On December 15, 2016, Judge Baylson entered an order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ overtime claims. The order granted in part defendants’ motion to strike, but struck just 4 of the 152 paragraphs in the amended complaint.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss argued that the plaintiffs’ overtime allegations were inadequate. Specifically, that the amended complaint failed to demonstrate that the Plaintiffs were “employed” during the alleged overtime hours. Instead, defendants argued, the complaint merely showed that the plaintiffs were logged into the App during the alleged overtime hours.
Defendants also moved to strike more than ten paragraphs from the complaint. These paragraphs concerned defendants’ collection of debts from the drivers’ earnings and UberX.
Plaintiffs’ opposition brief asserted that the court had already decided that their allegations support a finding that plaintiffs were “employed” by defendants. The plaintiffs also argued that the law does not require a complaint to prove employment on an hour-by-hour basis.
As for defendants’ request to strike allegations, plaintiffs argued that it was indisputable that defendants automatically deduct auto loan and insurance payments from plaintiffs’ weekly earnings. Plaintiffs also argued that the UberX allegations were still relevant under the amended complaint.
In its opinion, the Court found that the allegations were sufficient to support plaintiffs’ overtime claims. Whether the plaintiffs were “employed” while logged into the app was an issue that could not be resolved without additional facts. Accordingly, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and ordered the parties to engage in discovery regarding defendants’ control over drivers logged into the App and “on-call.”
After reviewing defendants’ request to strike more than ten paragraphs, only paragraphs 82-86 were stricken by the Court. The Court held that those paragraphs, which concern the illegality of UberX, were not relevant to plaintiffs’ wage claims. However, the paragraphs regarding defendants’ collection of debts and expenses were relevant.
Read the opinion here: 12-15-16-opinion.