DaSilva v. Border Transfer of MA, Inc., 227 F. Supp. 3d 154

Plaintiffs DaSilva and Ferreira were delivery drivers for Border Transfer under written Contract Carrier Agreements that labeled them independent contractors.
Plaintiffs allege Border Transfer exercised substantial control (directions on loading, delivery times, manifests, customer interaction, daily reporting via app, required return of haul-aways, limits on helpers, insurance and vehicle specs, monitoring customer ratings) and required drivers to bear many operating costs (insurance, fuel, maintenance, helpers), so they should be employees.
Plaintiffs assert (1) violation of the Massachusetts Wage Law (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148) based on improper wage deductions and (2) unjust enrichment for the same conduct; this is a putative class action.
Border Transfer moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), preempts the state-law claims and the independent-contractor statute.
The district court accepted plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true for the motion-to-dismiss standard and analyzed whether Massachusetts law "relates to" motor-carrier prices, routes, or services under FAAAA preemption.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Massachusetts Wage Law claim is preempted by the FAAAA	Massachusetts wage protections are generally applicable employment laws with only remote effects on carriers’ services and rates	FAAAA preempts state laws that significantly affect carriers’ prices, routes, or services; finding drivers to be employees would convert Border Transfer into a motor carrier and alter its services	Denied — court held the Wage Law claim is not FAAAA-preempted on this record (Count I survives)
Whether Prongs 1 and 3 of the Massachusetts independent-contractor test are preempted	Prongs 1 and 3 are standard, nationally common tests that do not inherently prevent carriers from using independent contractors	Prongs 1 and 3 would significantly interfere with carriers’ service models and thus are preempted like Prong 2	Denied — court found Border Transfer failed to show Prongs 1 and 3 are preempted; Schwann’s holding on Prong 2 does not extend to Prongs 1 and 3
Whether plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim can proceed alongside statutory wage claims	Unjust enrichment is a viable alternative remedy for improper deductions	If a statutory remedy (Massachusetts Wage Law) is available, unjust enrichment is barred	Allowed in part — unjust enrichment claim dismissed because an adequate statutory remedy exists (Count II dismissed)

Rowe v. N.H. Motor Transp. Ass’n, 552 U.S. 364 (discussing broad preemption under federal deregulation statutes)
Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (explaining purpose and broad reading of "related to" preemption)
Mass. Delivery Ass’n v. Coakley, 769 F.3d 11 (1st Cir.) (refusing categorical exemption for generally applicable labor laws; require case-specific analysis of effects on carriers)
Schwann v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 813 F.3d 429 (1st Cir.) (holding Prong 2 of Massachusetts independent-contractor test preempted under FAAAA)
Camara v. Attorney Gen., 458 Mass. 756 (Mass.) (Massachusetts Wage Law bars improper wage deductions even with employee assent)
Chambers v. RDI Logistics, Inc., 476 Mass. 95 (Mass.) (observing Prongs 1 and 3 do not intrinsically prevent motor carriers from using independent contractors)
Santagate v. Tower, 64 Mass. App. Ct. 324 (Mass. App. Ct.) (party with adequate remedy at law cannot recover in unjust enrichment)