thank you your honor the court should reverse the district court's decision because california's a b five irrationally rollback dynamic says worker protections for similarly situated occupations while subjecting plaintiffs to a higher standard in violation of equal protection due process and the contract clause and the district court committed legal error in ruling the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in their constitutional challenge let me start by responding to the court question whether this appeal is still alive controversy in light of proposition twenty two it absolutely is st proposition twenty two has not taken effect yet it will very soon but several government actors including defendant attorney general basara in to new to attempt to enforce it the five votes for monetary relief during the period before proposition twenty two dollars and even for how we're looking injun voters overwhelmingly and assuming that it becomes the law of california do you believe that the attorney general is still going to try to go against what is now the law in california or will he back off and i'm curious as to what you think about this because you know what happens you're going to answer you out in the months or to come up with an opinion that might contradict it you don't know where it's going to go now but where well thank you your honor as i stand here today i and the a g s continuing to press forward in defiance of the will of the people so your honest question is a very good one and i can't for the life of me understand why but just yesterday in a filing before the california court of appeal the attorney general took the position that it's not backing off of the injunction and that the injunction that they obtained in the state court should remain in effect and that they're continuing to seek that injunctive relief stuff i i think it is really shocking but as i stand here today they have shown no signs of backing down a couple days after prop twenty two dollars so it's continuing to the very relief that we say we were filing this lawsuit to present we still very much need relief from the what we're faced with and so i do want to address because this hasn't been brief i just want to i want to just mention that if the court word to find that our appeal is moot of course the case is not moot the attorney general is also seeking retrospective monetary relief and this court to vision and jack of this versus alaska is directly on point but more importantly if the court finds that somehow the sometimes listening to the district court to make the determination whether well your honor we'd be happy to provide briefing on that issue because it hasn't been briefed that the court would like it but i believe that this is absolutely a live controversy and so i'd like to turn to the merits here because this is truly a blatant equal protection violation eighty five a good purpose was to replace the barolo standard in california with the supreme court and or of the a b c test that was adopted in dynamic and the reason the stated purpose of a b five the reason for doing math was that the legislature claim to believe the playing a legislature by enacting maybe five actually reversed dynamics for millions of workers in california in over one hundred dollars categories that it gave out exemption two so again this is really the critical piece of our argument what the district court got wrong and what the government just doesn't grapple with here the wage order claims for those occupations that were subject to dynamics before a b five uniformly across the board are now going to be analyzed under barela which is the very end or at the legislature and the now claimed lead to to harm to workers and misclassification so actually as our amoebe have echoed our our many and me have also amplified that this actually shifts california law in opposite and contradictory directions and so this has all of the ingredients of the book protection violation this court decision in merrifield versus last year is exactly on point there this court said that the government couldn't undercut its own articulated rational basis ated to call out laws like this that are just irrational an arbitrary so the government here their main argument is that rational basis review allows the state to regulate incrementally to make very clear that's not what the five died a b five didn't leave a law as it stood for the exempted occupations and industries that actually took the affirmative step of rolling back the dynamics under it and reinstating brownlow so if we are to take the government's word for it that barlow harms workers and maybe five affirmatively harms a huge section of the workforce millions of workers i think the government has put that in california and it did so in order to target unconstitutionally and irrationally our clients but the court doesn't even need to get there because the asphyxiation on illustrating and exacerbate the five unequal treatment of the on demand delivery and transportation industry so one of the a b finds exemptions is a referral agency and of course hoover and post made are very clearly refer all agencies platform that reform refer workers costumers who either want a ride or a delivery and the district court here actually suggested we might within the referral agency exemption because we connect providers of errands with customers and eighty five at the time apply the referral agency exemption to those who provide aaron but then tw fifty seven expanded the referral agency exemption to any type of work and it could not have been more blatant expanded to all referrals for services but specifically carves out and excludes referrals for its delivery farrior transportation service that there is absolutely no rational basis for treating posts made and over differently from or earl agency apps like