Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Sportsman v. A Place for Rover, Inc.

Sportsman v. A Place for Rover, Inc.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

May 6, 2021, Decided; May 6, 2021, Filed

Case No. 19-cv-03053-WHO

Opinion

 [*1085]  ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 65, 66

Plaintiff Melanie Sportsman brought this action under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code § 2698 et seq. ("PAGA"), on behalf of herself and others who have worked for defendant A Place for Rover, Inc. ("Rover") as pet care providers. She seeks to recover civil penalties pursuant to PAGA arising from Rover's misclassification of pet care providers as independent contractors. Before me are cross motions for summary judgment on whether [**2]  Sportsman has been properly classified as an independent contractor.

Under both the ABC test of Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Ct., 4 Cal.5th 903, 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 416 P.3d 1 (2018), codified by the California legislature in California Labor Code § 2775, and the factor test of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341, 256 Cal. Rptr. 543, 769 P.2d 399 (1989), the undisputed evidence establishes that Sportsman was an independent contractor and not an employee of Rover. She had complete control over which pet care services to offer, what rate to charge for each service, where to provide the services, how to provide the services, and if and when to provide the services by setting her own schedule and deciding whether to accept a booking request. She used her Rover profile to advertise her services and distinguished herself from other service providers, holding herself out as operating an independent business.

The level of control and customization she retained demonstrates that Rover operates very differently from other gig economy companies. Rover's platform more closely resembles an online marketplace that allows service providers to promote their services and connect with prospective buyers. Sportsman's arguments to the contrary are not convincing and do not raise a genuine dispute of material fact sufficient to prevent summary judgment in Rover's favor. For these reasons, [**3]  Rover's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Sportsman's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

537 F. Supp. 3d 1081 *; 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152023 **

MELANIE SPORTSMAN, Plaintiff, v. A PLACE FOR ROVER, INC., Defendant.

CORE TERMS

Pet, care provider, dog, profile, platform, independent contractor, booking, summary judgment, Prong, hiring, entity, care service, summary judgment motion, Declaration, drivers, advertisements, referral, judicial notice, provide a service, walking, webpage, Cards, rates, customers, parties, perform a service, marketplace, weighs, perform work, incidental

Civil Procedure, Judgments, Summary Judgment, Burdens of Proof, Burdens of Proof, Movant Persuasion & Proof, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Nonmovant Persuasion & Proof, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Appropriateness, Evidence, Inferences & Presumptions, Inferences, Trials, Jury Trials, Province of Court & Jury, Labor & Employment Law, Wage & Hour Laws, Remedies, Private Suits, Employment Relationships, At Will Employment, Definition of Employees, Independent Contractors, Employer Liability, Contract Liability, Contract Indemnity, Presumptions, Creation, Governments, Legislation, Effect & Operation, Retrospective Operation, Scope & Definitions, Definition of Employers, Allocation, Business & Corporate Law, Establishment, Elements, Right to Control by Principal, Agents Distinguished, Independent Contractors, Masters & Servants, Agency Relationships, Types, Employees & Employers