Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00824/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00824-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Collinge, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 2:12-cv-00824 JWS

)

vs. )

) 

IntelliQuick Delivery, Inc., an Arizona ) ORDER AND OPINION

corporation, et al., )

) [Re: Motions at docs. 303 and 310]

Defendants. )

)

I. MOTIONS PRESENTED

At docket 59 the court conditionally certified a collective action brought by

plaintiffs David Collinge, et al. (collectively “plaintiffs”) to enforce the Fair Labor

Standards Act (“FLSA”).1 At docket 310 defendants IntelliQuick Delivery, Inc., et al.

(collectively, “defendants”) move for decertification of the FLSA class pursuant to 29

U.S.C. § 216(b). Plaintiffs oppose at docket 318. Defendants reply at 326. 

Additionally, at docket 303 plaintiffs move for class action certification on their nonFLSA claims (Counts II-V of the Second Amended Complaint (“the Complaint”))

129 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Defendants oppose at docket 319. 

Plaintiffs reply at docket 325. Oral argument was heard on March 17, 2015.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs and the proposed class currently work or have worked for IntelliQuick

Delivery, Inc. (“IntelliQuick”) as delivery drivers. Plaintiffs maintain that they have been

misclassified as independent contractors when they are actually employees, and as a

result defendants have violated their rights under various wage and hour laws. Count I

of the Complaint alleges FLSA violations and is the subject of defendants’ present

motion for decertification. The FLSA class that was conditionally certified consists of

“All current and former drivers or couriers, who made pick-ups or deliveries for or on

behalf of IntelliQuick Deliveries, Inc. as a Freight Driver, Route Driver, or On-Demand

Driver within the State of Arizona and who were or are classified or paid as independent

contractors or not classified or paid as employees at any time on or after April 9, 2009.”2

Plaintiffs non-FLSA claims allege violations of Arizona’s Wage Act (Count II),

restitution and unjust enrichment (Count III), violations of the Family and Medical Leave

Act (“FMLA”) (Count V), and seek a declaratory judgment that several of defendants’

contracts are unenforceable (Count IV). Plaintiffs now seek class certification on these

non-FLSA claims as well as certification of the following four subclasses of drivers: 

Subclass A - Freight Drivers: All Drivers who use vehicles or vans that

are owned or leased by IntelliQuick or [Majik Leasing, LLC] to make

deliveries and pick-ups for or on behalf of IntelliQuick or its customers.

Subclass B - Route Drivers: All Drivers who generally use their own

vehicles to make deliveries and pick-ups on an assigned route for or on

behalf of IntelliQuick or its customers.

Subclass C - On-Demand Drivers: All Drivers who generally use their

own vehicles to make specific deliveries and pick-ups for or on behalf of

IntelliQuick or its customers and who have not been assigned a regular

route.

2Doc. 59 at 6.

-2-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Subclass D - FMLA Covered Drivers: All Drivers who have worked in

excess of 1,250 hours during any 12-month period of time and are or were

eligible for FMLA leave.3

III. DISCUSSION

A. FLSA decertification

Section 207(a) of Title 29 requires employers to pay their nonexempt employees

who work more than forty hours a week overtime compensation, and Section 206

requires employers to pay their employees a minimum wage. Section 216(b) states

that actions to recover unpaid overtime or minimum wages “may be maintained against

any employer . . . by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or

themselves and other employees similarly situated.” Section 216(b) requires that

employees file consent in writing in order to become plaintiffs. A class may include any

employee who is “similarly situated” to the named plaintiff employees. Although the

Ninth Circuit has not yet sanctioned a procedure for district courts to use when

determining whether workers are similarly situated, a majority of courts employ an ad

hoc two-step approach.4

At the first step, plaintiffs must make a “modest factual showing” that they and

the potential opt-in plaintiffs were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the

law. If they can do so, as plaintiffs have here, the court will send notice to the potential

opt-in plaintiffs who may be similarly situated to the named plaintiffs.5 This first step is

referred to as “conditional certification” because “the decision may be reexamined once

the case is ready for trial.”6 

The second stage occurs after discovery and is triggered by an employer’s

motion for decertification. “At the second stage, the district court will, on a fuller record,

3Doc. 303 at 6.

4See, e.g., Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233, 1260 (11th Cir. 2008).

5Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537, 555 (2d Cir. 2010).

6Morgan, 551 F.3d at 1261.

-3-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 3 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

determine whether a so-called ‘collective action’ may go forward by determining

whether the plaintiffs who have opted in are in fact ‘similarly situated’ to the named

plaintiffs.”7

 “This second stage is less lenient, and the plaintiff bears a heavier burden.”8

To determine whether plaintiffs are similarly situated at the second stage, courts review

several factors, including (1) the “disparate factual and employment settings of the

individual plaintiffs; (2) the various defenses available to defendant which appear to be

individual to each plaintiff;” and (3) “fairness and procedural considerations.”9

 The

ultimate decision whether to decertify the class “rests largely within the district court’s

discretion.”10

1. The individual plaintiffs’ factual and employment settings are similar

Plaintiffs claim that the opt-in class members are similarly situated to the named

plaintiffs because they are victims of a common policy or plan that mischaracterizes

them as independent contractors when in fact they are employees. The parties agree

that the test for determining whether the drivers are employees is the “economic

realities” test, which utilizes a non-exhaustive list of six factors set forth by the Ninth

Circuit in Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Associates, Inc.11 The ultimate focus of the

economic realities test is whether “as a matter of economic reality, the individuals ‘are

dependent upon the business to which they render service.’”12 The court’s task at this

7Myers, 624 F.3d at 555.

8Morgan, 551 F.3d at 1261.

9Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1103 (10th Cir. 2001). See also

Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 765 F.3d 791, 796 (8th Cir. 2014).

10Morgan, 551 F.3d at 1261 (internal quotation omitted).

11603 F.2d 748, 754 (9th Cir. 1979).

12Donovan v. Sureway Cleaners, 656 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Bartels v.

Birmingham, 332 U.S. 126 (1947)). See also Doty v. Elias, 733 F.2d 720, 722-23 (10th Cir.

1984) (“The focal point in deciding whether an individual is an employee is whether the

individual is economically dependent on the business to which he renders service, or is, as a

matter of economic fact, in business for himself.”) (citations omitted).

-4-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 4 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

stage of the litigation is not to consider the merits whether the economic realities test is

satisfied, but rather to decide whether the factual and employment settings of the opt-in

plaintiffs and the named plaintiffs are similar. The factual and employment “settings” at

issue in this case are those that relate to the economic-realities-test factors. These six

factors are:

(1) “the degree of the alleged employer’s right to control the manner in

which the work is to be performed;” 

(2) “the alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending upon

his managerial skill;” 

(3) “the alleged employee’s investment in equipment or materials required

for his task, or his employment of helpers;” 

(4) “whether the service rendered requires a special skill;” 

(5) “the degree of permanence of the working relationship;” and 

(6) “whether the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged

employer’s business.”13 

According to defendants, numerous factual differences in the drivers’ work

settings render them disparately situated for Section 216(b) purposes. Although

defendants do not separate them out as such, these alleged differences appear to

relate to the first three economic-realities-test factors. Thus, defendants effectively

concede that the individual plaintiffs are similarly situated with regard to factors four,

five, and six.

13Real, 603 F.2d at 754.

-5-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 5 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a. Plaintiffs are similarly situated with regard to the degree of

control that IntelliQuick exercises over their work performance

All IntelliQuick drivers are subject to the same work contract that, according to

defendants, “sets forth the parameters of the working relationship.”14

 More importantly,

once hired, the drivers are trained by defendants15

 and subject to a series of “uniform

standard operating procedures” (“SOPs”)16

 that tell them what they are required to do,17

14Doc. 321 at 19 ¶ 2.

15See Doc. 32-3 at 4 ¶ 10; 32-4 at 6 ¶ 16; 305-1 at 168 (stating that all drivers were

expected to attend a “drivers’ meeting”); Doc. 305-3 at 2-6, 38-39; Doc. 305-5 at 24-26; 50-52,

54-58. Although defendants dispute that they provide training to their drivers, the basis for this

dispute is that they contend they provide their drivers “orientation” and not “training.” Doc. 321

at 9 ¶ 41. This distinction is without a difference. Further, at oral argument defense counsel

argued that even if IntelliQuick has the hypothetical right to train the drivers, it does not actually

train all of them, and the training it does provide does not extend “beyond simple instruction on

the operation of communication devices and the physical location of where deliveries would be

made.” This argument’s flawed premise is that only formal training provided at the beginning of

a driver’s tenure is “training.” The record shows that, in addition to initial orientation training,

IntelliQuick trains its drivers on an ongoing basis. See, e.g., Doc. 307 at 105 rows 269 (“[T]his

is a training issue the stop was not closed out by the driver”), 277 (“[H]e was having issues

scanning to his route but did not let anyone know of this. Please retrain agent again on Salibas

procedures.”), and 278 (“[D]river did not follow delivery procedures, please print out attached

and educate driver”); Doc. 307 at 110 rows 263, 269, 270, 271 (“All drivers have been advised

not to leave pkg with autho”), 272 (“[R]etrained driver on the absolute necessity for verifying

ab#s and pc count always”), and 275 (“I will let him know this could of been a chargeback”);

Doc. 307 at 130 at rows 383 (“[H]e should of been trained on this I will speak to both him and

utility”), 390 (“[T]his was his 1st day training and reggie instructed him improperly he is now

aware of sop”), and 395 (“[D]river was charged for the special and has been educated”); and

Doc. 307 at 141 row 442 (“[T]raining alert sent out to all drivers and TA.”).

