Supurva Healthcare Group Inc (SPRV)

[Dahelusay]

Here is a copy of the filing (Lawsuit) I copied ans pasted but also, here is a link. Big whoop te-doo! Amazon and Google have lawsuits right now too! https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2017cv06624/319509/56
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA,
Plaintiff,
v.
TFORCE FINAL MILE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 17-cv-06624-RS
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
Defendant TForce Final Mile West, LLC challenges one portion of the assigned magistrate
judge’s “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of
Documents,” dated October 17, 2018. (Dkt. No. 51). Plaintiff in this action is the Secretary of the
Department of Labor. Defendants are TForce and On Courier 365, Inc. The complaint seeks to
impose liability on defendants for allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to
drivers hired to deliver packages for the “Google Express” service.
The dispute is whether TForce must produce documents related to any drivers it may have
directly hired to deliver packages for Google Express, as opposed to only those drivers that were
hired by On Courier, which TForce contends it engaged as an “independent service provider.”
The challenged order requires TForce to produce responsive documents both as to drivers hired
through On Courier and as to any drivers TForce may have directly hired for the Google Express
service.
The parties agree, and the magistrate judge’s order acknowledges, that the scope of
Acosta v. TForce Final Mile, LLC et al Doc. 56
Dockets.Justia.com
CASE NO. 17-cv-06624-RS

United States District Court
Northern District of California
discovery is controlled by the allegations of the complaint. TForce insists the complaint only
alleges FLSA violations with respect to drivers hired under its relationship with On Courier, and
that the magistrate judge therefore erred in ordering production of documents related to any
drivers it may have directly hired to do Google Express deliveries. TForce is not wrong that the
primary focus of the complaint is on drivers as to whom TForce and On Courier are alleged to
have been joint employers. The language of the complaint, however, is broad enough also to
encompass claims arising from TForce’s direct hire of drivers for Google Express deliveries.
If plaintiff were seeking documents relating to drivers hired jointly by TForce and some
other “independent service provider,” TForce might have a strong argument that because the
complaint only mentions On Courier, it does not encompass claims relating to drivers hired
through such other entity, under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The
complaint, however, plainly alleges hiring by both TForce and On Courier, and the emphasis on
the scenario of drivers being hired by TForce through On Courier does not somehow exclude any
circumstances where TForce hired directly.
A district court may modify a magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive matter only if
the order is “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(a); Bahn v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). Because TForce has
shown no such error here, its objections to the order are overruled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 8, 2018
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge