Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Henry v. Central Freight Lines, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 12, 2019

Ricky Henry, Plaintiff,
v.
Central Freight Lines, Inc., Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY ACTION

          JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DBTRICT JUDGE.

         Ricky Henry (“Henry” or “Plaintiff”) worked for Central Freight Lines, Inc. (“CFL” or “Defendant”) as a truck driver from April 2014 to February 2015. Henry alleges CFL intentionally and illegally misclassified him, and other putative class member-truck drivers, as independent contractors to deny them statutory benefits owed under the California Labor Code. CFL contends that Henry, and the putative class members, were properly classified as independent contractors and therefore not entitled to certain protections and benefits under the California Labor Code.

         Since this Court's decision on CFL's Motion for Summary Judgment and Henry's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Order, ECF No. 87, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its prior ruling in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc., 923 F.3d 575 (9th Cir. 2019), and certified to the California Supreme Court the question of whether the “ABC Test” announced in Dynamex Ops. W. Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018) applies retroactively. See Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc., 930 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2019); and Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc., 939 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2019). The California Supreme Court has since decided to rule on the question. See ECF No. 94-1. CFL moves to stay the action pending resolution of this issue. CFL Mot., ECF. No. 91.

         For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Stay the Action.[1]

         I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         The parties are intimately familiar with the events leading up to this motion, as they were described in depth in this Court's previously issued Order. See Order, ECF No. 87. As such, they will not be repeated here.

         II. OPINION

         A. Request for Judicial Notice

         A court may take judicial notice of a fact “that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction” or “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). A court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court “not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation and related findings.” Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d. 767, 774 (2nd Cir. 1991). Likewise, a court may take judicial notice of “adjudicative facts not subject to reasonable dispute.” United States v. Chapel, 41 F.3d 1338, 1342 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

         Defendant requests judicial notice of the following:

1. ECF No. 1 in California Truck Association v. Becerra, No, 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2018).
2. ECF No. 45 in California Truck Association v. Becerra, No, 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2018).
3. Judge Staton's Order staying the action in Bruers v. Flowers Foods, Inc., No. 18-cv-01442-JLS-ADS ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.