United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ AND
INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS [DOCS. 28,
ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge.
Xavier Becerra, Andre Schoorl, and Julie Su, as well as
Intervenor-Defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters
move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint in
its entirety. Docs. 28, 29. For the following reasons, the
motions are GRANTED.
California Trucking Association, Ravinder Singh, and Thomas
Odom filed suit on October 25, 2018, to challenge the
constitutionality of and enjoin enforcement of
California’s Industrial Commission Wage Order No. 9, as
interpreted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex
Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d
1 (Cal. 2018). The Dynamex Court set forth a new
standard, the “ABC test, ” for determining
whether a worker qualifies as an “employee” for
purposes of Wage Order 9. Doc. 1. Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, contending
that Wage Order 9, as enforced under the Dynamex
standard, is preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration
Authorization Act and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act
and violates the Commerce Clause of the United States
Constitution. Doc. 25, p. 4.
Court takes judicial notice of the fact that, on September
18, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill
5 (“AB-5”), which concerns Wage Order 9 and the
labor standard set forth in Dynamex. See
Krystal, Inc. v. China United Transport, Inc., 2017 WL
6940544, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2017) (explaining that
under Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)(2), a court may take judicial notice
of a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because
it “can be accurately and readily determined from
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned”). This change in California law, at this
time, raises federal questions of mootness and standing,
necessitating dismissal of this action without prejudice.
effective date of January 1, 2020 raises standing questions
related to whether an imminent and concrete injury exists
sufficient to confer standing on Plaintiffs. The new law
leaves unclear whether Defendants will enforce the
Dynamex decision against Plaintiffs before AB-5
takes effect. See MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007) (Standing requires the plaintiffs to
show a dispute that is “definite and concrete, touching
the legal relations of parties having adverse legal
interests, and that it be real and substantial and admit of
specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character,
as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would
be upon a hypothetical state of facts.”).
the passage of AB-5 also raises questions of mootness.
Article III of the United States Constitution confers
jurisdiction on federal courts over “cases” and
“controversies.” A federal court does not have
jurisdiction to hear cases that are neither ripe for review
nor “moot.” “Mootness is the
‘doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The
requisite personal interest that must exist at the
commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue
throughout its existence (mootness).” Native
Village of Noatak v. Blatchford, 38 F.3d 1505, 1509 (9th
Cir. 1994). Here, the State of California passed a law
potentially affecting Wage Order 9 and the test set forth in
Dynamex, which will not take effect until January 1,
2020. Because of this change in the law, Plaintiffs’
lawsuit, as it is currently plead, leaves the Court with
“theoretical possibilities, ” which it is not
authorized to decide. See Id . at 1510
(“Federal courts are not authorized to address such
theoretical possibilities.”) (“A statutory change
. . . is usually enough to render a case moot . . .”).
Accordingly, at this time, this action is dismissed without
prejudice for lack of standing and for mootness.
previous reasons, Defendants’ motions to dismiss are
GRANTED, and this action is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs may
file an amended complaint within 60 days of
the date of this Order.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Wage Order 9 establishes minimum wage,
overtime, and other basic labor standards protections for
employees in the transportation industry.
 The Court makes no findings on the
merits of the parties’ arguments within their motions
to dismiss. Therefore, those arguments ...