Hamrick v. Partsfleet, LLC

• Citation: 1 F.4th 1337
• Decision Date: 22 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. 19-13339,19-13339
• Parties: Curtis HAMRICK, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARTSFLEET, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Partsfleet II, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Fleetgistics Holdings, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Scriptfleet, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, US Pack Services, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Medifleet, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, US Pack Holdings, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

1 F.4th 1337

Curtis HAMRICK, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.PARTSFLEET, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Partsfleet II, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Fleetgistics Holdings, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Scriptfleet, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, US Pack Services, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Medifleet, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, US Pack Holdings, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 19-13339

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 22, 2021

Kimberly De Arcangelis, Attorney, Charles Ryan Morgan, Attorney, Morgan & Morgan, PA, Orlando, FL 32801, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Eric Russell Magnus, Jackson Lewis, PC, Atlanta, GA 30363, Amanda A. Simpson, Jackson Lewis, PC, Orlando, FL 32801, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before BRANCH, LUCK, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.

LUCK, Circuit Judge:

The Federal Arbitration Act does not "apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." 9 U.S.C. § 1. This "exemption," we've said, excludes from the reach of the Federal Arbitration Act employees who are in a class of workers: (1) employed in the transportation industry; and (2) that, in the main, actually engages in interstate commerce. See Hill v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 398 F.3d 1286, 1290 (11th Cir. 2005). The issue in this case is whether (despite agreeing to arbitrate any dispute with their employer) final-mile delivery drivers—drivers who make local deliveries of goods and materials that have been shipped from out-of-state to a local warehouse—are in a "class of workers engaged in foreign and interstate commerce" and, thus, exempt under the Federal Arbitration Act from having to arbitrate their Fair Labor Standards Act claims. The district court concluded that they were exempt and refused to compel them to arbitrate their claims under the Federal Arbitration Act. But the district court misapplied Hill and wrongly determined that the exemption applied. We reverse the part of the district court's order denying the employer's motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act and remand for the court to determine whether the drivers are in a class of workers employed in the transportation industry and whether the class, in general, is actually engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.

The district court also denied the employer's motion to compel arbitration under state arbitration law. The employer tries to appeal this part of the district court's order but the order is interlocutory. There's no exception to the final order rule for orders denying motions to compel arbitration under state law. And the district court's ruling on the state law issue is not inextricably intertwined with—or necessary to ensure meaningful review of—the applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act in order to invoke our pendent appellate jurisdiction. Because we do not have appellate jurisdiction over this part of the order, we dismiss this part of the appeal.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Parties and the Collective Action Complaint

U.S. Pack Holdings, LLC is "a national leader in the same-day, final-mile delivery industry."¹ It is "in the business of delivering goods"—for example, car parts, "computers, telephones, servers, vehicles, office equipment and furniture"—"in the final phase of delivery to their final destination." The company has a warehouse network with "locations less than five miles from [forty] percent of the [United States] population." U.S. Pack "contracts directly with thousands of delivery driver[s]/couriers who utilize their own small vehicles ... to provide the transportation and distribution services." U.S. Pack drivers "do not pick up materials from manufacturing plants and deliver them" to U.S. Pack's warehouses. Instead, the drivers deliver the goods locally from U.S. Pack's warehouses to "their final destination." As one of U.S. Pack's former operations managers explained,

The warehouses which the drivers would go to daily contained thousands and thousands of products to be delivered. These items were delivered from 18-wheeler trucks that came from all over the country. The drivers’ jobs was [sic] to then continue those products’ journey to the local destinations. I have personally seen the products on the shelves and seen that they were made in Mexico, China, Malaysia, or other countries. Other products were manufactured in the United States then shipped interstate to the warehouses. The drivers’ jobs would be to run their route assigned to them and deliver the parts assigned to their route which had come in on the various shipments.