16Doc. 305 at 7-9; Doc. 305-3 at 8; Doc. 305-5 at 2-10, 28-29, 46-48, 60-61, 139-40,

147-48; Doc. 305-6 at 78, 80, 95-96, 98-108, 110-26, 128, 130-31, 133, 135, 137, 139, 141-42,

144, 146, 158-59. Defendants object to plaintiffs’ reliance on Exhibit 40 to Jeffrey Lieber’s

deposition, claiming that plaintiffs did not attach a copy of that exhibit to their statement of facts.

Doc. 321 at 7 ¶ 39. Defendants are mistaken. Doc. 305-3 at 38-39. It does not appear that

plaintiffs attached a copy of deposition Exhibit 235 to their statement of facts, however. The

court is unable to consider that evidence.

17See Doc. 305-1 at 201-03 (stating that the purpose of the SOPs was to inform drivers

of “what they needed to do” with the packages); Doc. 305-5 at 24-25.

-6-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 6 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

within which “time frame” they must do it,18 what they are required to wear,19 and which

equipment they must use.20 Further, IntelliQuick monitors its drivers’ work using its

“CXT system,” which allows IntelliQuick to know where its drivers are at all times and to

communicate with them.

21

If drivers commit what IntelliQuick refers to as “service failures,” such as late or

missed deliveries or violations of IntelliQuick policy, IntelliQuick may sanction them with

“chargebacks” (i.e., financial penalties).22

 IntelliQuick maintains a “care ticket system”

to, among other things, document customer complaints and service failures.23 This

care ticket system shows that IntelliQuick closely monitors the details of its drivers’

activities24

 and routinely metes out chargebacks or other discipline when a driver’s

performance falls below expectations.25 The evidence does not show some drivers are

subject to these policies and procedures and others are not; to the contrary , it shows

that all of IntelliQuick’s drivers are similarly situated with regard to the level of control

that IntelliQuick exercises over their work.

Despite this evidence, defendants assert that IntelliQuick exercises a disparate

degree of control over its individual drivers’ work performance for numerous reasons. 

They first argue that “individual supervisors could variously affect” the degree of control

18Doc. 305-1 at 205.

19Doc. 305-5 at 135.

20See, e.g., Doc. 305-1 at 23.

21Doc. 305-1 at 221.

22Doc. 305-1 at 166, 251; Doc. 305-2 at 198; Doc. 305-6 at 158.

23Doc. 305-2 at 94, 106-08.

24Doc. 307 at 16, 26, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, 84, 94, 99, 105, 116, 125, 136, 147, 158.

25Doc. 307 at 20, 30, 39, 49, 59, 69, 79, 88, 99, 110, 121, 130, 141, 152, 163. Column

BN of these spreadsheets indicates the resolution of the care ticket. Doc. 305-2 at 106. These

spreadsheets refute despite defendants’ contention that IntelliQuick only occasionally issued

chargebacks. Doc. 326 at 8.

-7-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 7 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that IntelliQuick exercises over its drivers.26 Defendants rely on the deposition

testimony of former IntelliQuick representative Jason Ortiz (“Ortiz”), who stated that he

had the words “direction and control” “drilled into [his] head” in training. Ortiz testified

that after that training “the whole direction and control thing” continued in his

interactions with IntelliQuick drivers, which meant, “you do not give them direction,

you’re not giving control.”27 Defendants contrast this with Ortiz’s testimony that he

witnessed other IntelliQuick “managers, dispatchers, and supervisors” exercising

“direction and control over the drivers.”28 This testimony is far too vague to be

informative. 

Defendants also point to Ortiz’s testimony that he had discretionary power to

reassign drivers’ stops and to issue chargebacks,29 but defendants offer no evidence

that different supervisors exercised these two powers differently. The fact that

IntelliQuick’s supervisors have discretion to reassign drivers’ stops or issue

chargebacks, without more, does not establish disparate work conditions. If the

opposite were true, no two workers could be similarly situated if they are overseen by

supervisors who possess discretionary power, as almost all supervisors do. 

Second, defendants argue that the court should discount the weight of

IntelliQuick’s standardized work policies because deposition testimony from various

drivers shows that these policies “were either not actually applied at all or, at a

minimum, not applied with any consistency.”30 The testimony that defendants offer

does not show disparate treatment, however. Among other things, defendants highlight

numerous aspects of opt-in plaintiff Eliseo Castillo, Jr.’s (“Castillo”) deposition

26Doc. 310 at 7.

27Doc. 310-1 at 6.

28Doc. 310-1 at 7 lines 10-19.

29Doc. 310-1 at 3-4.

30Doc. 310 at 12.

-8-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 8 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

testimony, including that he only spoke with IntelliQuick dispatchers, that he selected

his own vehicle, that he was able to go “somewhere else” if he let dispatch know where

he was going, that he was able to choose which of two non-urgent packages to deliver

first, and that he responded “I don’t recall anything anymore” when asked if IntelliQuick

gave him any instructions other than what he should wear.31

 Defendants also point to

opt-in plaintiff Eddie Miller’s (“Miller”) testimony that he received only minor instructions

from IntelliQuick on a typical day, and plaintiff Melonie Priestly’s (“Priestly”) testimony

that she remembered that IntelliQuick instructed her to wear her uniform, keep her

uniform clean, get signatures, get into the warehouse early, and get her route done and

back on time, but did not remember all of the other instructions IntelliQuick gave her. 

The only evidence with which defendants contrast any of this testimony, however, is

plaintiff David Collinge’s (“Collinge”) declaration that IntelliQuick “controlled almost all

aspects of his daily work.” Collinge’s vague declaration is not inherently inconsistent

with the testimony upon which defendants rely, and therefore is insufficient to show

disparate conditions. 

Defendants also argue that IntelliQuick’s vehicle inspection policy was applied

inconsistently. Pursuant to that policy, all drivers are expected to regularly maintain and

self-inspect their vehicles.32 Defendants contrast opt-in plaintiff Susan Little’s (“Little”)

testimony that IntelliQuick inspected her vehicle before she started her deliveries with

the testimony from other drivers that IntelliQuick never inspected their vehicles.33 But

Little’s testimony does not show that IntelliQuick inspected her vehicle at all, let alone in

31Doc. 310 at 12-3.

32Doc. 305-5 at 142.

33Doc. 310 at 18. See also 310-2 at 5 (Priestly testified that IntelliQuick never inspected

her vehicle); id. at 59 (Campagna testified that IntelliQuick never inspected his vehicle); Doc.

310-1 at 40 (Collinge testified that he did not recall anyone at IntelliQuick ever inspecting his

vehicle).

-9-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 9 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the manner described in IntelliQuick’s policy. Little merely testified that defendant Bill

Cocchia told her that she needed to clean out the back of her truck.34

Third, defendants contrast Castillo’s testimony that he was not able to reject

assignments with opt-in plaintiff Yvonne Trevino’s (“Trevino”) testimony that she had

declined work between 2 and 5 times and Miller’s testimony that he could reject work

and come and go as he pleased. The significance of Castillo’s testimony is negated by

his later admission that he did not know what would have happened if he had tried to

reject an assignment.35 Further, Miller’s testimony actually weighs in favor of similarity

because he stated that the reason he believed he could reject work was because “[t]he

contract that we signed said we were independent contractors.”36

 This is the same

contract that all drivers signed. 

Fourth, defendants argue that the drivers are not similarly situated with regard to

their ability to modify the order of their routed deliveries. Defendants contrast Little’s

testimony37 with that of plaintiffs Heather Arras (“Arras”) and Brian Black (“Black”). On

one hand, Little testified that she was trained to follow the order of deliveries listed on

her manifest and if she needed to make a “slight change” she had to ask for permission

from management. “[I]f it says an order is due at this time,” Little stated, “you have to

get it there at that time.”38 On the other hand, Arras testified that it was possible to

reorder her non-time-sensitive deliveries, but she had never done so.39 Further, Black

34Doc. 310-2 at 26.

35Doc. 310-1 at 13 (Q. “Do you know what would happen if you told the person on the

radio that you didn’t have time? A. No.”).

36Doc. 310-1 at 66.

37Defendants also rely on Collinge’s testimony that he did not believe he had the ability

to change the order of his deliveries. Doc. 310-1 at 50. Because defendants do not provide

any foundation for Collinge’s belief, the court accords this testimony little weight.

38Doc. 310-2 at 25.

39Doc. 310-2 at 33-34.

