Sanchez v. Lasership, Inc., Case No. 1:12–cv–246 (GBL/TRJ).

• Decision Date: 04 April 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:12–cv–246 (GBL/TRJ).
• Citation: 937 F.Supp.2d 730
• Parties: Milton Manuel SANCHEZ, Carmelo Medina, Gerard Edmond, individually and on behalf of a group of individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LASERSHIP, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

937 F.Supp.2d 730

Milton Manuel SANCHEZ, Carmelo Medina, Gerard Edmond, individually and on behalf of a group of individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.LASERSHIP, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 1:12–cv–246 (GBL/TRJ).

United States District Court,

E.D. Virginia,

Alexandria Division.

April 4, 2013.

Limited on Preemption Grounds

M.G.L. 149 § 148B

John Thomas Harrington, Jr., Nicholas Wyckoff Woodfield, Robert Scott Oswald, The Employment Law Group PC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Paul DeCamp, Joseph Erwin Schuler, Jackson Lewis LLP, Reston, VA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GERALD BRUCE LEE, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 114), Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Evidence in Opposition to Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 131), Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Declarations Submitted in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. No. 106), Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. No. 79), Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 118), Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Dkt. No. 138), and Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 157). This case concerns an action brought by a purported class of delivery truck drivers, seeking declaratory relief that they are misclassified under the Massachusetts Independent Contractor (“IC”) Statute, M.G.L. 149 § 148B (“Section 148B”).

The issue before the Court is whether the Court should grant Defendant Lasership's Motion for Summary Judgment, which seeks a determination that Section 148B, which would compel Lasership to classify its independent contractors as employees, is preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (“FAAAA”). The Court grants summary judgment because enforcement of Section 148B against motor carriers is preempted by the FAAAA. The Court concludes that Section 148B “relates to” or has a “connection with” motor carriers' prices, routes, and services because it (1) dictates the employment relationship carriers must utilize in its operations, thereby affecting carriers' routes and services; (2) significantly increases carriers' costs such as to have a significant effect upon carriers' prices, routes, and services; and (3) materially alters the common law test for independent contractor status, leading to a patchwork of varying state laws and resulting liability under varying independent contractor regimes. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs. Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

This case is brought by Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals who perform delivery and courier services for Defendant Lasership. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Lasership is a transportation services company that arranges for the delivery of packages for its customers along the East Coast, servicing major consumer companies such as Amazon.com. (Aryan Decl. ¶ 3, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. A, Dkt. No. 116–1.) Lasership operates to arrange for the delivery of packages through its use of independent contractors, performing no deliveries of its own. ( Id. ¶ 5.) The independent contractors with whom Lasership contracts encompass sole proprietorships and corporate entities, which employ their own staff and agents to perform deliveries. ( Id. ¶ 6.)

Though headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, Lasership maintains facilities in Woburn, Massachusetts and Meriden, Connecticut. Competing with similar businesses located in Massachusetts and the surrounding New England area, including, Maine, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont, Lasership contracts its independent contractors to navigate within and through these states to perform its deliveries. ( Id. ¶ 4.) Independent contractors that deliver for Lasership report to its facility and are assigned delivery routes that traverse state lines. ( Id.)

Lasership's business model is designed around its customer relationships and the services demanded by its customers. ( Id. ¶ 12–16, 19–21.) Certain customers request regularly scheduled routes while others require irregular deliveries on an emergency, “as-needed,” or “on demand” basis. ( Id. ¶ 12; Aryan Dep. 114:17–115:4, Dkt. No. 116–2.) Specifically, deliveries of time-sensitive medical supplies or financial materials are not scheduled in advance, and Lasership's customers rely on its availability of independent contractors to meet their time-sensitive needs. (Aryan Decl. ¶ 12.) Due to the nature of these deliveries, they are not scheduled in advance, rendering their predictability impossible. ( Id. ¶ 13; Aryan Dep. 157:12–159:9.) Likewise, Lasership's customers, such as Amazon.com, require Lasership to arrange for the delivery of their products each day by a specified time, not notifying Lasership of the upcoming day's volume until the day they are to be delivered, also rendering their predictably difficult. (Aryan Decl. ¶ 15.) The unique relationship Lasership has with each of its customers requires Lasership to employ its present business model to match the needs of its customers. ( Id.)

