Postmates Inc. and its Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher counsel have sued more than 10,000 of the delivery company's couriers who are represented by Chicago plaintiffs firm Keller Lenkner claiming they're filing arbitration demands en masse to "extract a ransom-style settlement."

In the complaint, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Postmates said it does not intend to seek damages or evade the costs of arbitration fees.

"Rather, Postmates seeks to forestall abusive litigation tactics by certain plaintiffs' attorneys who repeatedly file thousands of arbitration demands at the same time, including on behalf of individuals who are not actually represented by these attorneys or indisputably have no claims; insist that millions of dollars in arbitration filing fees be paid up front; and demand that all arbitrations be administered together and proceed simultaneously—all to use the threat of massive arbitration filing fees as leverage to extract the highest possible payout from corporate defendants," wrote Gibson Dunn's Theane Evangelis.

This isn't the first case Gibson Dunn and Keller Lenkner have sparred over the plaintiffs firm's attempt to compel arbitration against gig economy employers. In February, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California granted Keller Lenkner's motion to compel arbitration on behalf of nearly 6,000 DoorDash couriers.

In the DoorDash cases, Keller Lenkner alleged that Gibson Dunn updated Postmates' user agreements to funnel arbitration through an alternative dispute resolution provider that the Big Law firm worked with to formulate employer-friendly protocols for mass arbitration. Gibson Dunn, in turn, asserted that "anomalies" in hundreds of the Keller Lenkner's declarations could mean illegitimate plaintiffs were rolled up in the case.

In the new Postmates action, Gibson Dunn has once again called Keller Lenkner's motives and credibility into question as the firm seeks to force the company to arbitrate claims for 10,356 couriers.

The company is asking the court to enjoin couriers from pursuing their claims on a "de facto class basis" and declare that California's Senate Bill 707 is unconstitutional and preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, or FAA. In October, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law, requiring an employer to pay initial arbitration fees within 30 days after the due date, or waive its right to compel arbitration. 

Postmates contends that Keller Lenkner's insistence that the company proceed on a de facto class action and pay all fees up front has strapped it with more than $4 million in initial administrative filing fees with the American Arbitration Association.

"The parties never agreed to arbitrate in this manner, and it is evident that Keller Lenkner's strategy is designed solely to extract a ransom-style settlement regardless of the merits of the underlying demands," the Gibson Dunn attorneys write.

Evangelis said in an email that the lawsuit challenges the SB 707, which impermissibly targets and undermines lawful arbitration agreements. "Postmates does not seek any damages from the individual defendants, nor does it seek to discourage individuals from resolving their claims with Postmates in arbitration," she said. "Rather, this case is about forestalling abusive litigation tactics and enjoining the legislature's latest attempt to unlawfully discourage parties from entering into arbitration agreements."

Unless they opt out within 30 days, Postmates couriers are bound by a Fleet agreement that routes disputes to individual arbitration and waives workers' rights to bring class action claims against the company.

Keller Lenkner's Travis Lenkner in an email said that Postmates complaint is frivolous, but "that's nothing new."

"Another federal court is considering whether to hold Postmates in civil contempt for taking the same meritless positions it does here," Lenkner said. "The company is desperate and will stop at nothing to avoid its own arbitration clause. We look forward to responding in due course."

In the other Postmates case where the firms are facing off, U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the Northern District of California issued a show cause order in December, asking Postmates to explain why she should not hold the company in contempt of court for violating her order to compel arbitration in more than 5,000 worker misclassifcation cases.

Postmates said that unless the court also enjoins AAA, the company will suffer irreparable harm, because it will not be able to select the method of dispute resolution and will incur the significant time and costs of proceeding with a class action arbitration.

"Postmates is ready and willing to arbitrate with individual couriers on an individual basis—as it has done in the past and continues to do—but it will not arbitrate in any manner other than the one set forth in the parties' agreement," the lawyers write.