For example, Plaintiffs observe the Northern District determined a plaintiff stated a minimum wage claim under Section 1997 where the plaintiff alleged “that he worked 26 hours at a specific rate.” (Id., citing Albert v. Postmates Inc., 2019 WL 1045785 (N.D. Cal. March 5, 2019).) According to Plaintiffs, their allegations are “specific” enough to “allow the Court to draw reasonable inferences that Defendants are liable for violating minimum wage law.”
Instead, Plaintiff chose not to file such a motion and agreed to dismiss his class allegations and proceed on those claims individually. However, “jurisdiction under CAFA is secure even though, after removal, the plaintiffs amend their complaint to eliminate the class allegations.”In re Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 606 F.3d 379, 380 (7th Cir. 2010); see also In re Volkswagon “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, 2019 WL 1551672 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2019) (holding that “[b]ecause CAFA jurisdiction existed when Vodonick filed his complaint and when Roseville VW removed his case, it continues to exist today, ” even though the plaintiff opted out of the class settlement and “the only claims remaining were his individual claims which would not by themselves support jurisdiction under CAFA”); Albert v. Postmates Inc., 2019 WL 1045785 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019) (holding that “while Albert has chosen to proceed individually rather than . . . filing an unsuccessful motion for class certification, the Court finds no support in precedent or policy for conditioning jurisdiction on the distinction between whether a plaintiff pursues a meritless motion or chooses to forego filing a motion”). Therefore, although Plaintiff has dismissed the class allegations and his individual claims would not support jurisdiction under CAFA, because it is undisputed that CAFA jurisdiction existed at the time Plaintiff filed his original Complaint and Defendants filed the Notice of Removal, CAFA jurisdiction continues to exist.
In light of these allegations, Plaintiff has made out a plausible claim that any misclassification by Uber is willful. See e.g., Albert v. Postmates Inc., No. 18-CV-07592-JCS, 2019 WL 1045785, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019) (finding sufficient allegations "to support a plausible inference" of willful misclassification where Plaintiff alleged that Defendant held "itself out to the public as a delivery service" and Plaintiff performed services within Defendant's "usual course of business as a delivery service"). Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as it pertains to Count 3 (but finds Count 3 sufficiently alleged as a predicate for Plaintiff's UCL claim).
Lee v. Postmates Inc., No. 18-cv-03421-JCS, 2018 WL 6605659 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2018). Albert's claims are proceeding as Albert v. Postmates Inc., No. 18-cv-07592-JCS (N.D. Cal.). Following entry of judgment, the Ninth Circuit held in a memorandum disposition that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice following an order compelling arbitration is not a final order appealable by right, and that a party seeking review of an order compelling arbitration before the arbitration has occurred is "obliged to obtain the district court's permission for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)."