Edmond Carmona v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 73 F.4th 1135

Domino’s purchased pizza ingredients from out-of-state suppliers and received them at its Southern California Supply Chain Center.
At the Supply Center Domino’s employees re-apportioned, weighed, and packaged ingredients but did not alter them.
Domino’s D&S drivers then delivered those ingredients to local California franchisees (the “last‑leg” of delivery).
Three drivers sued under California labor law; their employment agreements contained arbitration clauses.
The district court denied Domino’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the drivers exempt from the FAA under 9 U.S.C. § 1 as a class of workers engaged in interstate commerce; the Ninth Circuit previously affirmed, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, and the Ninth Circuit again affirmed.
The Ninth Circuit held Rittmann v. Amazon remains controlling and concluded the drivers participate in a single, unbroken stream of interstate commerce, so § 1 exempts their claims from the FAA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FAA § 1 exempts last‑leg drivers who deliver goods that began their journey in interstate commerce	Drivers: their duties are part of interstate transportation; they play a direct, necessary role in the flow of goods and thus are exempt	Domino’s: goods paused/repackaged at Supply Center; drivers do not cross state lines and franchisees order after arrival, so drivers not engaged in interstate commerce	Exempt: drivers are part of a continuous stream of interstate commerce; repackaging/pausing did not terminate interstate journey; FAA §1 applies to exempt them from arbitration
Whether Rittmann remains controlling after the Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon	Drivers: Rittmann’s analysis of last‑leg delivery remains consistent with Saxon’s focus on what workers actually do	Domino’s: Saxon undermines Rittmann; Rittmann is distinguishable because of ordering and repackaging distinctions	Rittmann is not clearly irreconcilable with Saxon and remains binding precedent in the Ninth Circuit; Miller v. Gammie requires following circuit precedent

Carmona v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 21 F.4th 627 (9th Cir. 2021) (Ninth Circuit’s prior decision finding FAA §1 exemption for these drivers)
Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., 971 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding last‑leg delivery drivers fall within §1 exemption)
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 142 S. Ct. 1783 (2022) (Supreme Court clarifying §1 inquiry focuses on the actual work performed and whether workers are engaged in transportation in interstate commerce)
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) (discussed by Domino’s in arguing repackaging could end interstate journey)
Immediato v. Postmates, Inc., 54 F.4th 67 (1st Cir. 2022) (contrasting fact pattern where goods were transformed before delivery)
Fraga v. Premium Retail Servs., Inc., 61 F.4th 228 (1st Cir. 2023) (holding employer’s use of employees for last‑leg delivery does not break interstate journey)
Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (governs obligation to follow prior circuit precedent unless clearly irreconcilable)