Medeiros v. Point Pickup Techs.

1

DOMINIC MEDEIROS, SHEILA MARCIL, Plaintiffs, v. POINT PICKUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Defendants.

No. 3:21-CV-1056 (OAW)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

April 20, 2023

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

OMAR A. WILLIAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiffs Dominic Medeiros and Sheila Marcil (“Plaintiffs”) are former retail and grocery store delivery drivers for Defendant Point Pickup Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Point Pickup”). They bring this action on behalf of a putative class against Defendant, which owns and operates the mobile phone application through which drivers accept orders to deliver groceries and merchandise to residential and business customers. Plaintiffs allege unpaid wages and unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Massachusetts wage and hour laws, as well as claims of unjust enrichment and unfair trade practices. Defendant moves to compel arbitration and to stay this action. Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 37. Plaintiffs argue there is no agreement to arbitrate their claims and, even if such agreement exists they are exempt from arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.

For the reasons stated herein, the court finds that the parties have agreed to arbitrate the claims brought in the complaint. Moreover, because Plaintiffs are not workers engaged in interstate commerce, they are not exempt from arbitrating under the FAA. Accordingly, the motion to compel hereby is GRANTED. Plaintiffs must arbitrate their claims individually, and the case shall be stayed pending arbitration.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant is a Connecticut-based delivery company that delivers products from retail and grocery stores such as Wal-Mart GameStop, and Shaw's Supermarket. Compl. at ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. To complete deliveries, Defendant engages local drivers known as “Pickup Partners.” Peterson Decl. at ¶ 2, ECF No. 38. To become a Pickup Partner, a driver must first download onto their mobile device the Point Pickup application (the “App”) and activate an account. See id. at ¶ 2. After creating the account, a series of deliveries is presented on the App. Id. at ¶ 3. Each available delivery is listed with a statement of miles that must be driven, and the amount of compensation that Defendant will pay for the job. Id. at ¶ 13. If a driver accepts an available delivery job, the driver must visit the local retailer (often a grocery store), load the order into their vehicle, and deliver it to the customer. Id. at ¶¶ 16-18.

Plaintiffs allege that drivers typically rely on the quoted number of miles when selecting a delivery job, but Defendant's quoted mileage often is incorrect. Id. at ¶ 15. Plaintiffs claim that they “often cross state lines in their work for Defendant as they regularly pick-up products in Massachusetts and deliver them in Rhode Island.” Id. at ¶ 31. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that “delivery drivers often wait one or two hours until the products are ready to be picked up for delivery [and] receive no additional compensation for this time.” Id. at ¶ 17. Lastly, Plaintiffs allege that “[w]hen there is a large volume of deliveries, a dispatch employee of Point Pickup will call drivers and tell them that they are needed to sign-in and take job assignments.” Id. at ¶ 21.

Defendant classifies its Pickup Partners as independent contractors, but Plaintiffs allege that the “drivers are actually [Defendant's] employees.” Id. at ¶ 11. As a result, Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to minimum wage, overtime compensation, and other benefits and protections afforded to employees under federal and state wage and hour laws. Id. at ¶¶ 34-36, 39-41. Plaintiffs also assert two state law claims of unjust enrichment and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Id. at ¶¶ 37-38.

In response to the complaint, Defendant has filed a motion to compel arbitration. Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 36. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have signed an arbitration agreement requiring them to individually arbitrate the claims asserted in the complaint. In support, Defendant cites three agreements, each of which purportedly binds Plaintiffs to arbitration: (1) the Mutual Dispute Resolution Agreement (“MDRA”); (2) the End User License Agreement & Terms of Service (“EULA”), which is incorporated in Defendant's Delivery Provider Agreement (“DPA”); (3) and the Non-Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Agreement (“NDDRA”). While Defendant cites three different agreements, it seeks to compel arbitration based only on the MDRA. Def.'s Mem. of Law at 2, ECF No. 37.