-10-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 10 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

testified that he would manually put his routed deliveries “in order by address in the

area that [he] thought would be the best way.”40 At first blush this testimony appears to

establish that Little was prohibited from changing the order of her routes whereas Arras

and Black were not. Two considerations militate against such a finding, however. First,

defendants do not appear to be comparing apples to apples. Little was testifying about

reordering her time-sensitive deliveries, whereas Arras was not.41 It is unclear about

which type Black was testifying. Second, defendants offer no explanation as to why

this disparity might exist. Based on these uncertainties, the court is unable to make a

determination regarding whether the drivers are similarly situated in this regard. 

Fifth, defendants argue that IntelliQuick required only some drivers to purchase a

specific vehicle.42 On one hand, defendants point to Campagna’s testimony that

defendant Jeff Lieber told him he had to “get a truck with a cab on it” to replace the car

he was driving at the time,43 and Little’s testimony that IntelliQuick told her that she

could perform a specific route because she had “a big enough vehicle.”44 On the other

hand, defendants note that Priestly testified that IntelliQuick did not instruct her on

which vehicle she could or could not drive while completing a route.45 Defendants’

argument is not supported by the testimony upon which it relies. Neither Campagna

nor Little testified that IntelliQuick actually required them to purchase a vehicle or alter

40Doc. 310-2 at 45.

41See 310-2 at 33 (Arras testified that “time-sensitive things, like pharmaceuticals, had

to be delivered first. Everything else kind of just falls into place, so you just continue about your

route.”). 

42Doc. 310 at 18.

43Doc. 310-2 at 58-59.

44Doc. 310-2 at 19.

45Doc. 310-2 at 6.

-11-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 11 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

their conduct in any way. This testimony does not show that IntelliQuick exercised

varying degrees of control over its drivers’ vehicle choices.

Sixth, defendants argue that the drivers are not similarly situated with regard to

their “potential for negotiating their rate of pay.” According to defendants, deposition

testimony establishes three distinct groups of drivers: (1) those who were “unaware that

they had the ability to negotiate their rate of pay;” (2) those who “tried to negotiate their

rate of pay but could not do so;” and (3) those “who did in fact negotiate their rate of

pay.”46 They assert that Priestly,

47

 Collinge,48 and plaintiff Robert Campagna

(“Campagna”)49 belong in the first group because they testified that they were not able

to negotiate their pay rate and instead were told to take it or leave it; those exact same

plaintiffs—Priestly, Collinge, and Campagna—also belong in the third group because

they were able to negotiate their pay rates;50 and Black belongs in the second group

because he requested a raise and “was allegedly rebuffed.”51 

Defendants’ argument lacks merit. The fact that the exact same three drivers

comprise two of defendants’ three groups casts considerable doubt on defendants’

46Doc. 310 at 20.

47Doc. 310-2 at 11-12 (“I didn’t determine [my pay rate]. I was told it was this amount of

money, and I could take it or not.”).

48Doc. 310-1 at 48 (Collinge testified that after his pay rate changed in January 2012 he

neither requested nor received a different rate, and he did not recall being asked to or informed

that he could request a higher rate).

49Doc. 310-2 at 64 (Campagna testified that when he was first offered his route he was

told that it would start off paying $150 per day. When asked if he negotiated this amount with

IntelliQuick, Campagna replied, “No. That’s what [IntelliQuick] told me it paid. And so, ‘Okay.’ 

No discussion, no nothing. Just ‘okay.’”).

50Doc. 310 at 20-21; Doc. 326 at 7.

51Doc. 310-2 at 43 (Black testified that he asked for a pay raise for his “p.m. route due to

increase of covered area,” but was told by the IntelliQuick employee he asked that she “doesn’t

make those decisions” and “would have to speak with somebody upstairs with IntelliQuick.”

That was the last Black heard about this request.).

-12-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 12 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

claim of disparate treatment. Defendants do not contend that only some drivers were

eligible for pay raises and others were not. Based on the evidence before the court, all

drivers appear to be united in their “potential for negotiating their rate of pay,” even if

not all drivers know they can request a pay raise and IntelliQuick does not grant all such

requests. 

b. Plaintiffs are similarly situated with regard to their opportunity

for profit or loss depending upon their managerial skills

The second economic realities test factor measures “the alleged employee’s

opportunity for profit or loss depending upon his managerial skill.”52 In Real, the Ninth

Circuit found that this factor weighed in favor of finding that the strawberry grower

plaintiffs were employees because their opportunity for profit or loss appeared “to

depend more upon the managerial skills of [their alleged employers] in developing

fruitful varieties of strawberries, in analyzing soil and pest conditions, and in marketing

than it does upon the [growers’] own judgment and industry in weeding, dusting,

pruning and picking.”53

 

Defendants argue that the drivers are not similarly situated with regard to the

degree with which their managerial skills affect their opportunity for profit or loss. They

point out that Collinge was able to increase his profits by requesting more on-demand

work beyond his regular routed delivery work;54 Black was able to “order his deliveries to

achieve maximum efficiency”;55 and Castillo was able to reduce his operating costs by

investing in a vehicle with good gas mileage.56 Defendants’ argument fails because

52Real, 603 F.2d at 754.

53

Id. at 755.

54Doc. 310 at 13-14. Collinge testified that on “very few” occasions he asked

dispatchers for on-demand work after he completed his routed deliveries. Doc. 310-1 at 44-45.

55Doc. 310 at 16.

56Doc. 310 at 18.

-13-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 13 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

they do not establish that IntelliQuick deprived other drivers of these same

opportunities. 

c. Plaintiffs are similarly situated with regard to their employment

of helpers but not completely similarly situated with regard to

their investment in equipment or materials required for their

task.

The third economic realities test factor measures “the alleged employee’s

investment in equipment or materials required for his task, or his employment of

helpers.”57

 In Real, for example, the Ninth Circuit held that the strawberry growers’

“investment in light equipment hoes, shovels and picking carts [was] minimal in

comparison with the total investment in land, heavy machinery and supplies necessary

for growing the strawberries.”58 In Spellman v. Am. Eagle Express, Inc., the District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that the proposed FLSA class

members were not similarly situated with regard to the third economic realities factor. 

Although almost all class members “had to invest in a vehicle, cell phone, cargo

scanner, and accident insurance,” some used cars they already owned while others

purchased cargo vans; many purchased hand trucks and locks while others did not; and

only some invested in home offices while others did not.59

 

Defendants argue that the drivers are not similarly situated with regard to the

degree with which they invest in their own equipment or materials. Defendants cite

Collinge’s testimony that he mostly used his own vehicle, but sometimes used an

IntelliQuick vehicle,60 whereas Little testified that she used her own vehicle except for

one incident where she used an IntelliQuick vehicle and Priestly testified that she used

57Real, 603 F.2d at 754.

58

Id. at 755.

59No. 10-1764, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35032, *16-17 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2013).

60Doc. 310-1 at 40.

-14-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 14 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

her own vehicle. This testimony does not support defendants’ argument; each plaintiff

is similarly situated in that none was required to purchase a vehicle for the job. 

Defendants also point out that various plaintiffs purchased their own cargo

scanners and other communication devices, whereas others did not.61 Plaintiffs do not

dispute that some drivers purchase their own communication devices, while others do

not.62 Further, Arras was required to buy a dolly and a camper shell for her truck,63

whereas Little did not have to buy a dolly or other equipment.64

 This evidence

establishes that, at least with respect to these items, the plaintiffs invested in equipment

required for the job to varying degrees, which weighs in favor of decertification. 

Defendants next assert that the drivers are not similarly situated because while

“many individuals who have provided testimony in this matter were aware of their ability

to hire helpers,”65 Castillo was not.66 Castillo testified that IntelliQuick did not tell him

whether he could or could not hire employees.67 Whether a worker is aware of his or

her ability to employ helpers is not the relevant inquiry; the extent to which the workers

61Doc. 310 at 19.

62Doc. 318 at 12.

63Doc. 310-2 at 36.

64Doc. 310-2 at 27.

65Doc. 310-2 at 46 (Black testified in response to an apparent question about his ability

to hire helpers that, “I would, if I would hire them under my name and subcontract them. But

then I would have to get into more—more permits, more fees, more licenses.”); Doc. 310-2 at

21-22 (Little testified that she never hired helpers, but was told by IntelliQuick that if she “were

ever to hire anybody, they had to go through the whole process, like background and CMS and

all that.”); Doc. 310-1 at 68 (Miller testified that “[i]t was known that you could [hire helpers], but

you had to pay for them.”).

66Doc. 310 at 22.

67Doc. 310-1 at 24.

