GrubHub V Lawson

Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 15 Filed 12/15/15 Page 1 of 12
1 SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN, pro hac vice anticipated

(sliss@llrlaw.com)
2
THOMAS FOWLER, pro hac vice anticipated
3 (tfowler@llrlaw.com)
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
4 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
5
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
6 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
7 MATTHEW CARLSON (SBN 273242)

(mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com)
8
Carlson Legal Services
9 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
10 Telephone: (510) 239-4710
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 FOR THE CALIFORNIA NORTHERN DISTRICT
13
Case No. 15-cv-05128 JSC
14
15
ANDREW TAN and RAEF LAWSON in their FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION AND
16 capacities as Private Attorney General PAGA COMPLAINT
Representatives, and RAEF LAWSON, 1. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE FOR
17 individually and on behalf of all other similarly BUSINESS EXPENSES IN VIOLATION
situated individuals, OF CAL. LAB. CODE 2802
18
2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER
19 Plaintiffs, ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS IN
v. VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE
20 226(a)
GRUBHUB HOLDINGS INC. and GRUBHUB 3. UNLAWFUL AND/OR UNFAIR
21 BUSINESS PRACTICES (CAL. BUS. &
INC.,
PROF. CODE 17200-17208)
22 4. FAILURE TO PAY MINIMUM WAGE
Defendants.
IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE
23
1197 AND 1194
24 5. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME IN
VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE
25 1194, 1198, 510, AND 554
6. PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT
26 (PAGA) CLAIM FOR CIVIL
PENALTIES (CAL. LAB. CODE 2698
27 et seq.)
1
28 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION AND PAGA COMPLAINT
1
I. INTRODUCTION
2
1. This case is a class action brought on behalf of individuals who have worked for
3
GrubHub Holdings Inc. and GrubHub Inc. (GrubHub) as delivery drivers in California.
4
GrubHub is a food delivery service that provides delivery drivers who can be scheduled and
5
dispatched through a mobile phone application or through its website and who will deliver food
6
orders from restaurants to customers at their homes and businesses.
7
2. As described further below, GrubHub has misclassified Plaintiffs and other
8
9
similarly situated delivery drivers as independent contractors and, in so doing, has violated the
10 California Labor Code, including: (1) Cal. Lab. Code 2802 by requiring its drivers to pay
11 various expenses that should have been borne by the employer; (2) Cal. Lab. Code 226(a) by
12 failing to provide proper itemized wage statements; (3) Cal. Lab. Code 1197 and 1194 by
13 failing to pay minimum wage for all weeks worked; (4) Cal. Lab. Code 1194, 1194, 510, and
14 554 by failing to pay overtime wages; (5) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq. by engaging in
15 unfair competition. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Plaintiff Lawson, on behalf of himself and all
16 similarly situated GrubHub drivers, seeks damages and/or restitution for these violations.
17 Additionally Plaintiffs Lawson and Tan bring a claim pursuant to the Private Attorney General
18 Act (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code 2699, et seq.
19 II. PARTIES
20
3. Plaintiff Andrew Tan is an adult resident of San Francisco, California, where he
21
has worked as a GrubHub driver since June 2015.
22
4. Plaintiff Raef Lawson is an adult resident of Los Angeles, California, where he
23
has worked as a GrubHub driver since August 2015.
24
5. Defendant GrubHub Holdings Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
25
place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant does business in California, including in Los
26
Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.
27
2
1
6. Defendant GrubHub Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
2
business in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant does business in California, including in Los Angeles,
3
San Diego, and San Francisco. GrubHub Inc. is the parent corporation of Defendant GrubHub
4
Holdings Inc.
5
7. Collectively, Defendants shall be referred to as GrubHub.
6
III. JURISDICTION
7
8. This Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted here pursuant to the
8
9
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2), since Plaintiffs are
10 California citizens and Defendants are citizens of Delaware and Illinois; there are more than 100
11 putative class members; and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.
12 IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
13 9. GrubHub is a food delivery service, which provides food delivery to customers in
14 cities throughout the country via an on demand dispatch system.