A. The Arbitration Agreements

To become a Pickup Partner, a driver must first sign up through Defendant's App and agree to the various terms & conditions. Id. at 2. Defendant describes the process as follows:

After downloading the App, the driver is asked to create an account and to enter basic information, including their contact details and password setup. Id. at 3. After verifying the account, the driver is presented with a complete copy of the DPA, which includes the terms of Defendant's EULA. Id. The driver cannot accept the DPA until the user has scrolled through the entire agreement and has selected “Accept Delivery

Provider Agreement” at the bottom of the display screen. Id. at 4.

DPA & EULA

The DPA provides as follows:

Delivery Provider hereby agrees: (a) to engage Point Pickup to provide the Point Pickup Services; (b) to comply with this Agreement; and (c) that Delivery Provider has read, understands, and agreed to (i) the Point Pickup End User License Agreement and Terms of Service located at www.pointpickup.com/eula (“EULA”), (ii) the Point Pickup Privacy Policy located at www.pointpickup.com/privacy-policy (“Privacy Policy”), and (iii) the Background Check Disclosure and Authorization located at www.pointpickup.com/background-check-disclosure.

DPA at p. 1, ECF No. 38-1 (emphasis in original). The EULA is available on Defendant's website. The EULA “is a binding contract between [the driver] and [Defendant] governing [the] use of the Point Pickup mobile application (the “App”) and any website or online property under [Defendant]'s control that references [the] EULA (the “Website” and collectively with the App, the “Service”).” EULA at p.1, ECF No. 38-2. The EULA contains a provision for dispute resolution:

19. Dispute Resolution

a. Mandatory Arbitration. Please read this carefully.

It affects your rights. YOU AND POINT PICKUP AND EACH OF OUR RESPECTIVE CORPORATE PARENTS, SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, PREDECESSORS IN INTEREST, SUCCESSORS, AND PERMITTED ASSIGNS AGREE TO ARBITRATION (EXCEPT FOR MATTERS THAT MAY BE TAKEN TO SMALL CLAIMS COURT), AS THE EXCLUSIVE FORM OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR BELOW, FOR ALL DISPUTES AND CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THESE TERMS OR YOUR USE OF THE SERVICE. Arbitration uses a neutral arbitrator instead of a judge or jury, allows for more limited discovery than in court, and is subject to very limited review by courts. Please visit www.adr.org for more information about arbitration.

Id. at p. 17.

MDRA

After accepting the DPA in the App, the driver is then presented with a copy of the MDRA. The MDRA specifies that “[w]here resolution cannot be achieved through dialogue and informal problem solving, the [driver] . . . and [Defendant] agree, by signing this [MDRA], to use the arbitration procedures in this Agreement instead of a trial in court before a judge or jury to resolve the dispute.” MDRA at § 1, ECF No. 38-3 (“MDRA”). The MDRA^[1]further specifies that “disputes concerning allegations of misclassification or statutory wage and hour violations” shall be resolved through binding arbitration:

2. Covered Claims

a. Other than as provided in this Agreement, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Contractor and PPUP agree that any controversy, dispute, or claim relating to or arising out of Contractor's provision of contracted services to PPUP (including but not limited to disputes with current and former officers, directors, employees, members customers, clients, vendors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliated companies, successors, assigns, and agents of either party, and disputes concerning allegations of misclassification or statutory wage and hour violations) shall be resolved through binding arbitration rather than in court. It is the parties' intent to resolve all disputes through binding arbitration and not in court.

b. ...

c. Covered claims include, but are not limited to, claims for breach of contract; unpaid money, employment misclassification; misappropriation of trade secrets; unfair competition; violation of public policy; wrongful termination; tort claims; claims for unlawful harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation (e.g., the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act); common law claims; and claims for violation of any federal, state, local, or other government law, statute, regulation, or ordinance, such as, for example, claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Equal Pay Act; the Fair Credit Reporting Act; the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Id. at § 2(a), (c). The agreement also specifies that any arbitration must proceed individually:

5. Waiver of Class, Collective, Multi-Plaintiff, and Representative Actions (“Waiver”): Covered claims must be brought on an individual basis only, and arbitration on an individual basis is the exclusive remedy. No arbitrator has authority to consolidate claims or proceed with arbitration on multi-plaintiff, class, collective, or representative basis. Should such a claim be initiated in

...