-15-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 15 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

actually employ helpers is what matters.68 Defendants’ only evidence that some drivers

employ helpers comes from Miller’s deposition testimony that he “put together a crew”

of drivers for a large, two-month job.69 Defendants argue that this establishes that Miller

employed his own helpers, but Miller’s testimony later in his deposition proves

otherwise. When Miller was specifically asked whether drivers could employ helpers he

testified that it was possible, but he did not know “that anybody ever did it.”70

In sum, the drivers are similarly situated with regard to at least five of the six

economic realities test factors. This is sufficient to defeat defendants’ decertification

motion. Further, it bears noting that despite IntelliQuick’s contention that it exerts

disparate control over its drivers, IntelliQuick uniformly treats all of its drivers as

independent contractors, and this decision does not turn on a single individualized

factor. “There is nothing unfair about litigating a single corporate decision in a single

collective action, especially where there is robust evidence that [the workers] perform

uniform, cookie-cutter tasks mandated by a one-size-fits-all corporate manual.”71

68See Real, 603 F.2d at 754 (citing Mednick v. Albert Enterprises, Inc., 508 F.2d 297,

301 (5th Cir. 1975)); Donovan, 656 F.2d at 1372; Martin v. Selker Bros., 949 F.2d 1286, 1294

(3d Cir. 1991); Mednick, 508 F.2d at 300 (“[T]he court below and the parties placed too great

reliance on the bare legal powers which each of the parties had under their informal working

agreement. The result was to permit potential powers of little or no effective significance in the

actual operation of the working arrangement to overweigh the actual operation, the ‘economic

reality’ of the situation.”); Moba v. Total Transp. Servs. Inc., No. C13-138 MJP, 2014 WL

1671587, at *1264-65 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2014); Perez v. Oak Grove Cinemas, Inc., No.

03:13-CV-00728-HZ, 2014 WL 7228983, at *5 (D. Or. Dec. 17, 2014). But see Solis v. Velocity

Exp., Inc., No. CV 09-864-MO, 2010 WL 3259917, at *7 (D. Or. Aug. 12, 2010) (“Because the

undisputed facts show that the delivery drivers were allowed to employ substitutes and other

helpers . . . [this factor weighs] in favor of [the company].”) (emphasis added).

69Doc. 310-1 at 55.

70Doc. 321-1 at 17.

71Morgan, 551 F.3d at 1264.

-16-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 16 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Individual defenses

“‘[T]he similarities necessary to maintain a collective action under § 216(b) must

extend beyond the mere facts of job duties and pay provisions’ and encompass the

defenses to some extent.”72 Thus, the second factor that courts consider at the

decertification stage is whether the various defenses available to the alleged employer

appear to be individual to each plaintiff. Defendants argue that even if the drivers are

found to be employees, their entitlement to overtime pay would be subject to

defendants’ individualized Motor Carrier Act Exemption (“MCAE”) defenses.73 That

defense is based on Section 13(b)(1) of the FLSA, which exempts from the FLSA’s

overtime pay requirements “any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of

Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service

pursuant to the provisions of section 204 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935” (“MCA”).74 In

order for the MCAE to apply the employer must prove that (1) it is either a “motor

carrier” or a “motor private carrier” subject to the Secretary of Transportation’s

jurisdiction;75 and (2) the employee engaged “in activities of a character directly

affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles in the transportation on the public

highways of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce.”76 Accordingly,

72

Id. at 1262 (quoting Anderson, 488 F.3d at 953).

73Doc. 310 at 23.

7429 C.F.R. §§ 782.1(a), 782.2(a)(1).

7549 U.S.C. § 31502(b). A “motor carrier” is “a person providing motor vehicle

transportation for compensation.” 49 U.S.C. § 13102(14). A “motor private carrier” is “generally

a person who transports his own property ‘for sale, lease, rent, or bailment or to further a

commercial enterprise.’” Allen v. Coil Tubing Servs., L.L.C., 755 F.3d 279, 292 (5th Cir. 2014)

(Dennis, J., dissenting) (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 13102(15)).

7629 C.F.R. § 782.2(a)(2).

-17-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 17 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the MCAE “depends both on the class to which his employer belongs and on the class

of work involved in the employee’s job.”77

To satisfy the first MCAE element, the carrier/employer must be engaged in

more than de minimus interstate commerce.78 The caselaw suggests that “a company’s

interstate business is de minimus if it constitutes less than one percent of the overall

trips taken by the company.”79 Interstate business has been defined to include not only

the actual transport of goods across state lines, but also “the intrastate transport of

goods in the flow of interstate commerce.”80 To satisfy the second MCAE element, the

employer must prove that the employee’s bona fide job duties require him “to be called

upon in the ordinary course of his work to perform, either regularly or from time to time,

safety-affecting activities” on the public highways in interstate or foreign commerce.81

The employer can satisfy this burden by showing either that the driver drove in

interstate commerce or “could ‘reasonably have been expected to make one of the

carrier’s interstate runs.’”82

Defendants argue that the first element of the MCAE defense requires an

individualized showing that “the particular individual at issue was involved in the

interstate movement of goods.”83 They assert that the Ninth Circuit in Reich v.

7729 C.F.R. § 782.2(a).

78Abel v. S. Shuttle Servs., Inc., 631 F.3d 1210, 1213 (11th Cir. 2011).

79Walters v. Am. Coach Lines Of Miami, Inc., 575 F.3d 1221, 1228 (11th Cir. 2009).

80Allen, 755 F.3d at 283 (quoting Songer v. Dillon Res., Inc., 618 F.3d 467, 472 (5th

Cir.2010)).

81

Id.

82Reich v. Am. Driver Serv., Inc., 33 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting 46 Fed.

Reg. 37,902, 37,903 (1981)).

83Doc. 310 at 23.

-18-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 18 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

American Drier Service,

84

suggested that, in order to establish that the MCAE applies to

a driver who only engages in intermittent interstate travel, defendants must present

“concrete evidence such as an actual trip in interstate commerce.”85

 Defendants are

confusing the two MCAE elements and misreading Reich. The first MCAE element

depends on the class to which IntelliQuick belongs—not its drivers.86

 

Even if the court construes defendants’ argument as directed toward the second

MCAE element, it still fails. Under that element, a defendant need not establish that

every driver was engaged in the interstate transportation of goods, as defendants claim. 

Rather, an employer can satisfy the second MCAE element merely by showing that

each driver “could reasonably have been expected to make one of the carrier’s

interstate runs.”87 This does not necessarily require an individualized showing. For

example, in Songer, the Fifth Circuit held that the defendants had satisfied the second

MCAE element with regard to all drivers based on testimony of several drivers that they

understood that they might have to make out-of-state trips when they took the job and

evidence that dispatchers assigned such routes indiscriminately. This evidence

established that “any driver could have been assigned to an interstate trip.”88

8433 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1994).

85Doc. 310 at 24 (quoting Reich, 33 F.3d at 1156).

86See Songer, 618 F.3d at 473 (explaining that the first requirement for jurisdiction under

the MCA is establishing that the plaintiffs “work for carriers engaged in interstate commerce.”)

(emphasis added); id. at 475 (interpreting the same DOT Notice at issue in Reich as meaning

that “if the Secretary claims jurisdiction over a driver who has not driven in interstate commerce,

evidence must be presented that the carrier has engaged in interstate commerce and that the

driver could reasonably have been expected to make one of the carrier’s interstate runs.”)

(emphasis added).

87

Id. at 475.

88

Id. (emphasis added).

-19-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 19 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 The evidence here shows that none of the drivers own their routes and

IntelliQuick can assign any driver to any job indiscriminately.

89

 The question before the

court is not whether these drivers could reasonably have been expected to transport

goods in the flow of interstate commerce; it is merely whether they appear to be

similarly situated in this regard. Because defendants do not contend that any subset of

drivers is more or less likely than any other subset of drivers to be assigned interstate

trips, defendants’ argument fails.

Finally, in what is effectively an exception to the MCAE, employees covered by

§ 306 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act

(“SAFETEA–LU”) Technical Corrections Act (“TCA”) are entitled to FLSA overtime pay

regardless whether they would otherwise be excluded from such pay by the MCAE.90 

Because the TCA only covers drivers of motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight

rating (“GVWR”) of 10,000 pounds or less,91 defendants argue that they will be required

to show that each driver drove a vehicle that weighs more than 10,000 pounds. 

Although defendants note that Campagna testified at his deposition that he and Miller

drove a 25-foot box truck to perform a job92 and plaintiffs assert that Freight Drivers

“require larger vehicles for delivery,”93 neither party has submitted any evidence

regarding the GVWR of any vehicle driven by an IntelliQuick driver. The court is

therefore unable to make a determination regarding whether the drivers are similarly

89See, e.g., Doc. 32-3 at 4 9, 8 ¶ 19; Doc. 32-4 at 5 ¶ 13; Doc. 32-5 at 4 ¶ 14; Doc. 303-

1 at 3-4 ¶ 11.

90See Pub.L. No. 110–244, Title III, § 306, 122 Stat. 1572, 1620 (2008) (in relevant part

defining “covered employee” as an individual who (1) is employed by a motor carrier or motor

private carrier; (2) works as a driver; and (3) affects “the safety of operation of motor vehicles

weighing 10,000 pounds or less” in interstate commerce).

91McCall v. Disabled Am. Veterans, 723 F.3d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 2013).

92Doc. 310-2 at 60.

93Doc. 305 at 18 ¶ 117.

-20-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 20 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

situated with regard to the weight of the vehicles they drove. This uncertainty weighs in

favor of decertification. But the negative weight given to this uncertainty is lessened

somewhat by the fact that the weight of the drivers’ vehicles will not be relevant unless

two contingencies occur: (1) plaintiffs establish that they are employees and

(2) defendants establish that the MCAE applies. Further, even if both contingencies

occur and further discovery reveals that Freight Drivers are not similarly situated to

other drivers because their vehicles weigh more than 10,000 pounds, identifying those

drivers would likely be a simple, ministerial task.

