Federal Judge Asks Postmates to Explain Why It Hasn't Moved Forward With Courier Arbitrations
U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong asked the company to explain why it should not be held in contempt for violating her prior order forcing Postmates to arbitrate more than 5,000 worker misclassification cases brought on behalf of individual couriers.
December 03, 2019 at 05:04 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Oakland is asking Postmates Inc. to explain why the company should not be held in contempt for violating her order compelling the company to arbitrate more than 5,000 worker misclassification cases brought on behalf of individual couriers.
U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the Northern District of California issued a show cause order Tuesday after the couriers' lawyers at Keller Lenkner asked her last week to hold the company in contempt. Postmates, they wrote, failed to pay its portion of the filing fees in the 5,257 cases brought on behalf of couriers at the American Arbitration Association, resulting in AAA administratively closing the cases.
The plaintiffs lawyers noted this marks the second time that AAA has administratively closed the cases after Postmates has refused to pay its share of the fees. The plaintiffs initially went to federal court and secured an order from Armstrong compelling arbitration in October when the company previously refused to pay after raising concerns about the adequacy of the plaintiffs' requests for arbitration. Armstrong's order compelled the company to arbitrate under the terms of its agreement with couriers, but left any dispute regarding the content of those agreements, including disputes over fee payment, to the arbitrator.
The plaintiffs claim that the company has asked to put the majority of the cases on hold while arbitrations move forward on "fifty randomly selected claimants."
"Asking more than 99 percent of Petitioners to abandon their hard-won rights under the Court's Order was an attempt by Postmates to avoid complying with the Order, not a good-faith attempt to comply with it," wrote the plaintiffs lawyers at Keller Lenkner.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theane Evangelis, who represents the company, said in an email that "Postmates looks forward to presenting the full record to the Court, so it can see for itself that Postmates is not in contempt of its order."
Keller Lenkner managing partner Travis Lenkner said in an email that the firm's "motion and the court's order speak for themselves."
Keller Lenkner also represents thousands of DoorDash couriers in two separate actions seeking to compel individual arbitration—another case where the firm is facing off against opposing counsel at Gibson Dunn. Last week, the firm asked Armstrong's Northern District colleague Judge William Alsup in San Francisco for a temporary restraining order against the company after it required couriers to sign a new arbitration agreement, with a different alternative dispute resolution forum, to pick up jobs through the app. The updated click-through agreement was rolled out one day after AAA closed out thousands of cases against DoorDash for failure to pay $4.275 million in filing fees. Alsup called DoorDash and Gibson Dunn's attempt to wiggle out of its own arbitration agreement "poetic justice" at a hearing last week. The plaintiffs, however, withdrew their TRO request after company lawyers said at the hearing that couriers who opt-out of the new agreement can still pursue their individual arbitration claims with AAA.
Earlier in the Postmates case, lawyers at Gibson Dunn labeled Keller Lenkner's tactics "a shakedown" and claimed that the firm attempts to use the case administration fee charged by arbitrators in individuals cases to leverage outsize settlements. In the footnote of an order compelling arbitration in Postmates case, Armstrong wrote "the possibility that Postmates may now be required to submit a sizeable arbitration fee in response to each individual arbitration demand is a direct result of the mandatory arbitration clause and class action waiver that Postmates has imposed upon each of its couriers."
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSuit Over Citric Acid in Kraft Mac & Cheese Survives Challenge
Judge Dismisses Microplastics Suit Against Evian's 'Natural Spring Water'
5 minute readDoorDash Seeks More Information About NLJ 500 Firm's Connections With Chicago
4 minute readMonster Energy Takes on Beast Bites Over Alleged Trademark Violations
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Senators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anti-Competitive Practices, Fees
- 2Deal Watch: Gibson Dunn, V&E, Kirkland Lead Big Energy Deals in Another Strong Week in Transactions
- 3Advisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
- 4Commencement of Child Victims Act at Heart of Federal Question Posed to NY's Top Court
- 5Bolstering Southern California Presence, Sidley Austin Settles Into Revitalized Downtown LA Office
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250