15 10. GrubHub offers customers the ability to request a driver on a mobile phone
16 application or online through its website, who will go to the restaurant and pick up their food,
17 then deliver it to the customer at their home or business.
18 11. GrubHubs website advertises that GrubHub is the nations leading online and
19 mobile food ordering company dedicated to connecting hungry diners with local takeout
20
restaurants.
21
12. GrubHub drivers receive a flat fee for each delivery completed plus gratuities
22
added by customers. GrubHub does not provide proper itemized wage statements to its drivers.
23
13. Although classified as independent contractors, GrubHub drivers like Plaintiffs
24
are actually employees. Drivers are required to sign up for shifts in advance. GrubHub directs
25
drivers work in detail, instructing drivers where to report for their shifts, how to dress, and
26
where to go to pick up or await deliveries. Drivers are required to follow requirements imposed
27
3
1
on them by GrubHub regarding handling of the food and timeliness of the deliveries or risk
2
termination. GrubHub requires drivers to sign up for work shifts (such as blocks of 2.5 hours, 3
3
hours, or 4 hours). During these shifts, the drivers must be within an area assigned by GrubHub
4
and must be available to accept delivery assignments.
5
14. In addition, GrubHub is in the business of providing food delivery services to
6
customers, and this is the very service its drivers provide. The drivers services are fully
7
integrated into GrubHubs business, and without the drivers, GrubHubs business would not
8
9
exist.
10 15. However, based on their misclassification as independent contractors, GrubHub
11 has required Plaintiffs and other GrubHub drivers to bear many of the expenses of their
12 employment, including expenses for their vehicles, gas, parking, phone data, and other expenses.
13 16. Because Plaintiffs and other GrubHub drivers are paid by the delivery, and have
14 been required to bear many of the expenses of their employment, their weekly pay rates have
15 fallen below Californias minimum wage in many weeks. For example, Plaintiff Tans weekly
16 wages fell below minimum wage during several weeks since he began working for GrubHub in
17 June 2015, as a result of his fuel and vehicle maintenance costs. Likewise, Plaintiff Lawsons
18 weekly wages have fallen below minimum wage in numerous weeks because of the expenses
19 that he has been required to bear, such as fuel and vehicle maintenance costs.
20
17. Plaintiffs and other GrubHub drivers have regularly worked more than eight (8)
21
and even twelve (12) hours per day and forty (40) hours per week, but GrubHub has not paid
22
overtime wages for these hours. For example, Plaintiff Tan has regularly worked in excess of
23
sixty hours per week, and GrubHub did not pay time-and-a-half for the hours he worked in
24
excess of forty each week. Moreover, he routinely worked more than twelve (12) hours in a day,
25
and GrubHub did not pay him at twice his regularly hourly rate. Likewise, during the week of
26
27
4
1
November 30, 2015, Plaintiff Lawson worked approximately forty-five hours and was not paid at
2
time-and-a-half for the hours in excess of forty.
3
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
4
18. Plaintiff Raef Lawson brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
5
23 on behalf of all GrubHub drivers who have worked in California.
6
19. Plaintiff Lawson and other class members have uniformly been deprived
7
reimbursement of their necessary business expenditures as well as proper minimum wage and
8
9
overtime, and they also have not received proper itemized pay statements from GrubHub.
10 20. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all class members is
11 impracticable.
12 21. Common questions of law and fact regarding GrubHubs conduct in classifying
13 drivers as independent contractors, failing to reimburse them for business expenditures, failing to
14 pay minimum and proper overtime, and failing to provide them with proper pay statements, exist
15 as to all members of the class and predominate over any questions affecting solely any individual
16 members of the class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the class are:
17 a. Whether class members have been required to follow uniform procedures and policies
18 regarding their work for GrubHub;
19 b. Whether class members have been subject to termination by GrubHub in its discretion;
20
c. Whether the work performed by class membersproviding food delivery services to
21
customersis within GrubHubs usual course of business, and whether such service is
22
fully integrated into GrubHubs business;
23
d. Whether these class members have been required to bear the expenses of their
24
employment, such as expenses for vehicles, gas, bikes, and other expenses.
25
e. Whether GrubHub has failed to ensure payment of minimum wage for all weeks these
26
class members worked.
27
5
1
f. Whether GrubHub has failed to pay overtime wages for the overtime hours that the
2
class members worked.
3
g. Whether GrubHub failed to provide proper itemized pay statements to its drivers.
4
22. Named Plaintiff Raef Lawson is a class member, who suffered damages as a
5
result of Defendants conduct and actions alleged herein.
6
23. Plaintiff Lawsons claims are typical of the claims of the class, and he has the
7
same interests as the other members of the class.
8
9
24. Plaintiff Lawson will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of
10 the class. He has retained able counsel experienced in class action litigation and independent
