Webb v. Rejoice Delivers LLC
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-07221
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Webb v. Rejoice Delivers, Judge Freeman granted a short discovery stay while defendants’ motion to dismiss and strike the complaint remained pending.
The order pauses discovery affecting Webb and the defendants—Rejoice Delivers LLC, Amazon Logistics, Inc., and Amazon.com Services, LLC—until the pending motion to dismiss and strike the third amended complaint is resolved.
What happened
Ian Webb brought a proposed class action alleging wage-and-hour violations against Rejoice Delivers LLC and Amazon entities. The case’s operative complaint was the third amended complaint, and defendants had challenged it with a motion to dismiss and strike.
The defendants asked the court to pause discovery until that motion was decided. They argued that the complaint did not adequately allege that the Amazon entities were Webb’s or the proposed class members’ joint employers. Webb argued that pausing discovery would harm him because of the deadline for seeking class certification.
In Webb v. Rejoice Delivers LLC, Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the motion to stay discovery, finding that the pending motion could potentially resolve the case or class claims and could be decided without discovery. She also vacated the hearing previously set for May 22, 2025.
The detailed version
- Webb v. Rejoice Delivers LLC · No. 5:22-cv-07221
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 6, 2025
Background
Ian Webb filed a proposed class action asserting wage-and-hour claims against his former employer, Rejoice Delivers LLC. He later added Amazon Logistics, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC as alleged joint employers. The third amended complaint asserted claims concerning overtime, meal and rest periods, minimum wages, final wages, business-expense reimbursement, collection of unpaid wages, and California’s Unfair Competition Law.
The Amazon defendants moved to dismiss and strike the third amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f), and Rejoice joined that motion. The defendants separately moved to stay discovery until the court decided the dismissal-and-striking motion. The dismissal motion was scheduled for a March 20, 2025 hearing.
Legal standard
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows a court to issue a protective order, including an order staying discovery, for good cause. Courts applying the relevant two-part test consider whether the pending motion could potentially resolve the case or the issue involved and whether the motion can be decided without additional discovery. Courts may also consider efficiency and conserving the parties’ resources. The party seeking a stay bears a heavy burden.
The court also conducted a preliminary review of the pending motion’s merits to determine whether a stay was justified. This review was not a decision on the motion to dismiss and strike itself.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the pending motion could potentially dispose of the entire case or at least the class claims. After its preliminary review, the court concluded that the Amazon defendants might prevail on their argument that the third amended complaint alleged no facts showing that they were joint employers of Webb or the proposed class members.
The court also found that the pending motion challenged the claims and class allegations on the face of the complaint, so no discovery was needed to decide it. Because the motion was scheduled to be heard in two weeks, the court determined that the stay would be brief and would promote efficiency and conserve resources.
The court rejected Webb’s argument that the stay would prejudice him because of the class-certification deadline. That deadline was January 16, 2026, about ten months after the scheduled hearing. The court stated that, if it denied the pending motion in whole or in part, or granted it with leave to amend, Webb would still have ample time to conduct discovery before seeking class certification.
Order
The court granted the defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery pending disposition of the motion to dismiss and strike the third amended complaint. It vacated the hearing previously scheduled for May 22, 2025, and terminated ECF 138. The order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss and strike.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.