3. Fairness and procedural considerations

The final factor that courts consider at the decertification stage is whether

fairness and procedural considerations support collective action.94 This requires the

court to analyze the case with an eye toward the twin purposes of § 216(b):

“(1) reducing the burden on plaintiffs through the pooling of resources, and

(2) efficiently resolving common issues of law and fact that arise from the same illegal

conduct.”95 The court must also determine “whether it can coherently manage the class

in a manner that will not prejudice any party.”96

Defendants argue that the three main types of drivers at issue in this

case—Route Drivers, Freight Drivers, and On-Demand Drivers—renders representative

litigation unmanageable even if the plaintiffs are divided into subclasses. Defendants

assert that subclasses “would not be able to adequately account for those who

frequently switched between delivery roles nor would it account for the limited

specialized work that some drivers accepted,” nor would they “adequately address the

various combinations of the different classes of delivery work that some drivers

94Thiessen, 267 F.3d at 1103.

95Morgan, 551 F.3d at 1264.

96Reed v. Cnty. of Orange, 266 F.R.D. 446, 462 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (internal quotation

omitted).

-21-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 21 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

performed concurrently.”97 These assertions are premised on the notion that the three

types of drivers are not similarly situated with regard to the economic realities test

factors, a premise this court rejects for the reasons set forth above. Even if there are 

some differences among the drivers’ work conditions, these differences do not appear

to be so great that they would render a collective action unmanageable. Allowing the

drivers to proceed as a class would satisfy the twin purposes of § 216(b) because it

would reduce the burden on the plaintiffs by allowing them to pool their resources and

would likely lead to the resolution of common issues of law and fact that arise from the

same allegedly illegal conduct. After carefully considering the record as a whole in light

of each of the above-identified factors, the court finds a collective action would

maximize efficiency and would be reasonably manageable. 

B. Rule 23 Class Action

Class certification is governed by Rule 23. A party seeking class certification

bears the burden of satisfying Rule 23(a)’s four requirements: (1) numerosity;

(2) commonality; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy of representation.98 Additionally, the

party must satisfy at least one of the requirements of Rule 23(b), which defines the

three different types of class actions. Although the decision to grant or deny class

certification is within the trial court’s discretion,99 the court must undertake a “rigorous

analysis” to determine whether the party seeking class certification has done more than

plead compliance with Rule 23, but instead has affirmatively demonstrated his or her

compliance with the Rule.100 

97Doc. 310 at 11.

98See Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 674 (9th Cir. 2014).

99Bateman v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 623 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir. 2010).

100Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011).

-22-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 22 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1. Rule 23(a)

a. Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) provides that a class action may be maintained only if “the class is

so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” “‘[I]mpracticability’ does not

mean ‘impossibility,’ but only the difficulty or inconvenience of joining all members of

the class.”101 There is no bright-line rule regarding how many class members it takes to

render joinder impracticable; the specific facts of each case must be considered.102

“When class size reaches substantial proportions, however, the impracticability

requirement is usually satisfied by the numbers alone.”103 It is generally accepted that

“the numerosity factor is satisfied if the class comprises 40 or more members and . . .

not satisfied when the class comprises 21 or fewer.”104 

Plaintiffs assert that the proposed class consists of approximately 981 current

and former drivers.105 Plaintiffs point to the deposition testimony of former IntelliQuick

executive Timothy Cocchia, who stated that IntelliQuick likely employs and contracts

over 200 drivers,106 and a list of approximately 781 former drivers that they obtained

101Harris v. Palm Springs Alpine Estates, Inc., 329 F.2d 909, 913-14 (9th Cir. 1964)

(quoting Advertising Specialty Nat. Ass’n v. FTC, 238 F.2d 108, 119 (1st Cir. 1956)).

102General Tel. Co. of Northwest, Inc. v. E.E.O.C., 446 U.S. 318, 330 (1980).

103

In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1079 (6th Cir. 1996).

104See Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. California Dep’t of Transp., 249 F.R.D.

334, 346 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 47 F.3d 473,

483 (2d Cir.1995); Ansari v. New York Univ., 179 F.R.D. 112, 114 (S.D.N.Y.1998)); Newberg on

Class Actions § 3:12 (5th ed. 2014) (“As a general guideline . . . a class that encompasses

fewer than 20 members will likely not be certified absent other indications of impracticability of

joinder, while a class of 40 or more members raises a presumption of impracticability of joinder

based on numbers alone.”).

105Doc. 303 at 6; Doc. 305 at 6 ¶ 28.

106Doc. 327-1 at 13 lines 6-16.

-23-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 23 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

through discovery.

107

 Defendants do not dispute these numbers.108 Instead, they

counter that under Thiebes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

109

 the court should base its

numerosity analysis on only the number of individuals who have opted-into the FLSA

collective action, instead of the proposed Rule 23 class as a whole. Joinder of the 89

collective action opt-ins in this case, they argue, “is not inherently impracticable.”110

 

Thiebes represents a minority view111 and is unpersuasive. Thiebes found that

numerosity was not satisfied because only 425 of the over 15,000 potential class

members opted into the FLSA collective action, which the court interpreted to mean that

certification of the proposed Rule 23 class “would bring in many more employees than

those who believe they were actually aggrieved by Wal-Mart’s alleged conduct.”112

 A

court’s task under Rule 23(a)(1) is to determine whether joinder of “all members” of the

proposed class would be impracticable—not merely those members who believe they

were aggrieved. Further, it does not necessarily follow that employees who do not optin do not believe they were aggrieved. Fear of retaliation may deter potential plaintiffs

107Doc. 303-2 at 13-68.

108Doc. 321 at 7 ¶¶ 27-28.

109No. CIV. 98-802-KI, 2002 WL 479840, at *3 (D. Or. Jan. 9, 2002).

110Doc. 319 at 7.

111See Meyers v. Crouse Health Sys., Inc., 274 F.R.D. 404, 414 (N.D.N.Y. 2011)

(“Courts in the Second Circuit have rejected Thiebes and continue to assess numerosity based

on the number of proposed class members rather than the number of opt-ins.”) (citations

omitted).

1122002 WL 479840, at *3.

-24-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 24 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

from opting-into a FLSA collective action or from suing individually.

113

 This factor

weighs in favor of class certification, not against it.114

Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed class consists of close

to 1,000 members. The court finds that joinder of all members would be impracticable

and numerosity is satisfied. 

b. Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) provides that a class action may be maintained only if “there are

questions of law or fact common to the class.” “[F]or purposes of Rule 23(a)(2) even a

single common question will do.”115 To assess whether the putative class members

share a common question, courts must identify the elements of the class members’

case-in-chief.

116

 In Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs’ claims must

share a common contention such that a determination of that contention “will resolve an

issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.”117 Despite

Rule 23(a)(2)’s ostensible focus on common “questions,” the Supreme Court declared

113See Newberg on Class Actions § 3:12 (“Fear of retaliation—in, for example, civil rights

or employment cases—is an additional factor that occasionally argues for relaxing the

numerosity requirement generally (not just in terms of sheer numbers of class members), as

such a fear might deter potential plaintiffs from suing individually, making a representative

action especially pertinent.”); Ellen C. Kearns, et al., Employment Litigation: Emerging Trends in

Wage & Hour Litigation After Dukes v. Wal-Mart, 9 J.L. Econ. & Pol’y 347, 370-71 (2013)

(“[F]rankly, employees are terrified of opting in. The opt-in rates in FLSA actions are varied but

they range from below 10% (in the worst cases) to 15 to 20% (in the typical case) because

people are worried that if they step forward, they’ll be fired. On the other hand, when people

have a chance to be an absent class member (such is the case in an ‘opting-out’ class), opt-out

rates are far lower than their opt-in rates.”).

114See Romero v. Producers Dairy Foods, Inc., 235 F.R.D. 474, 485 (E.D. Cal. 2006)

(“The numerosity requirement is more readily met where a class contains employees suing their

present employer. This is because class members may be unwilling to sue their employer

individually out of fear of retaliation.”); Newberg on Class Actions § 3:12.

115Wal-Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 2556 (quotation marks and alteration omitted).

116Parsons, 754 F.3d at 676.

117Wal-Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 2556.

-25-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 25 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that “what matters to class certification . . . is not the raising of common

‘questions’—even in droves—but, rather the capacity of a classwide proceeding to

generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation.”118

Where a defendant’s allegedly injurious conduct differs from plaintiff to plaintiff, as it did

among the 3,400 stores involved in Wal-Mart, common answers are unlikely to be

found.119 But where “the same conduct or practice by the same defendant gives rise to

the same kind of claims from all class members,” there is a common question.120

(1) Counts II and V 

The primary common question that plaintiffs identify is whether defendants had a

uniform policy that mis-characterized the proposed class members as independent

contractors.121 The answer to this question will drive resolution of whether the proposed

class is protected by Arizona’s Wage Act (Count II)122 and the FMLA (Count V).123 With

regard to plaintiffs’ Arizona Wage Act claim, the distinction between an employee and

an independent contractor is determined by the objective nature of the parties’

relationship, “upon an analysis of the totality of the facts and circumstances of each

118

Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Richard A. Nagareda, Class Certification in the Age

of Aggregate Proof, 84 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 97, 132 (2009)).

119Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, Inc., 764 F.3d 750, 756 (7th Cir. 2014).

120

Id. See also 1 McLaughlin on Class Actions § 4:7 (11th ed. 2014) (“Commonality . . .

is satisfied where the district court makes a factually supported finding that key elements of

proof required for the claims of the proposed class may be productively adjudicated for all class

members at once, and the common answers yielded by that adjudication will drive the

resolution of the litigation.”).

121Doc. 303 at 9.

122Plaintiffs allege violations of A.R.S. §§ 23-351, 23-352, 23-355(A), and 23-363.

These provisions protect the rights of employees, not independent contractors.

123Plaintiffs allege violations of 29 U.S.C. §§ 2612, and 2615. These provisions protect

the rights of eligible employees, not independent contractors.

-26-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 26 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

case.”124 This analysis “usually rests on the extent of control the employer may exercise

over the details of the work.”125 With regard to plaintiffs’ FMLA claim, the Ninth Circuit

has not yet addressed which test courts should use when determining whether an

individual is an employee for FMLA purposes. Most courts utilize the economic realities

test discussed above.126

 Despite utilizing different terminology, the Ninth Circuit has

observed that “there is no functional difference” between the economic realities test and

the common law agency test.127

Defendants argue that analyzing whether the putative class was mischaracterized will require the court to conduct a fact-specific inquiry into “the particular

interactions, instructions, and training (or lack thereof) experienced by each potential

class member.”128 Plaintiffs disagree, claiming that the evidence shows that defendants

have established uniform policies that treat all drivers as employees. At this stage of

the litigation, the court’s task is not to determine the merits of plaintiffs’ claims;129 rather,

it is to determine whether plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated that it will be possible

to determine whether the proposed class members were employees in one stroke. 

Defendants argue that mini-trials will be required to determine whether each driver had

discretion over his or her vehicle and equipment, was able to hire other drivers to work

124Anton v. Indus. Comm’n of Arizona, 688 P.2d 192, 194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).

125Munoz v. Indus. Comm’n of Arizona, 318 P.3d 439, 444 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting

Cent. Mgmt. Co. v. Indus. Comm’n, 781 P.2d 1374, 1376 (Ariz. Ct. App.1989)).

126See Haybarger v. Lawrence Cnty. Adult Prob. & Parole, 667 F.3d 408, 417 (3d Cir.

2012) (compiling cases). But see Alexander v. Avera St. Luke’s Hosp., 768 F.3d 756, 764 (8th

Cir. 2014) (adopting the common law hybrid test).

127Murray v. Principal Fin. Grp., Inc., 613 F.3d 943, 945 (9th Cir. 2010).

128Doc. 319 at 8.

129See Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184, 1195

(2013) (“Merits questions may be considered to the extent—but only to the extent—that they

are relevant to determining whether the Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification are

satisfied.”).

-27-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 27 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

under him or her, was able to negotiate his or her rate or pay, was able to reject work,

or was subject to discipline.130 But the evidence that defendants point to (discussed at

length above) does not suggest that these factors vary from driver to driver on an ad

hoc basis, as if they were committed to the degree of managerial discretion seen in

Wal-Mart. To the contrary, the record reflects that the drivers’ working relationship with

defendants is primarily governed by uniform policies. Commonality is satisfied with

respect to Counts II and V.

(2) Count IV 

Count IV of the Complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the “Membership

Application and Agreement” (“MAA”), the “Vehicle Lease Agreement” (“VLA”) (which

plaintiffs sometimes refer to as the “Vehicle Rental Agreement”), and the “Independent

Contractor Owner/Operator Agreement” (“ICOOA”) between defendants and the drivers

are unconscionable.131 The Complaint asserts that “many” drivers are required to sign

the MAA, which is a contract between the driver and defendant Transportation

Authority, LLC;132 “some” drivers are required to use vehicles owned by defendant Majik

Leasing, LLC (“Majik”) and Majik “often” required those drivers to sign the VLA;133 and

IntelliQuick approached all drivers in April 2013 and forced each to sign the ICOOA.134 

Plaintiffs assert that the drivers have no ability to negotiate the terms or conditions of

130Doc. 319 at 9.

131Doc. 187 at 40. Plaintiffs describe Count IV as seeking “declaratory and injunctive

relief that the independent contractor and other related agreements are unenforceable.”

Doc. 303 at 21.

132Doc. 187 at 27 ¶¶ 173, 175.

133Doc. 187 at 9 ¶ 31, 28 ¶ 186-88.

134Doc. 187 at 35 ¶ 222.

-28-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 28 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

these agreements.135 The only common question that plaintiffs identify with regard to

Count IV is whether these three contracts are unconscionable. 136

Arizona law recognizes two forms of unconscionability: procedural

unconscionability (“something wrong in the bargaining process”) and substantive

unconscionability (“the contract terms per se”).137

 Procedural unconscionability is

primarily concerned with remedying “unfair surprises” caused by bargaining that did not

proceed as it should because of, among other things, fine print clauses and ignorance

of important facts.138 Although a contract may exhibit both forms of unconscionability,

“a claim of unconscionability can be established with a showing of substantive

unconscionability alone.”139

 

Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ unconscionability claims are overly fact-specific

because the procedural unconscionability analysis requires the court to determine the

individual circumstances under which each class member entered into the

agreements.140 To the extent that Count IV alleges procedural unconscionability, which

requires the court to determine the individual circumstances under which each class

member entered into the ICOOA, commonality is lacking. As defendants correctly

observe, this claim depends on individualized facts regarding the bargaining process,

135Doc. 305 at 19 ¶¶ 132-33; Doc. 305-2 at 71, 75.

136Doc. 303 at 9.

137Nelson v. Rice, 12 P.3d 238, 242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).

138Steinberger v. McVey ex rel. Cnty. of Maricopa, 318 P.3d 419, 436 (Ariz. Ct. App.

2014).

139Coup v. Scottsdale Plaza Resort, LLC, 823 F. Supp. 2d 931, 947 (D. Ariz. 2011)

(quoting Maxwell v. Fid. Fin. Servs., Inc., 907 P.2d 51, 59 (Ariz. 1995)).

140Doc. 319 at 12.

-29-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 29 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

including, among other things, the individual driver’s age, education, intelligence, and 

business acumen.141 

Plaintiffs argue that such individualized inquiries are unnecessary because the

drivers were unable to negotiate the terms of the agreement.142 In essence, plaintiffs’

argument is that contracts of adhesion are per se procedurally unconscionable. This is

incorrect. Under Arizona law, contracts of adhesion are not necessarily

unenforceable.143

 Instead, to determine whether such contracts are enforceable courts

“look to two factors: the reasonable expectations of the adhering party and whether the

contract is unconscionable.”144 The former factor is substantively identical to the

procedural unconscionability test; each seek to prevent unfair surprise. In other words,

even if the ICOOA is a contract of adhesion, determining whether its terms exceed the

range of the drivers’ reasonable expectations relies on individualized inquiries

unsuitable for class-wide resolution.145

Plaintiffs’ substantive unconscionability claim, however, does not present any

individualized questions. Defendants do not contend, nor could they, that whether the

contracts are substantively unconscionable presents a question of law common to a

141Doc. 319 at 12 (quoting Steinberger, 318 P.3d at 437).

142Doc. 325 at 12.

143Broemmer v. Abortion Servs. of Phoenix, Ltd., 840 P.2d 1013, 1016 (Ariz. 1992) (“Our

conclusion that the contract was one of adhesion is not, of itself, determinative of its

enforceability.”).

144

Id.

145See id. at 1017 (“Plaintiff was under a great deal of emotional stress, had only a high

school education, was not experienced in commercial matters, and is still not sure ‘what

arbitration is.’ Given the circumstances under which the agreement was signed and the nature

of the terms included therein . . . [we conclude] that the contract fell outside plaintiff's

reasonable expectations.”).

-30-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 30 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

significant number of putative class members.146 This is all that is required at the

commonality stage. 

(3) Count III 

Count III alleges unjust enrichment and seeks restitution for defendants’

allegedly unconscionable contracts and for defendants’ policies that require drivers to

work without any compensation, allow IntelliQuick to illegally deduct money from the

drivers’ paychecks, and impose on the drivers’ various illegal fees.147 Under Arizona

law unjust enrichment claims require proof of five elements: “(1) an enrichment, (2) an

impoverishment, (3) a connection between the enrichment and impoverishment, (4) the

absence of justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and (5) the absence of

a remedy provided by law.”148 “In short, unjust enrichment provides a remedy when a

party has received a benefit at another’s expense and, in good conscience, the

benefitted party should compensate the other.”149

Because a class-wide proceeding will not be able to generate common answers

apt to drive the resolution of plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims, commonality is lacking. 

