Raef Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., 13 F.4th 908

Lawson worked as a Grubhub delivery driver in Los Angeles (Oct 2015–Feb 2016); Grubhub classified drivers as independent contractors. Lawson alleges unpaid minimum wage, overtime, and unreimbursed expenses under the California Labor Code and sought to represent a statewide class and pursue PAGA penalties.
District court denied class certification because nearly all putative class members had arbitration/class-waiver provisions; Lawson was found atypical and an inadequate representative.
The district court bifurcated the case, held a bench trial on classification, applied the Borello multifactor test, and found Lawson was an independent contractor, entering judgment for Grubhub and not reaching PAGA penalties.
After that judgment, California law changed: Dynamex adopted the ABC test for wage-order claims; AB 5 codified/expanded ABC (with exemptions); Vazquez held ABC applies retroactively to wage-order claims; Proposition 22 later created a prospective conditional rule for app-based drivers.
On appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of class certification, held Proposition 22 did not abate Lawson’s claims, vacated the judgment on minimum wage, overtime, and expense-reimbursement claims, and remanded for the district court to apply the ABC test and consider AB 5 exemptions and whether ABC applies to §2802 claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Class certification under Rule 23	Lawson urged class certification; argued denial premature and tried to distinguish O'Connor	Most putative class members waived class actions/arbitration; Lawson is atypical and inadequate	Denial of class certification affirmed (O'Connor controls)
Which test governs wage-order claims (Borello vs ABC/Dynamex)	Dynamex/ABC applies retroactively to wage-order claims; Grubhub cannot meet B prong (deliveries are within its usual business)	District court applied Borello at trial; Grubhub relied on Borello factual findings	ABC applies retroactively per Vazquez; court remanded for district court to apply ABC in the first instance
Effect of Proposition 22 / abatement of pending claims	Lawson: Prop 22 is prospective only and does not abate vested wage claims	Grubhub: Prop 22 (and repeal doctrines) abate or block recovery unless judgment entered before enactment	Prop 22 is not retroactive and did not abate Lawson’s claims; abatement doctrine not triggered because wages (if owed) are vested property rights
Applicability of ABC to expense-reimbursement (§2802) claims	Lawson urged application of ABC; argued Dynamex reasoning covers wage-related remedies	Grubhub argued Dynamex did not decide §2802; AB 5 expansion was prospective (effective 1/1/2020)	Court vacated judgment and remanded for trial court to decide in the first instance whether ABC applies to §2802 reimbursement claims and to consider AB 5 exemptions

S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dept. of Indus. Relations, 769 P.2d 399 (Cal. 1989) (multifactor test emphasizing right-to-control for employee/IC classification)
Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court, 416 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018) (adopted ABC test for claims grounded in California wage orders)
Vazquez v. Jan‑Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., 478 P.3d 1207 (Cal. 2021) (held Dynamex/ABC test applies retroactively to wage-order claims)
O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 904 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2018) (decertified class where most putative class members had arbitration/class-waiver agreements)
Cal. Trucking Ass’n v. Bonta, 996 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining Proposition 22 provides conditional, prospective contractor status and does not rewrite AB 5’s text)
Parada v. E. Coast Transp. Inc., 277 Cal. Rptr. 3d 89 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (remand guidance applying ABC where defendant may still prevail but trial court should decide in first instance)
Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Prods. Co., 999 P.2d 706 (Cal. 2000) (unpaid wages are vested property rights)