arrow left

arrow right 

              
Preview
              oem YN DH BF WN  v Be eee ee ee BXRRRRBKSESERVIATEBHES  LLL JE BD  "un Or Court UL 1 4 2929  CLER| er. - Ze Court Puy Clark  SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO  SUE JONES and ROBERT ALLEN JONES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,  Plaintiffs, vs.  UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,  Defendants.     CASE NO.: CGC-19-578596 CLASS ACTION ORDER DENYING  [P' DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO DISMISS OR  STAY PROCEEDINGS Date: July 14, 2029 Time; 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 302  Complaint Filed: August 22, 2019        [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS" DEMURRER TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO DISMISS OR STAY PROCEEDINGSoem ND Hh BF WHY  a BRREBRRESCRRIFZDEBHRAS  On July 14, 2020, Defendants UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC., and UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., ("Defendants") Motion To Compel Arbitration And To Dismiss Or Stay Proceedings ("Motion") came on for hearing. After review of the Defendants' Motion, the Plaintiffs SUE JONES' and ROBERT ALLEN JONES' ("Plaintiffs") Opposition thereto and all records and papers in support and opposition thereof, as well as all other records and papers filed in this action, and after hearing oral argument presented by the parties on the matter, the Court finds and rules as follows:  Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is denied. The arbitration agreement, which is included in the 2014 Transportation Agreement, expressly provides that the parties' agreement is subject to the FAA. (Seguerra Decl., 12, 14 & Ex. B (SCS 029) ["Except as provided in this Agreement, the Federal Arbitration Act shall govern the interpretation, enforcement, and all proceedings pursuant to this Agreement" ].) Section 1 of the FAA provides that "nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." (9 U.S.C. §1; see New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S.Ct. 532, 538-539 (2019) [truck driver engaged in interstate commerce and was exempt from arbitration under the FAA].) Courts generally recognize two ways workers can establish that they engaged in interstate commerce: (1) showing they actually crossed state lines to deliver goods; or (2) that they were directly involved in the practical continuity of movement of goods in interstate commerce. (Muller v. Roy Miller Freight Lines, LLC (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 1056, 1068-1069; Nieto v. Fresno Beverage Co., Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.Sth 274, 279-284 [even though delivery truck driver's deliveries were exclusively to destinations within California, he was engaged in interstate commerce through his participation in the continuation of the movement of interstate goods to their destination].) "If a truck driver physically transports goods across state lines, he or she undoubtedly qualifies as a transportation worker under section 1." (Id. at 1065.) In this case, plaintiffs made deliveries from Arizona to multiple states including California, Texas, and New Mexico. (Sue Jones Decl. 7; Robert Allen Jones Decl. 7). This evidence establishes that the transportation worker exemption applies and plaintiffs are not  obliged to arbitrate. Defendants do not convincingly demonstrate that these declarations are        [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 2 DEMURRER TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO DISMISS OR STAY PROCEEDINGSoe ND HW BF WN  vv en BRRFRBRBRRKBSCeFEDTABEBTRESS  perjurious and unworthy of credence. In any event, "a transportation worker does not necessarily have to physically cross state lines in order to engage in the movement of goods in interstate commerce." (Nieto, 33 Cal.App.5th at 282.).  IT IS SO ORDERED.  Dated: : / Is [ yg , 2020     ETHAN P. SCHULMAN        [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 3 DEMURRER TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO DISMISS OR STAY PROCEEDINGSCGC-19-578596 SUE JONES ET AL VS. UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC ET AL  I, the undersigned, certify that I am an employee of the Superior Court of California, County Of San Francisco and not a party to the above-entitled cause and that on July 14, 2020 I served the foregoing order denying defendants' motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay proceedings on each counsel of record or party appearing in propria persona by causing a copy thereof to be enclosed in a postage paid sealed envelope and deposited in the United States Postal Service mail box located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco CA 94102-4514 pursuant to standard court practice.  Date: July 14, 2020 PP EY LE;  JAIME B. LAURENT  LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST,STE 500 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067  TARAS P. KICK  THE KICK LAW FIRM APC  815 MORAGA DRIVE  LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90049  Certificate of Service — Form C00005010