Winns v. Postmates Inc.

Winns v. Postmates Inc.

Opinion

PETROU, J.—Postmates Inc. (Postmates) appeals from the trial court's order denying its petition to compel arbitration of a Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, § 2698 et seq.) claim for civil penalties brought by Plaintiffs Melanie Anne Winns, Ralph John Hickey, Jr., and Kristie Logan (collectively Plaintiffs). In denying Plaintiffs' petition with respect to their PAGA claim, the trial court followed our Supreme Court's decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 [173 Cal. Rptr. 3d 289, 327 P.3d 129] (Iskanian), which held that representative action waivers were unenforceable. We reject Postmates' arguments that Iskanian was abrogated by subsequent United States Supreme Court decisions and affirm the order denying the motion to compel arbitration of the PAGA claim.

 [*807] 

Factual and Procedural Background

Postmates is a technology company that connects customers needing delivery services with “couriers”—third party [**2]  delivery providers—through its website or smartphone app. Postmates' website and app enable customers to arrange for the delivery of items from local businesses by placing orders electronically.

Beginning on March 1, 2017, prospective couriers seeking to offer their delivery services were presented with Postmates' fleet agreement when logging onto the app for the first time. Before offering delivery services, a courier had to agree to the fleet agreement, which was intended to govern the relationship between Postmates and couriers.

The fleet agreement directs a prospective courier as follows: “Please review the mutual arbitration provision set forth below in Section 11 carefully, as it will require you to resolve disputes with Postmates on an individual basis, except as otherwise provided in Section 11, through final and binding arbitration unless you choose to opt out of the mutual arbitration provision. By digitally signing this agreement, you will be acknowledging that you have read and understood all of the terms of this agreement (including the Mutual Arbitration Provision in Section 11) and have taken time to consider the consequences of this important business decision.” (Boldface [**3]  and block capitals omitted.)

The mutual arbitration provision in section 11 of the agreement provides that Postmates and couriers “mutually agree to resolve any disputes between them exclusively through final and binding arbitration instead of filing a lawsuit in court.” This applies to “any and all claims between the [p]arties,” including but not limited to claims related to a courier's classification as an independent contractor, the delivery fees received by a courier for deliveries, and state and local wage and hour laws. Under its terms, the Provision is “governed exclusively by the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16) (‘FAA’).”

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