11 contractor misclassification in particular. His interests are coincident with, and not antagonistic
12 to, the interests of the other class members.
13 25. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate
14 over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual issues relating
15 to liability and damages.
16 26. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
17 adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all class members is impractical. Moreover,
18 since the damages suffered by individual members of the class may be relatively small, the
19 expense and burden of individual litigation makes it practically impossible for the members of
20
the class individually to redress the wrongs done to them. The class is readily definable and
21
prosecution of this action as a class action will eliminate the possibility of repetitive litigation.
22
There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.
23
24
PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
25
27. Plaintiffs Tan and Lawson allege that GrubHub violated PAGA in the following
26
ways: (1) failure to reimburse its drivers for all necessary expenditures incurred in performing
27
6
1
their duties, including but not limited to fuel, car maintenance, phones, and data, in violation of
2
Labor Code 2802; (2) failure to provide itemized wage statements in violation of 226(a); (3)
3
failing to pay minimum wage for each week worked in violation of Ca. Lab. Code 1197 and
4
1194; (4) failing to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of forty each week in
5
violation of Cal. Lab. Code 1198, 1194, 510, and 554.
6
7
COUNT I
8
Violation of Cal. Lab. Code 2802
9 (Plaintiff Lawson on behalf of himself and of all similarly situated individuals)
10 Plaintiff Lawson realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding
11 paragraphs as if fully alleged herein. GrubHubs conduct, as set forth above, in misclassifying
12 Plaintiff Lawson and other GrubHub drivers as independent contractors, and failing to reimburse
13 them for expenses they paid that should have been borne by their employer, constitutes a
14 violation of California Labor Code 2802.
15
16 COUNT II
17 Violation of Cal. Lab. Code 226(a)
(Plaintiff Lawson on behalf of himself and of all similarly situated individuals)
18
Plaintiff Lawson realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding
19
paragraphs as if fully alleged herein. GrubHubs conduct, as set forth above, in misclassifying
20
Plaintiff Lawson and other GrubHub drivers as independent contractors, and failing to provide
21
proper itemized wage statements constitutes a violation of California Labor Code 226(a).
22
23
24
25
26
27
7
1
COUNT III
2
Violation of Cal. Lab. Code 1197 and 1194 Minimum Wage
4 Plaintiff Lawson realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding
5 paragraphs as if fully alleged herein. GrubHubs conduct, as set forth above, in misclassifying
6
Plaintiff Lawson and other GrubHub drivers as independent contractors, and failing to pay the
7
drivers the California minimum wage each week worked constitutes a violation of California
8
Labor Code 1197 and 1194.
9
10
COUNT IV
11 Violation of Lab. Code 1194, 1198, 510, and 554 Overtime
(Plaintiff Lawson on behalf of himself and of all similarly situated individuals)
12
Plaintiff Lawson realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding
13
paragraphs as if fully alleged herein. GrubHubs conduct, as set forth above, in misclassifying
14
Plaintiff Lawson and other GrubHub drivers as independent contractors, and failing to pay the
15
16
drivers the appropriate overtime premium overtime hours they worked constitutes a violation of
17 California Labor Code 1194, 1198, 510, and 554.
18
19 COUNT V
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq.
21 Plaintiff Lawson realleges and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding
22 paragraphs as if fully alleged herein. Defendants conduct, as set forth above, violates the
23
California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et seq. (UCL).
24
Defendants conduct constitutes unlawful business acts or practices, in that Defendant has
25
violated California Labor Code Sections 2802, 226, 1197, 1194, 1198, 510, and 554. As a result
26
of Defendants unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and class members suffered injury in fact and lost
27
8
1
money and property, including, but not limited to business expenses that drivers were required to
2
pay, unpaid overtime wages, and damages incurred due to Defendants failure to pay minimum
3
wage. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code 17203, Plaintiff Lawson and class
4
members seek declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendants unlawful conduct and to recover
5
restitution. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5, Plaintiff Lawson and class
6
members are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and expenses incurred in
7
bringing this action.
8
9
COUNT VI
10 Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
Cal. Lab. Code 2699, et seq.
11
(Plaintiffs Lawson and Tan in their capacity as Private Attorney General Representatives
12 on behalf of the State of California, themselves, and all other similarly situated individuals)
13 Plaintiffs Lawson and Tan reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the
14
preceding paragraphs as if fully alleged herein. Plaintiffs are aggrieved employees as defined by
15
Cal. Lab. Code 2699(c) as they were employed by GrubHub during the applicable statutory
16
period and suffered injury as a result of GrubHubs Labor Code violations. Accordingly,
17
