability of the Arbitration Agreement arguing, inter alia, 2 that he is exempt from the FAA as a transportation worker. 3 Under § 1, the FAA does not apply to “contracts of employment of seamen, 4 railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate 5 commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 1. The Supreme Court has instructed courts to interpret the 6 exemption narrowly, holding that § 1 applies only to “contracts of employment of 7 transportation workers.” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 118–19 (2001). 8 The question of whether § 1 applies is a question for the courts to decide, even if there is 9 a delegation clause. New Prime v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532, 537–38 (2019). 10 To determine whether Plaintiff is a transportation worker, the Court must first 11 define the relevant “class of workers” to which Plaintiff belongs before determining 12 “whether that class of workers is ‘engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.’ ” Sw. 13 Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450, 455 (2022). A “transportation worker” is not 14 required to work for a company in the transportation industry to be exempt under §1 of 15 the FAA. Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 144 S.Ct. 905, 910 (2024). 16 However, any exempt worker must at least play a “direct” and “necessary” role in the 17 free flow of goods across borders. Id. at 913 (citations omitted). 18 Focusing on Ninth Circuit precedent, Amazon delivery drivers who picked up 19 interstate goods from warehouses and transported them intrastate for the “last leg of 20 shipment” were exempt under the FAA. Rittman v. Amazon.com, Inc., 971 F.3d 904, 915 21 (9th Cir. 2020). Similarly, delivery drivers who delivered goods from a supply center in 22 California to franchisees within California were exempt because the employees operated 23 in a single, unbroken stream of interstate commerce. Carmona v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 24 73 F.4th 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 2023). The Ninth Circuit has inferred that the key question 25 may be whether deliveries are unaltered from the time they arrive in California until 26 27 28 1 || delivered locally, or whether they have been transformed in some manner before being 2 || delivered locally. See Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 73 F 4th at 1138.! 3 Here the Court finds a lack of factual evidence as to whether Plaintiff was engaged 4 delivering unaltered interstate goods or whether Plaintiff was delivering goods that 5 || were transformed in some manner before being delivered locally. While Defendant has 6 || presented some evidence that Plaintiff delivered oxygen tanks that had been serviced 7 || locally, it is unclear whether Plaintiff also delivered “new” tanks and from where those 8 |{tanks originated. In addition, Plaintiffs job description indicates he delivered other 9 || medical equipment, but there is no evidence as to what that equipment was, from where it 10 || originated, or whether it was altered in any manner. 11 Accordingly, the Court requests the parties to supplement the record and provide 12 || further briefing only on this issue as follows: 13 1. On or before August 1, 2024, the parties may supplement the factual record and 14 provide a further brief (not to exceed 10 pages) regarding whether Plaintiff is 15 exempt under Section | of the FAA; 16 2. On or before August 9, 2024, the parties may file a reply brief (not to exceed 5 17 pages). 18 The motion will then be under submission and the parties will be notified if oral 19 || argument is required. 20 Dated: July 16, 2024 € ZL 21 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' Tn their further briefing, the parties are invited to present argument on this issue but are encouraged to focus on Ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court authority.