Vuma v. XPO Logistics, Inc., et al.
| Massachusetts District Court | |
| Judge: | Richard G Stearns |
| Case #: | 1:21-cv-10827 |
| Nature of Suit | 790 Labor - Other Labor Litigation |
| Cause | 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
| Case Filed: | May 19, 2021 |
| Terminated: | Aug 10, 2021 |
| Case in other court: | Middlesex Superior Court, 2181CV00165 |
| Last checked: Monday Nov 15, 2021 5:24 AM EST |
|
Defendant
ADG Logistics, Inc.
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Rafeal Vuma
|
Represented By
|
| TERMINATED PARTIES | |
|
Defendant
XPO Logistics, Inc
Terminated: 07/27/2021
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 53 minutes ago |
| Tuesday, August 10, 2021 | ||
| 31 | 31
1
pgs
order
Order Dismissing Case
Tue 08/10 12:59 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. Order of Dismissal. (Pacho, Arnold) |
|
| 30 | 30
order
Order on Motion to Dismiss
Tue 08/10 12:54 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re24 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff Rafael Vuma alleges in this lawsuit that defendant ADG Logistics, Inc. (ADG) misclassified him as an independent contractor and, accordingly, owes him unpaid overtime wages. In what it has framed as a motion to dismiss for improper venue, ADG now moves to compel arbitration, or alternatively to dismiss for failure to state a claim. ADG bases its arbitration demand on Vuma's Independent Contractor Delivery Service Agreement (Agreement). As the Agreement is central to Vuma's claims and its authenticity is not in dispute, see Opp'n at 1 (acknowledging the Agreement's existence), the court will consider its terms at this preliminary stage, see Watterson v. Page , 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993); see also Beddall v. State St. Bank & Tr. Co. , 137 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 1998) (affirming district court's consideration of an agreement not attached to the plaintiff's complaint). The Agreement prescribes arbitration for "any demand, assertion, or claim or cause of action for money... including but not limited to allegations of misclassification or wage and hour violations ... relating to the Agreement...." Ex. A. (Agm't) §§ 15.1 (emphasis added). In opposition, Vuma does not contest that his claims fall within the arbitration provision. Rather, Vuma argues that the Agreement's terms governing arbitration - namely, its choice of law provision - contravene Massachusetts public policy. See id. § 15.8 ("The Arbitrator shall apply the substantive law of the State of North Carolina or federal law, or both, as applicable to the claim(s) asserted."). Because the North Carolina choice of law precludes Vuma's Massachusetts law claims, he asserts that it violates the statutory requirement of the Massachusetts Wage Act that "[n]o person shall by a special contract with an employee or by any other means exempt himself from this section...." Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148. However, Vuma's argument puts the cart (i.e., choice of law) before the horse (i.e., arbitration). "It is well-settled that... when an agreement contains arbitration and choice of law clauses, the determination of what law applies to the agreement is one that falls within the scope of the agreement and should be made by the arbitrator rather than the courts." Diagnostic Imaging Supplies & Servs., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co. , 2006 WL 2077032, at *3 (D.P.R. July 24, 2006), citing Puerto Rico Hosp. Supply, Inc. v. Bos. Sci. Corp. , 426 F.3d 503, 506 (1st Cir. 2005). In other words, finding that the arbitration clause is valid ends the courts inquiry concerning issues arising under the Agreement. See, e.g. , Medika Int'l, Inc. v. Scanlan Int'l , Inc., 830 F. Supp. 81, 87 (D.P.R. 1993) . Equally unavailing is Vuma's argument that compelling arbitration would be unconscionable. "To show unconscionability under Massachusetts law, [Vuma] must prove 'both substantive unconscionability (that the terms are oppressive to one party) and procedural unconscionability (that the circumstances surrounding the formation of the contract show that the aggrieved party had no meaningful choice and was subject to unfair surprise).'" Bekele v. Lyft, Inc. , 918 F.3d 181, 187-188 (1st Cir. 2019), quoting Machado v. System4 LLC , 471 Mass. 204, 218 (2015). That Vuma could have opted out of the Agreement's arbitration provisions, which he failed to do, suggests that he had a meaningful choice - in other words, that there was no procedural unconscionability. See Agm't § 15.10. Nor do Vuma's complaints concerning fees and the fairness of North Carolina law rise to the standard of substantive unconscionability. Consequently, the court, in accordance with the "strong public policy favoring arbitration" that Massachusetts and Federal governments share, Miller v. Cotler , 448 Mass. 671, 676 (2007), will compel arbitration and will not reach ADG's other Rule 12 arguments. For the foregoing reasons, the court ALLOWS ADG's Motion to Compel to Arbitration and DISMISSES the case without prejudice. (Pacho, Arnold) |
