Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02458/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02458-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:2201dj Declaratory Judgment

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA TRUCKING 

ASSOCIATION, et al., 

V. 

Plaintiffs, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL XAVIER 

BECERRA, et al., 

Defendants, 

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD 

OF TEAMSTERS, 

Intervenor-Defendant. 

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM 

ORDER DENYING EXP ARTE 

MOTION FOR STAY 

[Doc. 103) 

Intervenor-Defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters moves ex parte to 

20 stay this Court's January 16, 2020 Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary 

21 Injunction. Notably, the Attorney General has not sought a stay. To determine whether a 

22 stay is warranted, the Court considers four factors: "(l) whether the stay applicant has made 

23 a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will 

24 be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially 

25 injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and ( 4) where the public interest lies." 

26 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418,433 (2009). "Each factor, however, need not be given equal 

27 weight." Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 2018 WL 4928041, at 

28 *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2018) (citations omitted). Rather, "[t]he first two factors ... are the 

3: l 8-cv-02458-BEN-BLM 

Case 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM Document 109 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 most critical." Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. 

2 As to the first factor, Intervenor contends that because several lower courts have 

3 come to differing conclusions on the FAAAA preemption claim underlying the Court's 

4 injunction, the first factor weighs in Intervenor's favor. A difference of opinion, however, 

5 does not amount to the requisite "strong showing" that Intervenor "is likely to succeed on 

6 the merits." Id. at 433. Put another way, "[i]t is not enough that the chance of success on 

7 the merits be better than negligible." Id. at 444 (internal quotation marks and citations 

8 omitted). As discussed in its preliminary injunction order, the Court found Plaintiffs 

9 showed a likelihood of success on the merits. Intervenor offers no new evidence to support 

10 reconsideration of that conclusion. Accordingly, the first factor does not weigh in favor of 

11 a stay. 

12 The second factor requires irreparable harm to the movant absent a stay. Intervenor 

13 contends this factor weighs in its favor because "the State would be prevented from 

14 enforcing its laws and addressing the widely recognized problem of misclassification of 

15 employees in the trucking industry ... " Doc. 101-1 at 3 (emphasis added). As previously 

16 noted, however, it is not the State that moves for a stay; it is Intervenor. The Court is 

17 skeptical that Intervenor has standing to challenge a preliminary injunction order on .the 

18 State's behalf due to the allegedly irreparable injury to the State. Regardless, even 

19 considering Intervenor's argument, the Court finds the second factor is not satisfied and 

20 does not weigh in Intervenor's favor. As the Court discussed in its preliminary injunction 

21 order, the prior classification standard under Borello remains in effect until a final decision 

22 on the merits. See Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(a)(l)(3) ("If a court of law rules that the 

23 three-part [ ABC] test ... cannot be applied to a particular context ... then the determination 

24 of employee or independent contractor status in that context shall instead by governed by 

25 [Borello]."). Thus, Intervenor does not show how the State's reversion back to its prior 

26 classification standard will result in irreparable injury to the State or Intervenor during the 

27 pendency of this action. 

28 In support of the remaining two factors, Intervenor concludes without support that a 

2 

3: l 8-cv-02458-BEN-BLM 

Case 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM Document 109 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 stay of the preliminary injunction will not injure any other parties, demonstrating the stay 

2 is in the "public interest" The Court disagrees. In granting Plaintiffs' motions for a 

3 temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, the Court found AB-5 provided 

4 to Plaintiffs an injurious Robson's choice: either implementing significant costly 

5 compliance measures or risking criminal and civil prosecution. Intervenor does not point 

6 to any change in circumstances or new evidence to undermine that conclusion. Thus, the 

7 Court cannot find the remaining two factors tip the scales in favor of Intervenor's stay. 

8 For the previous reasons, the Nken factors do not weigh in favor of granting a stay, 

9 and Intervenor's ex parte motion is DENIED. 

10 

11 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

12 Date: February ,ti!, 2020 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

3: 18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM 

Case 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM Document 109 Filed 02/10/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3