Such claims are inherently unsuitable for class certification because, before a court can

grant unjust enrichment relief it “must examine the particular circumstances of an

individual case and assure itself that, without a remedy, inequity would result or

persist.”150 Thus, even if plaintiffs could establish that a particular driver was

impoverished by the challenged conduct, whether that impoverishment was unjust

146See Newberg on Class Actions § 3:23 (5th ed. 2014).

147Doc. 187 at 39.

148Freeman v. Sorchych, 245 P.3d 927, 936 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).

149Wang Elec., Inc. v. Smoke Tree Resort, LLC, 283 P.3d 45, 49 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).

150Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1274 (11th Cir. 2009). See also Osuna v.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. C20014319, 2004 WL 3255430, at *6 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Dec. 23,

2004).

-31-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 31 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

depends on equitable considerations surrounding that driver’s unique understanding

and expectations. The individualized nature of this “fairness” inquiry renders class

certification inappropriate.

c. Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) provides that a class action may be maintained only if “the claims

or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the

class.” “The inherent logic of the typicality requirement is that a class representative will

adequately pursue her own claims, and if those claims are ‘typical’ of those of the rest

of the class, then her pursuit of her own interest will necessarily benefit the class as

well.”151

 “Under the rule’s permissive standards, representative claims are ‘typical’ if

they are reasonably coextensive with those of absent class members; they need not be

substantially identical.”152 “The test of typicality is ‘whether other members have the

same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to

the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same

course of conduct.’”153

The named plaintiffs here currently hold, or have held, positions identical to

those of the members of each proposed subclass.154 They allege many injuries that are

a result of defendants’ course of conduct that is not unique to any of them. Specifically,

they allege that they were each subjected to defendants’ uniform policies regarding

151Newberg on Class Actions § 3:28.

152Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir.1998).

153Parsons, 754 F.3d at 685 (quoting Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508

(9th Cir.1992)).

154Brian Black currently works, and David Collinge and Robert Campagna formerly

worked, for defendants as a Freight Driver, Route Driver, and On-Demand Driver. Doc. 187 at

3-5 ¶¶ 10, 14, 16; Doc. 325 at 9. Melonie Priestly formerly worked for defendants as a Route

Driver and On-Demand Driver. Doc. 187 at 4 ¶ 11; Doc. 325 at 9. John Morena and Brian

Kingman currently work, and Heather Arras formerly worked, for defendants as a Route Driver.

Doc. 187 at 4-5 ¶¶ 12, 15, 17; Doc. 325 at 9. Heather Arras alleges that she was eligible for

FMLA leave but not allowed to take it. Doc. 187 at 4 ¶ 13.

-32-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 32 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

overtime pay, minimum wages, “chargebacks” and other fees, FMLA leave, and control

over their work. Further, plaintiffs allege that all class members who were drivers in

April 2013 are parties to the ICOOA. This includes Brian Black, Brian Kingman, and

John Morena.155 This establishes typicality with respect to these claims. 

The named plaintiffs have failed to establish typicality, however, with respect to

their MAA- and VLA-based claims (Count IV and a portion of Count III). Not all

members of the proposed class are parties to these two contracts. Rather, “many” are

parties to the MAA and “some” are parties to the VLA. The plaintiffs do not contend

that any of the named plaintiffs are parties to either of these two contracts; this is fatal

to their typicality argument.156

d. Adequacy

Rule 23(a)(4) provides that a class action may be maintained only if the named

plaintiffs “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” The purpose of

the adequacy inquiry is “to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the

class they seek to represent.”157 Defendants do not contend that any of the named

plaintiffs have a conflict of interest or that class counsel is not competent. Adequacy is

satisfied. 

2. Rule 23(b)

Having concluded that the requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied, the court

must now determine whether plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that the

155Doc. 305 at 5-6.

156See Vega, 564 F.3d at 1276 (“Without a common contract, it is impossible for [the

named plaintiff] to bring a case typical of all other class members.”); Newberg on Class Actions

§ 3:37 (5th ed. 2014) (“[W]hen the class suit is predicated on more individualized contracts, and

differences exist among the relevant provisions in different class members’ contracts, the

representative’s claim may not be typical of the claims of class members with different

contracts.”).

157Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997).

-33-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 33 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

proposed class satisfies one of the Rule 23(b) categories. Plaintiffs argue that the

proposed class meets the requirements of Rules 23(b)(1)-(3).

a. Rule 23(b)(1)

A Rule 23(b)(1) class action may be maintained if requiring individual class

members to prosecute separate actions would create a risk of either “(A) inconsistent or

varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish

incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class” or

“(B) adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter,

would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual

adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their

interests.”158 Plaintiffs request certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) because, if

certification is not granted, a different court may issue a different ruling than this court

with regard to whether a particular driver has been mis-characterized as an

independent contractor, whether the agreements are unconscionable, or whether

defendants are liable for their allegedly unlawful policies and practices.159 None of

these hypothetical inconsistent adjudications would establish incompatible standards of

conduct for IntelliQuick, however.160 

Plaintiffs also seek certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B), arguing that “a

determination that IntelliQuick has not misclassified Plaintiffs, that the agreements

Defendants forced Plaintiffs to sign . . . are enforceable, and that mandatory deductions

taken from Plaintiffs pay are not unlawful will be dispositive of or substantially impair the

ability of other Drivers to make similar claims.”161

 Plaintiffs do not explain why, exactly,

this might be. But presumably plaintiffs are arguing that future actions would be

158Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1).

159Doc. 303 at 13.

160See Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1193 (9th Cir. 2001).

161Doc. 303 at 15.

-34-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 34 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

thwarted by the stare decisis consequences of this action. This is insufficient to sustain

class certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B).162 

b. Rule 23(b)(2)

Plaintiffs seek class certification of Counts III and IV of the Complaint under

Rule 23(b)(2). A Rule 23(b)(2) class action may be maintained if defendants have

“acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final

injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as

a whole.”163 As the Supreme Court held in Wal-Mart:

The key to the (b)(2) class is “the indivisible nature of the injunctive or

declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the conduct is such that it

can be enjoined or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members

or as to none of them.” In other words, Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a

single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each

member of the class.164

“These requirements are unquestionably satisfied when members of a putative class

seek uniform injunctive or declaratory relief from policies or practices that are generally

applicable to the class as a whole.”165

Count III alleges that defendants have been unjustly enriched by various

unconscionable contracts, uncompensated work, and allegedly unlawful fees and

deductions.166

 But because Count III does not primarily seek declaratory or injunctive

162La Mar v. H & B Novelty & Loan Co., 489 F.2d 461, 467 (9th Cir. 1973) (“Neither the

stare decisis consequences of an individual action nor the possibility of false reliance upon the

improper initiation of a class action can supply either the practical disposition of the rights of the

class, or the substantial impairment of those rights, at least one of which is required by

Rule 23(b)(1)(B).”).

163Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).

164Wal-Mart, 131 S.Ct. at 2557 (quoting Nagareda, Class Certification in the Age of

Aggregate Proof, 84 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 97, 132 (2009)).

165Parsons, 754 F.3d at 687-88.

166Doc. 187 at 39-40.

-35-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 35 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relief, Rule 23(b)(2) does not apply.

167 Count IV of the Complaint seeks a declaratory

judgment that the ICOOA is unconscionable. To the extent that Count IV alleges that

the ICOOA is substantively unconscionable, a declaratory judgment would provide relief

to each member of the subclass who signed the ICOOA. The court therefore certifies

the substantive unconscionability claims in Count IV to proceed under Rule 23(b)(2). 

c. Rule 23(b)(3)

In Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court held that class actions that are predominantly to

recover individualized money damages “belong in Rule 23(b)(3).”168 Rule 23(b)(3)

requires the court to find that “the questions of law or fact common to class members

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class

action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the

controversy.” This inquiry “tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to

warrant adjudication by representation.”169

(1) Predominance

 “Rule 23(a)(2)’s ‘commonality’ requirement is subsumed under, or superseded

by, the more stringent Rule 23(b)(3) requirement that questions common to the class

‘predominate over’ other questions.”170 The primary concern of the predominance

inquiry is “the balance between individual and common issues.”171 On one hand, where

“common questions present a significant aspect of the case and they can be resolved

for all members of the class in a single adjudication, there is clear justification for

167Doninger v. Pac. Nw. Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1314 (9th Cir. 1977) (“[T]he action

seeks as a major portion of the claimed relief, monetary restitution. To the extent that such

relief predominates over the injunctive relief, section (b)(2) of Rule 23 is inappropriate.”).

168Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2558.

169Amchem, 521 U.S. at 623.

170

Id. at 609.

171

In re Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime Pay Litig., 571 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir.2009).

-36-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 36 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

handling the dispute on a representative rather than on an individual basis.”172 On the

other hand, where “claims require a fact-intensive, individual analysis,” class

certification is inappropriate.173 “Under the predominance inquiry, a district court must

formulate some prediction as to how specific issues will play out in order to determine

whether common or individual issues predominate in a given case.”174

(I) A.R.S. § 23-351 claims

Plaintiffs’ minimum wage and overtime claims arise under A.R.S. § 23-351. As

noted above, the threshold question whether the drivers are employees, and therefore

covered by A.R.S. § 23-351, is amenable to class-wide resolution. After analyzing the

remainder of these claims, the court concludes that predominance is satisfied. With

respect to their minimum wage claim, plaintiffs allege that the drivers are paid less than

the statutory minimum wage

175

 as a result of IntelliQuick’s policies of (1) assigning them

“additional work” without any additional compensation and (2) deducting standard,

weekly fees and discretionary chargebacks from their pay.

