Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05003/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05003-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN SARAVIA, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DYNAMEX, INC., DYNAMEX FLEET

SERVICES, LLC, DYNAMEX

OPERATIONS EAST, LLC, and

DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST, LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 14-05003 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT

AND SEEKING FURTHER

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

For good cause shown, plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to file an amended

complaint is hereby GRANTED. 

Meanwhile, the Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions following limited discovery

and is continuing to work on defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and plaintiff’s motion to

facilitate notice. The Court seeks further information on several issues that pertain to the

pending motions. By SEPTEMBER 2, AT NOON, the parties shall each submit briefs NOT TO

EXCEED FIFTEEN PAGES, double-spaced with no footnotes and limited single-spaced material

that respond to the supplemental briefs already submitted. Please also address the following: 

• Does Texas law or California law apply to questions of

unconscionability? In addressing this issue, the parties shall

specifically address whether Texas law conflicts with

any “fundamental policy” of California law that pertains to

enforcement of the delegation clause in particular, as well as

the other unconscionability arguments raised by plaintiff.

Case 3:14-cv-05003-WHA Document 81 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

• What is the role of each of the three agreements between Dynamex

West and plaintiff or JJ Express as a basis for plaintiff’s claims?

• Assuming arguendo that the delegation clause of the 2011

agreement is enforceable, but the incorporation of the AAA rules

in the 2012 agreement is not, what relief is appropriate?

• Assuming arguendo that the Court finds incorporation of the

AAA rules can only be “clear and unmistakable” evidence of

intent to delegate the issue of arbitrability where the parties

involved are “sophisticated,” should plaintiff be considered

“sophisticated” according to the facts in the record?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-05003-WHA Document 81 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 2