Saunders v. Doordash, Inc.

Background

Kevin Saunders brought a proposed class action in San Francisco County Superior Court against DoorDash, Inc. The case concerns drivers who use DoorDash’s platform to deliver customers’ food. Saunders alleges that DoorDash classified the drivers as independent contractors rather than employees and thereby avoided employee benefits and other California employment-law requirements.

The amended complaint asserts claims for unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid wages at termination, inaccurate itemized pay statements, unreimbursed business expenses, breach of contract, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. It defines one proposed subclass of California drivers classified as independent contractors beginning March 1, 2020, and another involving drivers allegedly terminated after asking to opt out of DoorDash’s arbitration agreement.

DoorDash removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, or CAFA. Saunders moved to remand, arguing that DoorDash had not shown the required amount in controversy, that CAFA’s home-state exception applied, and that the court should use its discretionary authority to remand the case.

Jurisdictional standard

CAFA generally gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain class actions when the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and there is minimal diversity—that is, at least one plaintiff and one defendant are citizens of different states. CAFA’s home-state exception requires federal courts to decline jurisdiction when at least two-thirds of the proposed class members and the primary defendants are citizens of the state where the case was originally filed.

After a hearing, the court determined that DoorDash had established the basic requirements for CAFA jurisdiction. The court allowed limited discovery about the proposed class members’ citizenship so Saunders could try to prove that the home-state exception applied.

Analysis

DoorDash produced information for 463,496 drivers who fell within the amended class definition. Of those drivers, 375,044—80.92 percent—had provided a California address when signing up. Another 67,443 had provided no address, and 21,009 had provided an address outside California. DoorDash also represented that 441,311 accounts—95.21 percent of the identified class—were associated with drivers who had made at least one delivery in California since March 1, 2020, and had never made a delivery outside California. Saunders stated, and DoorDash did not dispute, that 91 percent of the class members who could be matched to background-check information had a California driver’s license.

DoorDash argued that the analysis had to use the original complaint’s broader, four-year class period rather than the amended complaint’s period beginning March 1, 2020. The court rejected that argument. It explained that the amendment narrowed the class period because a proposed settlement in another DoorDash class action would release claims accruing before March 1, 2020. The amendment did not destroy minimal diversity or change the nature of the class for purposes of federal jurisdiction. The court therefore considered the amended complaint’s class definition.

The court also rejected DoorDash’s argument that the available information was insufficient to establish citizenship. The court had not presumed citizenship merely because the drivers had made deliveries in California; instead, it relied on evidence obtained through jurisdictional discovery. The California addresses, delivery history, and California driver’s-license information supported a reasonable finding that more than two-thirds of the proposed class members were California citizens. Because DoorDash was undisputedly a California citizen and the other requirements of the home-state exception were met, the court found that the exception applied.

Disposition

The court granted Saunders’s motion to remand. It ordered the Clerk to remand the matter to San Francisco County Superior Court and close the federal case. Because the home-state exception resolved the jurisdictional issue, the court did not reach Saunders’s alternative argument for discretionary remand. The court did not rule on the merits of the wage-and-hour, contract, wrongful-termination, or unfair-competition claims.