Tan

Tan v. Grubhub, Inc.

Good Law
171 F. Supp. 3d 998·2016 WL 1110236·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37200
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 22, 2016Case No. 15-cv-05128-JSCCalifornia8,004 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Corley, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Andrew Tan (“Tan”) and Raef Lawson (“Lawson,” and together, “Plaintiffs”) sue Grub Hub Holdings Inc. and GrubHub Inc. (“GrubHub” or “Defendants”), a service that provides food delivery to customers via an on demand dispatch system. The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is that the delivery driver plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors and denied the benefits of California wage-and-hour laws. (Dkt. No. 15.) 1 Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants seek to dismiss the entire FAC for failure to state a claim, and ask the Court to dismiss or, alternatively, stay the PAGA claims under the Colorado River abstention doctrine. (Dkt. No. 21.) Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7-l(b), and GRANTS IN PART the motion to dismiss and declines to stay the PAGA claim for the reasons explained as set forth below.

BACKGROUND

The following background is based on the FAC allegations and judicially noticeable documents. 2 Defendants removed…

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.