California Trucking Association v. Becerra

Opinion

1 |] 3 4 : : 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 . 9 || CALIFORNIA TRUCKING Case No.: 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM 10 ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs,| ORDER DENYING EX PARTE | 11 "| MOTION FOR STAY 0 Vv. _ [Doe. 103] . 13 ATTORNEY GENERAL XAVIER BECERRA, etal. ~ 14 Defendants, □ 15 □□ INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD 16 || OF TEAMSTERS, 17 Intervenor-Defendant. 18 19 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 is warranted, the Court considers four factors: 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 US. 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 t 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 not amount to the requisite “strong showing” that Intervenor “is likely to succeed on 6 merits.” /d. at 433. Put another way, “i]t is not enough that the chance of success on 7 merits be better than negligible.” Jd. at 444 (internal quotation marks and citations 8 jjomitted). 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 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 the merits. See Cal. Labor Code § 2750.3(a)(1)(3) (“If a court of law rules that the 23 || three-part [ABC] test... cannot be applied toa particular context ... then the determination 24 |lof employee or independent contractor status in that context shall instead by governed by 25 || [Borelfo].”). 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 2-190 ap AOASZE BOA DIA I stay of the preliminary injunction will not injure any other parties, demonstrating the stay 2 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 Plaintiffs an injurious Hobson’s choice: either implementing significant costly 5 compliance measures or risking criminal and civil prosecution. Intervenor does not point 6 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 Intervenor’s ex parte motion is DENIED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. . , U1 12 || Date: February £2 2020 A WA 3 / HO f ROGERT. wie , United States District Judge 14 . . 15 oe 16 17 19 20 □□ 21 22 23 24 . 25 □ 26 28 R8cyNds8_REN_BI