|
| Friday, August 06, 2021 | ||
| 29 | 29
respm
Opposition to Motion
Fri 08/06 4:03 PM
Opposition re24 First MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Rafeal Vuma. (Herold, Suzanne) |
|
| Monday, August 02, 2021 | ||
| 28 | 28
order
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File
Mon 08/02 3:08 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting27 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Opposition due 8/6/21. (RGS, law3) |
|
| 27 | 27
motion
Extension of Time to File Document
Mon 08/02 2:48 PM
Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to August 6, 2021 to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by Rafeal Vuma.(Herold, Suzanne) |
|
| Tuesday, July 27, 2021 | ||
| 26 | 26
order
Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
Tue 07/27 1:42 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. For the following reasons, the court ALLOWS XPO's motion to dismiss. First, as to Counts I and II, regardless of which test of employment status is used (the independent contractor test, the economic realities test, etc.), Vuma has failed to plausibly show that XPO acted as his employer. Putting aside his conclusory assertions of employment, see Compl. paras. 5, 7, Vuma alleges only that (1) "ADG contracts with XPO to provide delivery services for Lowe's, Inc."; (2) XPO "was aware that Mr. Vuma was classified by ADG as an independent contractor"; and (3) Vuma "was required by the Defendants to wear an XPO uniform," and "represent himself, whether at Lowe's or customer sites, as an employee of XPO," id. paras. 5, 9, 12, 13; see also Pl.'s Opp'n at 6 (citing only paragraphs 5, 7, 11, and 12 in arguing that the Complaint establishes an employment relationship). Nothing in these allegations suggests that XPO controlled any terms or conditions of Vuma's employment (even assuming that the uniform requirement could be considered such, Vuma generally attributes this requirement to both XPO and ADG, not to XPO specifically). Nor do they indicate that Vuma provided any "services" to XPO such that the court can presume that an employment relationship existed (to the extent Vuma argues that the relevant "service" was wearing an XPO uniform and representing himself as an employee of XPO to Lowe's customers, see Pl.'s Opp'n at 7, it is not clear how these actions would, in any substantive sense, benefit XPO, which did not contract directly with end users but instead acted as an intermediary, cf. Gallagher v. Cerebral Palsy of Massachusetts, Inc. , 92 Mass. App. Ct. 207, 213 (2017) ("Gallagher did not provide services to CPM, much as the drivers did not provide services to the taxicab garage; rather, like the garage, which catered to the taxicab industry 'as a whole,' CPM received administrative fees by virtue of the facilitative services it provided to this MassHealth program as a whole.")). The court accordingly dismisses these claims against XPO. As to Count III, Vuma has failed to plausibly establish the reasonableness of any expectation he held that XPO would compensate him for his work. As explained in more detail above, the Complaint is devoid of any allegation that XPO employed Vuma or otherwise acted in a manner suggesting it would pay him. The court accordingly also dismisses this claim against XPO. (RGS, law3) |
|
| Friday, July 23, 2021 | ||
| 25 | 25
17
pgs
respm
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Fri 07/23 3:46 PM
First MEMORANDUM in Support re24 First MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed by ADG Logistics, Inc..(Holstrom, Amelia) |
|
|
Att: 1
Affidavit Kyle Gordon,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Exhibit Independent Contractor Delivery Service Agreement
|
||
| 24 | 24
motion
Dismiss
Fri 07/23 3:41 PM
First MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint by ADG Logistics, Inc..(Holstrom, Amelia) |
|
| Friday, July 16, 2021 | ||
| 23 | 23
respm
Reply to Response to Motion
Fri 07/16 3:32 PM
REPLY to Response to12 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Leave granted July 7, 2021 (Dkt. 22)) filed by XPO Logistics, Inc. (Silveira, Alison) |
|
| Wednesday, July 07, 2021 | ||
| 22 | 22
order
Order on Motion for Leave to File Document
Wed 07/07 8:34 AM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting21 Motion for Leave to File a Reply brief not to exceed five (5) pages by July 16, 2021. (Zierk, Marsha) |
|
| Tuesday, July 06, 2021 | ||
| 21 | 21
motion
Leave to File Document
Tue 07/06 4:51 PM
Assented to MOTION for Leave to File A Reply by XPO Logistics, Inc.(Ayers-Mann, John) |
|
| Tuesday, June 29, 2021 | ||
| 20 | 20
respm
Opposition to Motion
Tue 06/29 3:35 PM