Plaintiffs are Massachusetts-based delivery drivers that perform delivery services for Lasership as independent contractors. (Compl. ¶¶ 4–6.) Based out of the Woburn facility, Plaintiffs deliver packages for Lasership's customers through a contractual relationship pursuant to Independent Contractor Agreements (“ICAs”) entered between Lasership and each driver. (Aryan Decl. ¶ 5; Aryan Dep. 63:13–64:9.) Under the terms of the ICAs, Plaintiffs are not entitled to common employee benefits, such as overtime pay, minimum wage, and health insurance. Rather, Plaintiffs, as independent contractors, bear the burden of costs associated with the services performed on behalf of Lasership.

On April 12, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Lasership in Massachusetts state court for misclassification as independent contractors under the Massachusetts IC Statute, seeking compensatory damages under Massachusetts wage laws. In June 2011, Lasership removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which dismissed the case without prejudice, based upon the forum selection clause in the ICA. On March 6, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this Court for compensatory, declaratory, and injunctive relief, asserting: (1) misclassification as independent contractors in violation of the Massachusetts IC Statute (Count I); (2) unlawful refusal to pay wages and improper deductions from Plaintiffs' pay (Count II); (3) failure to pay minimum wage (Count III); and (4) violation of Plaintiffs' right to overtime pay (Count IV). (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 35–38.) Plaintiffs' wage and overtime claims are contingent upon the determination that they are properly classified as employees under the Massachusetts IC Statute. Asserting that Lasership controls them as employees, Plaintiffs brought this suit challenging Lasership's classification of them as independent contractors under Section 148B. Specifically, Plaintiffs aver that they report to Lasership's facilities daily, drive the same delivery route daily, are required to wear Lasership-embossed clothing, and are not free to deviate from their assigned routes without Lasership withholding future assignments. ( Id. ¶¶ 10–11, 16, 25.) Thus, Plaintiffs argue that Lasership's control over them renders them “employees” for purposes of the statute.

On May 15, 2012, Lasership filed its first motion for summary judgment, seeking a determination that, as a matter of law, Section 148B, as applied to the motor carrier industry, is preempted by the FAAAA because it dictates how motor carriers perform their services. ( See Dkt. No. 25.) Specifically, Lasership argued that compliance with Section 148B would (1) require motor carriers to provide services outside the entity's usual course of business; (2) create a barrier to entry for other interstate motor carriers who use independent contractors, creating a patchwork of differing state laws, impacting pricing, routes, and services; and (3) require motor carriers to comply with every employment-related statute in Massachusetts, including statutes requiring meal and rest breaks, payment of minimum wage, overtime, family and medical leave, deductions from wages, and maintenance of personnel records. ( See Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 11–17, Dkt. No. 26.) Thus, Lasership concluded, it “would be forced to cease operations in Massachusetts if it were no longer able to use independent contractors to make deliveries.” (Aryan Decl. ¶ 23.)

On August 27, 2012, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order, ruling on the parties' then-pending motions listed above. See Sanchez v. Lasership, Inc., 2012 WL 3730636, at *1–*2 (E.D.Va. Aug. 27, 2012). First, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, concluding that Massachusetts law applied because the case concerned an issue of the contractual relationship between parties and the contract was formed in Massachusetts. Id. Second, and relevant to the present Motion, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) Motion and denied Defendant's First Motion for Summary Judgment, concluding that Plaintiffs had demonstrated that they were entitled to more time to conduct discovery on the issue of FAAAA preemption. Id.

Following the Court's August 27, 2012 Order, the parties entered limited discovery on the FAAAA preemption issue and are now before the Court with their renewed motions. Specifically, Defendant Lasership filed its Second Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking a determination that enforcement of Section 148B is preempted by the FAAAA. (Dkt. No. 114.) Lasership has also filed three evidentiary motions. Specifically, Lasership has filed a Motion to Strike Portions of ...