VAZQUEZ v. JAN PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL INC (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Gerardo VAZQUEZ, Gloria Roman, and Juan Aguilar, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-16096

Decided: September 24, 2019

Before: Ronald M. Gould and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges, and Frederic Block, District Judge.*

Shannon Liss-Riordan (argued), Lichten & Liss-Riordan P.C., Boston, Massachusetts, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Jeffrey M. Rosin (argued), O’Hagan Meyer PLLC, Boston, Massachusetts; Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Theane D. Evangelis, and Samuel Eckman, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellee. Catherine K. Ruckelshaus and Najah A. Farley, National Employment Law Project, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae National Employment Law Project, Equal Rights Advocates, Dolores Street Community Services, Legal Aid at Work, and Worksafe, Inc. Norman M. Leon, DLA Piper LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Jonathan Solish, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Santa Monica, California; James F. Speyer, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Amicus Curiae The International Franchise Association. Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay, Benbrook Law Group PC, Sacramento, California; Luke A. Wake, NFIB Small Business Legal Center, Sacramento, California; for Amicus Curiae National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center. Adam G. Unikowsky, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, D.C.; Steven P. Lehotsky, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. James F. Speyer, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Amicus Curiae California Chamber of Commerce. Paul Grossman and Paul W. Cane Jr., Paul Hastings LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Amicus Curiae California Employment Law Council.

OPINION

We have certified to the California Supreme Court the question whether that Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 416 P.3d 1 (2018), applies retroactively. See Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Int’l, Inc., 930 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2019). We here re-establish the remaining holdings from our now-withdrawn opinion in the matter. See Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Int’l, Inc., 930 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2019). For the reasons laid out in our earlier opinion, we hold that the doctrines of res judicata and law of the case do not bar Plaintiffs from contending that they are employees under Dynamex’s ABC test. See Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc., 923 F.3d 575, 583–86 (9th Cir. 2019). We likewise reject Jan-Pro’s contention that a retroactive application of Dynamex would violate its federal due process rights. See id. at 588–90. Finally, if Dynamex does apply retroactively, the district court’s reliance on Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 60 Cal.4th 474, 177 Cal.Rptr.3d 539, 333 P.3d 723 (2014), and the “special features of the franchise relationship” was misplaced. See id. at 594–95. As these rulings remain in place, the issue certified to the California Supreme Court “could determine the outcome” of the remainder of the appeal. Cal. R. Ct. 8.548(a).

PER CURIAM:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go To Learn About The Law