Lawson

Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 1, 20243:15-cv-05128California5,951 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAEF LAWSON, Case No. 15-cv-05128-JSC

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S

9 v. CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING TO

PURSUE PAGA PENALTIES AND THE

10 GRUBHUB, INC., et al., APPROPRIATE PAGA PERIOD 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 343

12 13 Raef Lawson brings a representative PAGA claim alleging Grubhub unlawfully classified 14 its food delivery drivers as independent contractors and as a result failed to reimburse them for 15 necessary expenses, pay them minimum wage, and pay them overtime wages. (Dkt. No. 41 ¶ 33.)1 16 Following oral argument on Grubhub’s motion for partial summary judgment, the Court ordered 17 the parties to submit supplemental briefing on 1) Lawson’s federal constitutional standing to 18 pursue PAGA penalties for his overtime and expense reimbursement claims in light of Magadia v. 19 Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., 999 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2021), and 2) the temporal scope of the PAGA 20 period. (Dkt. No. 343.) Before the Court is the…

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.