176

 Whether these policies

exist and, if so, whether they permit the drivers’ hourly wages to fall below the statutory

minimum are questions of fact common to all putative class members. The same can

be said about the question whether IntelliQuick’s policies permit the drivers to regularly

work in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. Although the

putative class members would be entitled to different damages based on the amount

below the minimum wage they were actually paid or how much uncompensated

172Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022 (quoting 7A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary

Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1778 (2d ed.1986)).

173Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir.2009).

174

In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 522 F.3d 6, 20 (1st Cir. 2008)

(internal quotation omitted).

175A.R.S. § 23-363.

176Doc. 187 at 21-22.

-37-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 37 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

overtime work they actually performed, such “individual issues do not overcome the fact

that common questions present a significant aspect of the case and can be resolved on

a representative rather than individual basis.”177

 

(ii) A.R.S. § 23-352 claims

The Complaint also alleges that IntelliQuick’s deductions from the drivers’

paychecks referenced above violate A.R.S. § 23-352, which prohibits employers from

withholding any portion of an employee’s wages unless (1) the employer is “required or

empowered to do so” by law, (2) the employer has written authorization from the

employee, or (3) “[t]here is a reasonable good faith dispute as to the amount of wages

due, including . . . any claim of . . . set-off asserted by the employer against the

employee.”178 Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ unlawful deduction claim will require the

court to conduct an individualized analysis of each deduction to determine whether

each was based on a good faith dispute over the amount of wages due.179 With regard

to chargebacks, the court agrees.180 The evidence shows that IntelliQuick supervisors

exercise discretion when deciding whether to issue chargebacks, and chargebacks may

be levied for myriad reasons.181 The fact-intensive, individual analysis, required to

determine whether each chargeback was levied in good faith defeats class certification

on that claim.

177

Juvera v. Salcido, 294 F.R.D. 516, 522 (D. Ariz. 2013).

178A.R.S. § 23-352.

179Doc. 319 at 10.

180See Baughman v. Roadrunner Commc’ns, LLC, No. CV-12-565-PHX-SMM, 2014 WL

4259468, at *7 (D. Ariz. Aug. 29, 2014) (“The Court finds that based on the validity of the

variety of individual charge backs assessed against the putative class, and in application,

whether they violated A.R.S. § 23-352, it is clear that the putative class members’ claims do not

depend upon a common contention whose truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to

the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.”).

181See, e.g., Doc. 305-1 at 255-56; Doc. 305-2 at 198-99; Doc. 307 at 16.

-38-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 38 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Whether IntelliQuick deducts its standardized fees from its drivers’ paychecks in

good faith, however, is amenable for class-wide resolution. A weekly scanning device

fee is deducted from the paychecks of all drivers who use IntelliQuick’s scanners,182

 a

weekly secondary insurance fee is deducted from the paychecks of all drivers who do

not have their own secondary insurance policy,

183 and weekly uniform and paycheck

processing fees are deducted from all drivers’ paychecks.184 Because these deductions

are standardized, the question whether they comply with A.R.S. § 23-352 can be

resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication. Predominance is

satisfied with regard to these claims. 

(iii) FMLA claims

Plaintiffs seek class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) on their claims that

defendants are violating the FMLA by failing to provide FMLA leave

185

 and by penalizing

employees who take unpaid leave.186 As defendants observe, however, the drivers will

have to prove the following five elements to establish a violation of the FMLA: (1) “the

driver was eligible for the FMLA’s protections (in other words, an employee),”

(2) IntelliQuick was covered by the FMLA, (3) the driver was entitled to FMLA leave,

(4) the driver provided IntelliQuick sufficient notice of his or her intent to take leave, and

(5) IntelliQuick denied the driver FMLA benefits.187 Defendants argue that elements

three through five present individual questions that will predominate. At oral argument

plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that this claim is ill-suited for class treatment to the extent it

182Doc. 305-1 at 122.

183Doc. 305-1 at 124.

184Doc. 305-1 at 124-26.

185See 29 U.S.C. § 2612.

186See 29 U.S.C. § 2615.

187

In re FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., Employment Practices Litig., 283 F.R.D. 427,

460 (N.D. Ind. 2012).

-39-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 39 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

seeks monetary damages for FLMA violations. Alternatively, however, plaintiffs’

counsel argued that plaintiffs have alleged that IntelliQuick has a policy of requiring a

driver to find a replacement driver before he or she may take leave, and that the court

should certify their claim for declaratory relief that this policy violates the FMLA. But

because the Complaint does not mention any such policy or request such declaratory

relief, plaintiffs’ argument lacks merit.

(2) Superiority

When assessing whether a class action is superior to other methods of

adjudicating the controversy, courts should consider:

(A) the class members’ interest in individually controlling the prosecution

or defense of separate actions; 

(B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy

already begun by or against class members; 

(C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the

claims in the particular forum; and 

(D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.188

Plaintiffs argue that a class action is a superior method of adjudication because the

individual class members have little interest in controlling the prosecution of the case,

“significant discovery on major factual and legal issues” has already been completed in

this action, and concentrating the litigation in the District of Arizona is desirable because

that is where “the vast majority, if not all, of class members and all witnesses are

located.”189 

188Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). See also Zinser v. Accufix Research Ins., Inc., 253 F.3d

1180, 1190 (9th Cir. 2001).

189Doc. 303 at 23.

-40-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 40 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants respond by citing Epenscheid v. DirectSat USA, LLC,

190

 and arguing

that the individualized damages calculations defeat superiority.

191

 In Epenscheid, the

defendant employer allegedly concealed its wage and hour violations by forbidding its

workers from recording time spent on certain tasks.192 The Seventh Circuit found that

the lack of records of the time these workers worked but did not report on their time

sheets, and class counsel’s inability to propose a feasible litigation plan to address this

evidentiary deficiency, rendered class action treatment inferior to a complaint filed with

the Department of Labor.193 

Defendants’ argument fails for several reasons. First, defendants do not

contend that the situation in this case is akin to Epenscheid. That is, that the drivers

failed to record the time for which they now wish to be compensated. To the contrary, it

appears from the record here that calculating damages would be reasonably feasible.194

Second, defendants do not suggest any alternatives to class action litigation that would

be a superior method of adjudicating these claims. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the motion at docket 310 is DENIED, and the motion at

docket 303 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

C IT IS ORDERED certifying a class action that includes all current and

former drivers or couriers who made pick-ups or deliveries for or on behalf

of IntelliQuick Deliveries, Inc. as a Freight Driver, Route Driver, or OnDemand Driver within the State of Arizona and who were or are classified

190705 F.3d 770, 773 (7th Cir. 2013).

191Doc. 319 at 16-17.

192Espenscheid, 705 F.3d at 773-74.

193

Id. at 775-76.

194See, e.g., Doc. 305-1 at 204, 221. See Leyva v. Medline Indus. Inc., 716 F.3d 510,

515 (9th Cir. 2013).

-41-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 41 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

or paid as independent contractors or not classified or paid as employees

at any time on or after April 9, 2009; 

C IT IS FURTHER ORDERED certifying the following subclasses of

plaintiffs:

C Subclass A - Freight Drivers: All drivers who use vehicles or vans

that are owned or leased by IntelliQuick or Majik Leasing, LLC to

make deliveries and pick-ups for or on behalf of IntelliQuick or its

customers.

C Subclass B - Route Drivers: All drivers who generally use their own

vehicles to make deliveries and pick-ups on an assigned route for

or on behalf of IntelliQuick or its customers.

C Subclass C - On-Demand Drivers: All drivers who generally use

their own vehicles to make specific deliveries and pick-ups for or on

behalf of IntelliQuick or its customers and who have not been

assigned a regular route.

C Subclass D - All drivers who are parties to the “Independent

Contractor Owner/Operator Agreement.”

C IT IS FURTHER ORDERED permitting the named plaintiffs and class of

similarly situated individuals to proceed as a class action pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) with respect to the plaintiffs’

claim that the “Independent Contractor Owner/Operator Agreement” is

substantively unconscionable;

C IT IS FURTHER ORDERED permitting the named plaintiffs and class of

similarly situated individuals to proceed as a class action pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) with respect to the plaintiffs’

claims for minimum wage and overtime violations under A.R.S. § 23-351

and plaintiffs’ claims that the defendants’ standardized payroll deductions

violate A.R.S. § 23-352;

-42-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 42 of 43
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C IT IS FURTHER ORDERED appointing plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel

under Rule 23(g);

C IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants shall provide to plaintiffs’

counsel the last-known contact information for the class members within

21 days of this order; and 

C IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall submit a proposed class

notice within 14 days of this order.

DATED this 23rd day of March 2015.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-43-

Case 2:12-cv-00824-JWS Document 342 Filed 03/23/15 Page 43 of 43