Cobarruviaz

Cobarruviaz v. Maplebear, Inc.

Good Law
143 F. Supp. 3d 930·2015 WL 6694112·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149045
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 3, 2015Case No. 15-cv-00697-EMCCalifornia7,379 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chen, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Dominic Cobarruviaz brought this lawsuit on behalf of himself and a . putative class of former and current shoppers and grocery delivery drivers who work for Defendant Maplebear, Inc., which does business as Instacart (hereafter, Instacart). See Docket No. 17 (First Amended Complaint) (FAC). “Instacart is a shopping and delivery service that provides shoppers and delivery drivers who are dispatched through a mobile phone application to shop, purchase, and deliver groceries to customers at their homes and businesses.” Id. at ¶ 2. Plaintiffs were classified by Instacart as independent contractors. Id. at ¶ 3. They claim, however, that they are Instacart’s employees, and thus are entitled to various protections for employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and under the labor codes of various states where Plaintiffs worked, such as California, New York, and Colorado. Id. at ¶ 5. The California-based Plaintiffs have also pled a claim for civil penalties under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Id. at ¶¶ 119-123.

Prior to working for Instacart, Plaintiffs were required to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.