Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Christerphor ZIGLAR; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC., dba OnTrac, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (“OnTrac”) appeals the district court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration of wage-and-hour claims brought by delivery drivers. We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16, and we review the denial of arbitration de novo. Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co., 846 F.3d 1251, 1259 (9th Cir. 2017). We vacate the district court's order and remand for further proceedings.
The district court denied OnTrac's motion to compel arbitration on the ground that the arbitration provision in the “Owner Operator Agreements” between the drivers and Subcontracting Concepts CT, LLC, was substantively unconscionable under Arizona law. After the district court entered its order, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1612, 200 L.Ed.2d 889 (2018), addressing the applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act's “saving clause,” which permits arbitration agreements to be invalidated by “such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2; see AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011).
We therefore vacate the district court's order denying OnTrac's motion to compel arbitration and remand for further proceedings in light of Epic Systems Corp., including, if appropriate, consideration of the parties’ other arguments regarding arbitrability. We also note for the district court's further consideration that there is a pending case, currently on the court's Seattle calendar for November 2018, that may raise similar issues: Ege v. Express Messenger Sys., Inc., No. 17-35123.
VACATED and REMANDED. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-16920
Decided: October 04, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)