Hassell v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

The caption names Uber Technologies, Inc. as the defendant, while the opinion refers to the defendant as Uber Eats and describes it as a division of Uber Technologies, Inc. The defendant provides food-delivery services through the Uber Eats mobile application. Kent Hassell alleged that he had worked as an Uber Eats driver since January 2020 and sought to represent a class of California Uber Eats drivers.

Hassell alleged that the defendant misclassified him and other drivers as independent contractors rather than employees after the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court and the California Legislature’s enactment of Assembly Bill 5. His complaint asserted claims for failure to reimburse work expenses, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, inaccurate wage statements, violation of California’s unfair-competition law, and declaratory relief concerning the alleged misclassification and compliance with California wage laws.

The defendant moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. In the alternative, it asked the court to strike the class allegations. The defendant did not argue in this motion that Hassell was not an employee; the court therefore assumed, for purposes of the motion, that he qualified as one.

Reasons for Dismissal

Expense reimbursement. Hassell alleged generally that Uber Eats did not reimburse drivers for vehicle maintenance, gasoline, insurance, and phone and data expenses. The court held that he did not allege that he personally incurred any such expense or that the defendant failed to reimburse him. He also did not describe the nature or amount of his expenses, identify what type of vehicle he used, or allege facts showing that the expenses were necessary to or directly caused by his work. The court dismissed this claim.

Minimum wage. Hassell alleged that he earned $9.90 per hour during a five-day period after subtracting mileage expenses. The court held that he could not rely on those deductions because he had not stated a viable reimbursement claim. The court also found that he did not adequately explain why all time spent on the Uber application—including time waiting between deliveries—was compensable under California law. His allegations described drivers generally rather than his own work in sufficient detail. The court dismissed the minimum-wage claim.

Overtime. Hassell alleged that he worked 44 hours and two minutes during a period he described as February 3 through February 10, 2020, and was not paid overtime for four hours and two minutes. Applying the Ninth Circuit’s pleading standard from Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc., the court found that the stated period ran from Monday to Monday and therefore did not identify a single workweek. The court also found that Hassell did not provide other details supporting plausibility, did not explain why waiting between deliveries was compensable, and described the work of drivers generally rather than his own work. The court dismissed the overtime claim.

Wage statements. Hassell alleged that the defendant failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements and failed to make them accessible outside the Uber Eats application. The court found these allegations conclusory and insufficiently specific about the information actually provided to Hassell. It also noted that Hassell did not dispute the defendant’s position that this claim depended on the viability of his reimbursement, minimum-wage, and overtime claims. The court dismissed the wage-statement claim.

Unfair-business-practices claim. Hassell brought his California Business and Professions Code § 17200 claim under the unlawful-practices theory. He relied on alleged driver misclassification, failure to provide paid sick leave, and the alleged violations underlying his other wage claims.

For the misclassification theory, the court found that Hassell did not plausibly allege a willful violation. His allegations that the defendant had lobbied for an exemption and expressed concern about Assembly Bill 5 did not establish willfulness. The court also held that he had not shown that he lacked an adequate legal remedy for equitable relief, and had not alleged facts supporting irreparable harm for an injunction concerning future violations.

For the paid-sick-leave theory, the court found that Hassell’s start date did not establish that he had worked the required number of days. He also did not allege that he requested sick leave or that the defendant denied such a request. The court separately found that he had not shown the absence of an adequate legal remedy. Finally, because Hassell had not stated viable underlying claims for reimbursement, minimum wage, overtime, or wage statements, he could not rely on those alleged violations as the basis for the § 17200 claim. The court dismissed the § 17200 claim.

Declaratory judgment. Hassell sought a declaration that the defendant had violated California labor laws and had to comply with them. The court dismissed this claim because the complaint did not state viable underlying wage claims, did not explain why other remedies were inadequate, and appeared to seek review of past conduct. The court also found that a related state-court proceeding involving similar employment-classification issues favored declining to issue the requested declaration.

Class allegations and amendment. Because all claims in the complaint were dismissed, the court did not decide the defendant’s alternative request to strike the class allegations and denied that request as moot. The court stated that the defendant could raise the request again in response to an amended complaint.

The court allowed Hassell 28 days from the date of the order to file a first amended complaint correcting the deficiencies in the claims dismissed without prejudice. It specifically allowed amendment of the reimbursement, minimum-wage, overtime, and wage-statement claims and the § 17200 claim resting on those claims. The court dismissed the request for a declaration concerning past violations with prejudice, but allowed amendment of the declaratory claim as to future violations. It warned that failure to correct the defects would result in dismissal with prejudice. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.