wagon which some of called the  dog walking and standing and task rabbit these are all apps that provide platform to connect users the way to bring me so this is just no there's no basis for that and by the way the legislature didn't particularly any basis or changes to the referral agency exemption so that's completely irrational and we believe that there's no way that it could five rational basis review here and i also just want to point to the fact that this court have to examine the means between the fit and the end here and if it does it will see that the only explanation for the rollback of dynamic is that it was the benefit favored interest groups and harm network companies like playing that and like ms olson and mister perez who use those  work and the california labor federation here and this is in the record circulated a one page form letting favored interest groups ask for exemption public records here could not be clear that the sponsors have had against uber agreed with that and actually use that against us to makea so your honor that's why we came to this court in the st place thing a ruling from a federal court that a b five is unconstitutional using profanity and all sorts of just really reprehensible language so this is a terrible terrible law it's irrational and it doesn't have any basis for the distinction that it draws between similarly situated industries and occupy ition and some of those who are exempted here are house cleaners and janitors not just doctors and lawyers a whole host of workers who really don't bear any traditional connection to the notion of an independent contractor certainly not any more than the drivers and couriers that have for years been using these apps as independent workers and creating their own business so i would like to address the irreparable harm that the government's effort to continue that this attack on hooper and post made in the plaintiff here is causing and it does need to be judging one to your question in proposition twenty two the people declared that the public interest is in protecting the ability of californians work as independent contractors and to work with multiple platforms bath and beneficial they said that preserving access is beneficial to consumers small business and the california economy and overwhelmingly drivers supported proposition twenty two by a four to one margin so there is no interest in the continued important of this law rationally in and to the public would not be greater in the midst of this pandemic and it would destroy significant public benefits and we are still being subjected to that your honor in that in the aging is finally yesterday he refused to back off of  injunction so this is a very real controversy and i do want to leave time or rebuttals so i can stop here love the court has any questions you would like me to address right now he was not thinking counsel thank you rule by the health and human services and the score concluded but the interim rule was set to be superseded by a final rule in a month after the disk or the side of the case and this court concluded the case is not w under dynamics and potentially under bravo those claims are not rendered are not implicated in this action so to that extent the claims are not our expens the extent that they are we agree that proposition twenty two dollars would after proper need to go since that to the fact those claims would no longer be bible but to the extent because that action involves other claims other than apparently pursuing actions against various entities right now so is it your position that not looking at you know retroactive claims that the crimes that start  need to try to enforce claims starting tomorrow until december that makes sense and trying to ask you if i understand your question your honor our several rounds of people have spoken and what you're saying is you're not going to be pursuing it but it's very possible say you're the attorney general may be pursuing claims against individuals through or companies through december  if there are any more questions we've got and that leads us to the to address them otherwise i'd like to address equal protection claim raised by the plant is here as a district court correctly concluded plants fail to show basis of the law and any possible policy reason for the classification would survive under a rational basis rational basis is not a basis it is not a way to question the palm the wisdom or policy decisions unusual situation where there was where the particular goal of the law was contradicted by the attends to a through which the legislature sought to remedy remedy those this court earlier this month actually legislation under rational basis mccord said unless there's there is any allegations or proof that there was basically brought some type of fraud regarding that there was no will claim for an equal protection violation please counsel also address the or raise the question of whether the particular exemptions that they focus on met the purpose of the shoot that is not a proper analysis the rational basis of course not look at every single aspect of us actually the innocence where the those particular aspects of the law meet the overall purpose of the statute or the legislative history here demonstrates was that the legislature was concerned about misclassification in wage theft and erosion of the middle class in areas that are our growth industries currently within the state and therefore address those through a wide ranging and on the extensions what the legislative history demonstrates in this record went through this late legislative history is that the legislature was trying to figure out situations where this broad a b c it as was not appropriate given general characteristics of pre existing occupations that were deemed independent contractors even before the dynamics