18 Plaintiffs seek to recover on behalf of the State of California, as well as themselves and all other
19 current and former aggrieved employees of GrubHub who have worked in California, the civil
20
penalties provided by PAGA, plus reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
21
GrubHub drivers are entitled to penalties for GrubHub violations of Cal. Lab. Code
22
2802, 226(a), 1194, 1197, 1198, 510, and 558 as set forth by Cal. Lab. Code 2699(f). Plaintiffs
23
24 seek civil penalties pursuant to PAGA for (1) failure to reimburse delivery driver employees for
25 all necessary expenditures incurred in performing their duties, including but not limited to fuel,
26
car maintenance, parking, phones, and data, in violation of Labor Code 2802 (2) failure to
27
9
1 provide itemized wage statements in violation of 226(a); (3) failure to pay minimum wage in
2
violation of Labor Code 1197 and 1194; (4) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
3
Labor Code 1194, 1198, 510, and 554.
4
Cal. Lab. Code 2699(f) provides for civil penalties for violation of all Labor Code
5
6 provisions for which no civil penalty is specifically provided. There is no specified civil penalty
7 for violations of Cal. Lab. Code 2802. With respect to violations of Labor Code 226(a),
8
Labor Code 226.3 imposes a civil penalty in addition to any other penalty provided by law of
9
two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per aggrieved employee for the first violation, and one thousand
10
dollars ($1,000) per aggrieved employee for each subsequent violation of Labor Code 226(a).
11
12 With respect to minimum wage violations under Cal. Lab. Code 1197 and 1194, 1197.1
13 imposes a civil penalty in addition to any other penalty provided by law of one hundred ($100)
14
for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee is underpaid in
15
addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages and liquidated damages, and, for
16
each subsequent violation of Labor 1197 and 1194, two hundred and fifty dollars ($250 for
17
18 each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee is underpaid in addition to
19 an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages and liquidated damages. With respect to
20
overtime violations under Labor Code 510 and 558, the statute imposes a civil penalty in
21
addition to any other penalty provided by law of fifty dollars ($50) for initial violations for each
22
underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an
23
24 amount sufficient to recover unpaid wages, and one hundred dollars ($100) for subsequent
25 violations for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was
26
underpaid in addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages.
27
10
1
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter the following relief:
2
a. Certify a class action pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and appoint Plaintiff Lawson and
3
his counsel to represent the class;
4
b. Declare and find that the Defendant violated Cal. Lab. Code 2802, 226(a), 510,
5
554, 1197, and 1198, and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq.;
6
c. Enter Judgment in Plaintiffs favor on their PAGA claim pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code
7
2699(c).
8
9
d. Award compensatory damages, including all expenses owed, underpaid wages, and
10 liquidated damages in an amount according to proof;
11 e. Award all costs and attorneys fees incurred prosecuting this claim;
12 f. Interest and costs;
13 g. Injunctive relief in the form of an order directing Defendant to comply with Cal. Lab.
14 Code;
15 h. Such other relief as in law or equity may pertain.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
11
1 Respectfully submitted,
2
ANDREW TAN and RAEF LAWSON, in their
3 capacity as Private Attorney General
Representatives, and RAEF LAWSON, on behalf of
4 himself and all others similarly situated,
5 By their attorneys,
6
/s/ Matthew Carlson
7 Matthew Carlson (SBN 273242)
CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES
8 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
9
San Francisco, CA 94111
(510) 239-4710
10 Email: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com
11 Shannon Liss-Riordan, pro hac vice anticipated
12
Thomas Fowler, pro hac vice anticipated
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
13 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
14 (617) 994-5800
15
Dated: December 15, 2015 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com, tfowler@llrlaw.com
16
17
18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
19 I hereby certify that a copy of this motion was served by electronic filing on December
15, 2015, on all counsel of record.
20
21
/s/ Matthew Carlson_______
Matthew Carlson, Esq.
22
23
24
25
26
27
12

GrubHub V Lawson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GrubHub V Lawson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:15-cv-05128-JSC Document 15 Filed 12/15/15 Page 1 of 12

1 SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN, pro hac vice anticipated

7 MATTHEW CARLSON (SBN 273242)

11 putative class members; and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

12 IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

13 9. GrubHub is a food delivery service, which provides food delivery to customers in

14 cities throughout the country via an on demand dispatch system.

10 15. However, based on their misclassification as independent contractors, GrubHub

12 to, the interests of the other class members.

17 California Labor Code 1194, 1198, 510, and 554.

10 liquidated damages in an amount according to proof;

12 f. Interest and costs;

You might also like