Curtis Hamrick was a driver/courier for U.S. Pack. Hamrick lived in Lakeland, Florida and worked out of U.S. Pack's Lakeland and Tampa warehouses. As a U.S. Pack driver, Hamrick used his personal car to pick up car parts from U.S. Pack's Lakeland or Tampa warehouses that had been manufactured in, and shipped from, other states and countries. Hamrick would then deliver the car parts "to local Advanced Auto Parts and Auto Plus" retailers.

When Hamrick started working for U.S. Pack, he signed an independent contractor agreement. In the agreement, Hamrick said that he was "an independently established enterprise in the business of providing transportation services" and he was "solely responsible for determining how to operate [his] business and how to perform" under the agreement. The agreement, Hamrick represented, was "between two co-equal, independent business enterprises that [were] separately owned and operated." The relationship between U.S. Pack and Hamrick was "the relationship of principal and independent contractor and not that of employer and employee." They were "not employees, agents, joint venturers or partners of each other for any purpose."

Hamrick agreed, as part of his duties, to the "(1) pickup and taking of lawful custody of the cargo to be delivered; (2) safe transport of the cargo to the specified delivery location(s) in accordance with all applicable laws; (3) timely delivery and transfer of lawful possession of the product (without damage or loss) to the appropriate consignee; (4) timely submission of all information and documentation required by law and/or specified by the Customer for proof of delivery and chain of custody documentation; and (5) timely return and transfer of lawful custody of any undeliverable cargo to the Customer." Hamrick also agreed to use his own equipment. U.S. Pack, for its part, agreed to pay Hamrick "service fees" for the deliveries. But U.S. Pack had "no right to ... control the manner or prescribe the method" of how Hamrick performed under the agreement.

"In the event of a dispute between the parties," the agreement had an arbitration provision:

A. ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS: In the event of a dispute between the parties, the parties agree to resolve the dispute as described in this Section (hereafter "the Arbitration Provision"). This Arbitration Provision is covered by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and applies to any dispute brought by either [Hamrick] or [U.S. Pack] arising out of or related to this Agreement, [Hamrick]’s relationship with [U.S. Pack] (including termination of the relationship), or the service arrangement contemplated by this Agreement, including cargo claims and payment disputes .... The terms of this Arbitration Provision shall remain in force even after the parties’ contractual relationship ends. BY AGREEING TO ARBITRATE ALL SUCH DISPUTES,

THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT AGREE THAT ALL SUCH DISPUTES WILL BE RESOLVED THROUGH BINDING ARBITRATION BEFORE AN ARBITRATOR AND NOT BY WAY OF A COURT OR JURY TRIAL.

i. Claims Covered By Arbitration Provision: Unless carved out below, claims involving the following disputes shall be subject to arbitration under this Arbitration Provision regardless of whether brought by [Hamrick], [U.S. Pack] or any agent acting on behalf of either: (1) disputes arising out of or related to this Agreement; (2) disputes arising out of or related to [Hamrick]’s relationship with [U.S. Pack], including termination of the relationship; and (3) disputes arising out of or relating to the interpretation or application of this Arbitration Provision, but not as to the enforceability, revocability or validity of the Arbitration Provision or any portion of the Arbitration Provision. This Arbitration Provision also applies, without limitation, to disputes regarding any city, county, state or federal wage-hour law, trade secrets, unfair competition, compensation, meal or rest periods, expense reimbursement, uniform maintenance, training, termination, discrimination or harassment and claims arising under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Americans With Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Family Medical Leave Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Employment Retirement Income Security Act, Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, and state statutes, if any, addressing the same or similar subject matters, and all other similar federal and state statutory and common law claims (excluding workers’ compensation, state disability insurance and unemployment insurance claims).

Hamrick, "on behalf of himself and those similarly situated," sued U.S. Pack as a collective action "for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act." (Throughout this opinion, we will call Hamrick and the other drivers in the collective action, "the drivers.") The drivers alleged that they had to sign the independent contractor agreements if they wanted to work for the company. But, the drivers alleged, U.S. Pack misclassified them as independent contractors.

The drivers were not independent contractors, they alleged, because U.S. Pack "controlled" their "job duties and pay," "instructed"...