decision licensed professionals like attorneys doctors architects  those kinds of occupations were carved out from the a b c as so those particular challenges like merit because there was a reason possible decision by the legislature or why these pension would not apply to that we submit to the court that it's perfectly proper for the legislature to decide that a particular industry presents a problem of misclassification and focus on the industries that have or present the biggest problems it is don't think legislature to carve out that particular aspect that particular industry for the a b c has on the contrary it makes sense to focus on industries the present a problem so the legislature did not air the by certain number of legislatures outside the legislative context this court should focus on the legislative language and the legislative history what effect this is that you actually have the whatever views of the individual legislature improperly targeted and in this case that's not what the statute shows and that's basically our position we're not saying that the court should turn a blind eye to anything else what we're seeing is the court can look at that and then look at the statute and see what the statute actually does if you look  individual legislatures legislators it focuses on the official legislative history and focuses on what's actually says that's our position in this case because if individual legislative leaders had a particular view that they express but the statute does not in fact have the particular improper effect or improper targeting the plaintiff has to it then there is no equal protection claim the statute easily passes rational basis that a little bit i mean exemption residents wrong and and frankly a little surprise in and it seems like the rationale that you're advancing in reading and today is that it was a judgment call then i'd like to start with judge one favorite question because i think that's exactly the problem here the legislature did not decide to move incrementally here what they did was exempt millions of workers that would been covered by the very test they say this law was needed to cause by that just doesn't make any sense so the legislative history identified industries with the highest this classification rates as construction janitorial yet the legislature exempted workers in each of those out of gori making them allegedly worse off according to their own rationale and so the question is not if it's rational to treat house cleaners who are exempted from drivers who are not it's whether if your goal is to protect workers it's rational to roll back the test as to how well your dog walkers yard cleaners and the list goes on it's not just doctor totally up with the sheer why can't they your honor if they had a basis for it they could in a hypothetical situation that's not what they did here though they took a standard that applied to everyone and then they rolled it back so they didn't say we're going to start now everyone here is under brow and we're going to start in california by introducing the a b c test which is tougher to select industries that we think is a concern and make a record of it it didn't do that that standard b b c test applied to everyone what they did roll it back so that's what makes this case so stunning and it really just doesn't hold together and exempted so many people that the exceptions swallow the rule here and let's just look at twenty to fifty seven there is no base as for that that carved out transportation and delivery in the whole industry of referrals in transportation and delivery from the referral agency exemption if you're a referral agency you can refer dog walkers and people who do have in your house and how cleaners but you can't refer delivery and carrier services and so why is that there's no basis for that so that's what the statute actually does mister valid on the pay that that look at what it the basis for that sanction the next point i just want to respond to is that the court absolutely cannot look at the evidence here it should not blind itself to the targeting and the irrational seems speaks for itself but  i think the government is trying to have it both ways here what they said is just not true they absolutely are pursuing the injunction in the proceedings brought by the attorney general and city attorneys against her and left just yesterday in no for their brief that they filed just yesterday they said that the injunction that they received should remain in effect and they even said that it's their position  that's exactly not what we have before us and that record but then he also said that they're still going after i don't see the new monetary relief for the period before proposition twenty two well that's the jack alaska case that this court's decision they're sad that clearly the controversy is not moot also the case that he cited california versus these are said that appeal wasn't moved because the law there had not yet gone into effect so this this appeal in this case that we brought seeks an injunction to prevent the government from continuing to enforce this irrational illogical misc are guided and harmful statute against us and to this day there continuing to do it so we need the relief from this court there absolutely is believe that this court can provide and and i think that howling if they're asking this  court to not grant das an injunction but they're telling the court of appeal to keep in a fact that there injunction is writing proposition twenty two dollars and so i would ask that the court reverse the district court's decision and  grant us the relief that is consistent with what the voters overwhelmingly support and proposition twenty two dollars and put an end to this enforcement action and not only the one before the court of appeal but also by the department of labor