Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc.

42 Citing cases

  1. LeCann v. Aliera Cos.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-2429-AT (N.D. Ga. Jun. 22, 2021)   Cited 3 times
    Maintaining that "motions [to compel arbitration] are factual attacks on the existence of subject matter jurisdiction ...."

    (Pl. Resp. at 22-23; Pl. Supp. Br. I, Doc. 30 at 2) ("Delegation provisions do not empower arbitrators to determine 'whether the district court has the authority to act under the FAA—specifically, the authority under § 4 to compel the parties to arbitration'") (quoting Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc., 857 F.3d 7, 14 (1st Cir. 2017) aff'd 139 S. Ct. 532 (2019)).

  2. Ege v. Express Messenger Sys.

    Case No. 2:16-CV-1167-RSL (W.D. Wash. Dec. 9, 2019)

    Id. at *7 (citing Phelps, 569 F.3d at 1135-36). Plaintiffs argue that the law was not settled on whether the Court or an arbitrator should decide the applicability of a § 1 exemption or whether independent contractors fall under the § 1 exemption of the FAA. OnTrac does not dispute that the issue was not settled. Dkt. #38 at 5 ("OnTrac responded that a stay was improper because Plaintiffs could have argued, in this Court or on appeal, that the FAA exempted independent contractor agreements, especially as the question remained unsettled in this Circuit."); see also Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc., 857 F.3d 7, 12-13, 18 (1st Cir. 2017). New Prime, therefore, "did not upset or overturn a settled legal principle."

  3. Lee v. Postmates Inc.

    Case No. 18-cv-03421-JCS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018)   Cited 18 times
    Denying request for stay as to plaintiffs who "might have validly opted out of arbitration" and thus had "a right to bring their claims in court that should not be delayed without good reason"

    There is some disagreement among the courts of appeals on this issue. See Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc., 857 F.3d 7, 12-15 (1st Cir. 2017) (following the Ninth Circuit's approach, but noting that the Eighth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Green v. Supershuttle Int'l, Inc., 653 F.3d 766 (8th Cir. 2011)), cert. granted, 138 S. Ct. 1164 (2018). Postmates therefore argues that "Van Dusen is not sound precedent" and was "wrongly decided."

  4. Khath v. Midland Funding, LLC

    334 F. Supp. 3d 499 (D. Mass. 2018)   Cited 5 times
    Reiterating the principle in the arbitration agreement context

    However, the Magistrate Judge did not act "contrary to law" in declining to rule on the issue preclusion argument at the time because she had discretion to deny the motion to compel without prejudice. See Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc., 857 F.3d 7, 12, 24 (1st Cir. 2017) ; 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). Khath did not renew his argument for issue preclusion in his opposition to Midland's Renewed Motion to Compel.

  5. Centro De Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. v. Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R.

    35 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2022)   Cited 12 times
    In Puerto Rico v. Torres Irizarry, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico held that Sánchez–Valle "must have a retroactive effect" with respect to the case before it.

    "[T]he critical first step in any statutory-interpretation inquiry" is to "closely examine the statutory text." Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc., 857 F.3d 7, 19 (1st Cir. 2017), aff'd, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 532, 202 L.Ed.2d 536 (2019). We give the phrases or words Congress did not specifically define within PROMESA their "ordinary meaning." Id.

  6. Harper v. Amazon.com Servs.

    12 F.4th 287 (3d Cir. 2021)   Cited 19 times
    Observing that there is no language in the FAA that "explicitly preempts the enforcement of state arbitration statutes"

    We agree that it was proper to assess the FAA's applicability in the first instance. But no binding precedent requires district courts to ignore arbitrability under state law when the applicability of § 1 is uncertain. That sequencing question was asked, but not answered by the First Circuit in New Prime . Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc. , 857 F.3d 7, 24 (1st Cir. 2017), aff'd , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 532, 202 L.Ed.2d 536 (2019). And the Supreme Court in New Prime did not discuss, let alone decide, the matter.

  7. Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    404 F. Supp. 3d 335 (D. Mass. 2019)   Cited 18 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "last mile" delivery drivers for Amazon who deliver goods solely within Massachusetts are transportation workers as "they are indispensable parts of Amazon's distribution system" and are "so closely related to interstate commerce as to be part of it"

    In Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc. , the First Circuit assumed, without deciding, that truck drivers engaged in interstate commerce fell within the scope of the residual clause. 857 F.3d 7, 17 (1st Cir. 2017) ("Prime does not dispute that Oliveira, whose work for Prime included driving a truck across state lines, is a ‘transportation worker’ within the meaning of the § 1 exemption, as interpreted by Circuit City . Thus, we have no need to definitively decide that issue."). Unlike truck drivers engaged in interstate commerce, however, Plaintiff does not carry goods across state lines.

  8. New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira

    139 S. Ct. 532 (2019)   Cited 337 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that even "[w]hen a contract delegates questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator," "a court should decide for itself whether [the FAA's] 'contracts of employment' exclusion applies before ordering arbitration" because "to invoke its statutory powers under §§ 3 and 4 to stay litigation and compel arbitration according to a contract's terms, a court must first" resolve that "necessarily antecedent statutory inquiry"

    Ultimately, the district court and the First Circuit sided with Mr. Oliveira. 857 F.3d 7 (2017). The court of appeals held, first, that in disputes like this a court should resolve whether the parties' contract falls within the Act's ambit or § 1's exclusion before invoking the statute's authority to order arbitration.

  9. Steines v. Westgate Palace, LLC

    113 F.4th 1335 (11th Cir. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Therefore, where the MLA applies, § 16 of the FAA does not, and we lack any source of appellate jurisdiction. See, e.g., Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc., 857 F.3d 7, 24 (1st Cir. 2017) ("Because the contract in this case is within the § 1 exemption, the FAA does not apply, and we consequently lack jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B) — the only conceivable basis for our jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal."), aff'd, 586 U.S. 105, 139 S.Ct. 532, 202 L.Ed.2d 536 (2019); Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters Loc. Union No. 50 v. Kienstra Precast, LLC, 702 F.3d 954, 958 (7th Cir. 2012) (dismissing appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction where district court correctly held that contract was excluded from the FAA by § 1). The district court properly decided the question of whether the MLA overruled the FAA, properly determined that that the MLA did override the FAA, and correctly found that the MLA applied to the timeshare loan in this case.

  10. Fli-Lo Falcon, LLC v. Amazon.com

    97 F.4th 1190 (9th Cir. 2024)   Cited 15 times
    In Fli-Lo-Falcon, the arbitration agreement included the following language: “The arbitration will be conducted by the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”) under its rules, including the AAA's Commercial Arbitration Rules.

    Indeed, as the First Circuit noted before the Court's grant of certiorari, "because the parties do not dispute that [plaintiff] is a transportation worker under § 1, [it] need not address whether an LLC or other corporate entity can itself qualify as a transportation worker." Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc., 857 F.3d 7, 17 (1st Cir. 2017), aff'd, 586 U.S. 105, 139 S. Ct. 532, 202 L.Ed.2d 536 (2019). Although the Supreme Court has not addressed the exact questions here, it has provided us with significant guidance.