Opposition re12 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Rafeal Vuma.(Herold, Suzanne) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit DOL Fact Sheet 19
|
||
| Monday, June 28, 2021 | ||
| 19 | 19
notice
Notice of Appearance
Mon 06/28 2:50 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Amelia J. Holstrom on behalf of ADG Logistics, Inc. (Holstrom, Amelia) |
|
| Sunday, June 27, 2021 | ||
| 18 | 18
order
Order on Motion for Extension of Time
Sun 06/27 7:32 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting17 Motion for Extension of Time up to and including, July 23, 2021, to file its responsive pleading. (Zierk, Marsha) |
|
| Friday, June 25, 2021 | ||
| 17 | 17
motion
Extension of Time
Fri 06/25 4:41 PM
MOTION for Extension of Time to July 23, 2021 to File its Responsive Pleading to the Complaint RAFAEL VUMA by ADG Logistics, Inc..(Murphy, Meaghan) |
|
| 16 | 16
notice
Notice of Appearance
Fri 06/25 4:29 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Meaghan E. Murphy on behalf of ADG Logistics, Inc. (Murphy, Meaghan) |
|
| 15 | 15
notice
Notice of Appearance
Fri 06/25 4:27 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Meaghan E. Murphy on behalf of ADG Logistics, Inc. (Murphy, Meaghan) |
|
| Wednesday, June 09, 2021 | ||
| 14 | 14
notice
Notice of Appearance
Wed 06/09 5:18 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by John T. Ayers-Mann on behalf of XPO Logistics, Inc (Ayers-Mann, John) |
|
| 13 | 13
18
pgs
respm
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Wed 06/09 2:45 PM
MEMORANDUM in Support re12 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by XPO Logistics, Inc.(Silveira, Alison) |
|
|
Att: 1
Exhibit A. 2020 ADG Logistics Independent Contractor Agreement with Schedule A
|
||
| 12 | 12
motion
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
Wed 06/09 2:41 PM
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by XPO Logistics, Inc.(Silveira, Alison) |
|
| Tuesday, June 08, 2021 | ||
| 11 | 11
misc
State Court Record - no answer filed in state court
Tue 06/08 5:03 PM
STATE COURT Record. (Klein, Daniel) |
|
| Friday, May 28, 2021 | ||
| 10 | 10
order
Order on Motion for Extension of Time
Fri 05/28 9:11 AM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting8 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to June 9, 2021 to File Responsive Pleading. (Pacho, Arnold) |
|
| Tuesday, May 25, 2021 | ||
| 9 | 9
notice
Notice of Appearance
Tue 05/25 4:21 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Alison Hickey Silveira on behalf of XPO Logistics, Inc (Silveira, Alison) |
|
| 8 | 8
motion
Extension of Time
Tue 05/25 3:59 PM
Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to June 9, 2021 to File Responsive Pleading by XPO Logistics, Inc.(Klein, Daniel) |
|
| Monday, May 24, 2021 | ||
| 7 | 7
notice
Notice of Case Assignment
Mon 05/24 1:20 PM
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case RE-Assignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley. (Finn, Mary) |
|
| 6 | 6
misc
Refusal to Consent to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge
Mon 05/24 1:10 PM
Refusal to Consent to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge. . (Klein, Daniel) |
|
| Thursday, May 20, 2021 | ||
| 5 | 5
misc
Corporate Disclosure Statement
Thu 05/20 10:53 AM
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by XPO Logistics, Inc. (Klein, Daniel) |
|
| Wednesday, May 19, 2021 | ||
| 4 | 4
misc
Corporate Disclosure Statement
Wed 05/19 2:56 PM
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by XPO Logistics, Inc identifying Corporate Parent XPO Logistics, Inc. for XPO Logistics, Inc.. (Klein, Daniel) |
|
| 3 | 3
notice
Certified Copy of Notice of Removal Provided to Defense Counsel
Wed 05/19 2:37 PM
Certified Copy of Notice of Removal Provided to Defense Counsel by Email. (Jones, Sherry) |
|
| 2 | 2
notice
Notice of Case Assignment to a Magistrate Judge
Wed 05/19 2:30 PM
NOTICE of Case Assignment. Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley assigned to case. Plaintiff's counsel, or defendant's counsel if this case was initiated by the filing of a Notice of Removal, are directed to the Notice and Procedures regarding Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge which can be downloaded [LINK:here] . These documents will be mailed to counsel not receiving notice electronically. Pursuant to General Order 09-3, until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 USC 636(b) for all pretrial non-dispositive matters and Report and Recommendations, but not for the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (Finn, Mary) |
|
| 1 | 1
notice
Notice of Removal
Wed 05/19 2:18 PM
NOTICE OF REMOVAL by XPO Logistics, Inc ( Filing fee: $ 402, receipt number 0101-8782638 Fee Status: Filing Fee paid)(Klein, Daniel) |
|
|
Att: 1
10 pgs
Exhibit A,
|
||
|
Att: 2
Civil Cover Sheet,
|
||
|
Att: 3
Category Form
|
||