Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05222/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05222-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:5(a) 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

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOLANDA CHAMPION,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMAZON.COM LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05222-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO CERTIFY FOR 

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 64

Before the Court is plaintiff Yolanda Champion's ("Champion") "Motion to Amend 

June 21, 2019, Order to Certify the Same for Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

sec 1292(b)," filed July 19, 2019. Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc. ("Amazon") has filed 

opposition, to which Champion has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed 

in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules as follows.1

Champion was formerly employed by defendant NEA Delivery, LLC ("NEA"), and 

was assigned by NEA to work as a delivery driver for Amazon. Champion alleges she 

was jointly employed by both NEA and Amazon and that, during such employment, she 

was not provided with meal and rest periods or with proper wages.

On May 10, 2019, Amazon filed, under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), a 

motion to compel arbitration of Champion's claims, relying on a contract between NEA 

and Champion, titled "Binding Arbitration Agreement" (hereinafter, "Agreement") under 

which Champion agreed to arbitrate any claims "that may arise out of the employment 

context." (See Nyhan Decl., filed May 10, 2019, Ex. A.) On June 21, 2019, the Court 

 

1By order filed August 19, 2019, the Court took the matter under submission.

Case 3:18-cv-05222-MMC Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

held a hearing and, at the conclusion thereof, granted the motion and stayed the action, 

to the extent alleged against Amazon, pending completion of arbitration proceedings.2 

That same date, the Court issued a written order incorporating the Court's ruling.

In granting the motion, the Court found: (1) Champion had entered into the 

Agreement, (2) the Agreement was not unconscionable, (3) Amazon, although not a party 

to the Agreement, could rely thereon to compel arbitration, and (4) a statutory exemption 

from enforcement of the Agreement did not apply. By the instant motion, Champion 

requests the Court amend the June 21 order to certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), 

that the fourth of the above-referenced findings is appropriate for interlocutory appeal.

Under § 1292(b), a district court may certify for interlocutory appeal an order 

where (1) "such order involves a controlling question of law," (2) "there is substantial 

ground for difference of opinion" as to such question of law, and (3) "an immediate 

appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Court discusses each such factor in turn.

Under § 2 of the FAA, a party may seek to enforce "[a] written provision in any . . . 

contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a 

controversy." See 9 U.S.C. § 2. Pursuant to § 1, however, an exemption exists for 

"contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers 

engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." See 9 U.S.C. § 1. The term "any other 

class of workers" has been interpreted to mean "transportation workers," see Circuit City 

Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 119 (2001). Courts have found "contracts of 

employment" of "transportation workers" are contracts of "workers in the transportation 

industry." See Hill v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 398 F.3d 1286, 1290 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing 

cases).

Here, the Court found the exemption set forth in § 1 did not apply to the 

Agreement, which ruling involves a controlling question of law. See Kuehner v. Dickinson 

 

2NEA did not join in the motion.

Case 3:18-cv-05222-MMC Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

& Co., 84 F.3d 316, 319 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding order staying action pending completion 

of arbitration proceedings "involve[s] a controlling question on law").

Next, in determining whether the exemption in § 1 applied, the Court found the 

relevant contract is the Agreement between NEA and Champion, the only contract that 

contains a "written provision" to arbitrate, see 9 U.S.C. § 2, and Champion has not 

argued, let alone offered evidence to show, NEA is in the interstate transportation 

industry. See Performance Team Freight Systems, Inc. v. Aleman, 241 Cal. App. 4th 

1233, 1241 (2015) (holding "party opposing arbitration bears the burden of demonstrating 

that the [§ 1] exemption applies"). The Court also found, without dispute by Champion, 

said contract could be invoked by Amazon to compel arbitration, as Champion's claims 

against NEA and Champion are "based on the same facts and are inherently inseparable 

from the arbitrable claims against [the] signatory defendant[ ]." See Garcia v. Pexco, 

LLC, 11 Cal. App. 5th 782, 787-788 (2017) (finding non-signatory customer of temporary 

staffing agency entitled to compel arbitration, based on clause in contract between 

plaintiff and staffing agency).

The Court further found that, even if, as Champion argues, the nature of Amazon's 

business can be considered for purposes of § 1, despite the absence of an arbitration 

agreement in what Champion asserts is an implied contract between Amazon and 

Champion, the exemption set forth in § 1 was inapplicable, as Amazon is not engaged in 

the transportation industry. With regard to such finding, a difference of opinion exists. 

See Rittman v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2019 WL 177725, at *1, *4 (W.D. Wash. April 23, 

2019) (finding, in case involving arbitration provision in written contract of employment 

between Amazon and plaintiff therein, § 1 exemption applicable). Based on the record 

presented here, the Court did not agree with another district court's characterization of 

Amazon as "akin to UPS and FedEx," see id., 2019 WL 177725, at *3, but rather, found 

Amazon is primarily engaged in the sale of merchandise, both its own products and, in 

some instances, those of others, and, in connection therewith, provides efficient delivery 

as a service to customers. In essence, the Court found Amazon is more closely akin to 

Case 3:18-cv-05222-MMC Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

an online version of Walmart than an online version of Federal Express.

Lastly, as one court has noted, although an appeal may "take more time and effort 

than arbitration . . .[,] an appeal will still conclude more quickly than requiring arbitration 

to run its course before the appeal begins." See Lee v. Postmates Inc., 2019 WL 

1864442, at *4 (N.D. Cal. April 25, 2019).

Accordingly, the Court having found each factor set forth in § 1292(b) is met, 

Champion's motion is hereby GRANTED, and, by separate order filed concurrently 

herewith, the Court's order compelling arbitration has been amended to reflect such

finding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2019

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05222-MMC Document 72 Filed 09/12/19 Page 4 of 4