Judge allows OOIDA’s entry into AB5 lawsuit

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association will represent small-business truckers in a lawsuit against California’s Assembly Bill 5, a federal judge has ruled.

In an order filed in Southern California’s U.S. District Court on Wednesday, Sept. 21, Judge Roger T. Benitez granted OOIDA’s motion to serve as an intervenor in the case.

Last week, California’s attorney general argued that OOIDA’s request came too late, but Benitez said the Association’s timing was appropriate as the case was on hold until arguments over an injunction played its way through the appeals courts.

“Applying the correct rule to the facts here make clear that OOIDA’s motion was timely,” Benitez wrote. “Until the Court of Appeals decided that AB5 was not preempted, the California Trucking Association appeared to be adequately protecting OOIDA’s interests. OOIDA filed its motion but could not very well press its motion to intervene while proceedings in this court were stayed. Once jurisdiction was returned to this court and the stay lifted, OOIDA stood ready to intervene.”

The order means that OOIDA will now join the California Trucking Association’s fight against the state’s controversial worker classification law. Although the California Trucking Association represents motor carriers of various sizes in California, OOIDA represents small-business truck drivers who reside in California, as well as those who haul freight in and out of the state.

“We thank the court for granting our request to intervene on behalf of independent and owner-operator truckers,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer said. “Our members’ livelihoods are at risk under AB5, and by joining this case we will ensure that their voices are heard. We look forward to presenting our case and ensuring that small-business truckers can continue to operate throughout the country without any undue burdens imposed by California or any other state.”

AB5 background

The California Trucking Association’s original complaint was filed in October 2018 after the California Supreme Court established the ABC Test in its Dynamex decision.

The controversial test determines that a worker is only an independent contractor if the individual is free from control of the company, the work performed is outside the company’s usual course of business, and that the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade or occupation.

California lawmakers responded to the California Supreme Court’s decision by passing AB5, which codified the ABC Test into law. In November 2019, the California Trucking Association requested a preliminary injunction from AB5 being enforced on motor carriers. The trucking group argued that the test would end the industry’s owner-operator model and said the law is preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act.

The injunction was granted until the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately denied the California Trucking Association’s petition to review its arguments.

The Supreme Court’s denial kicked the case back to the district court, and the injunction was formally dissolved on Aug. 29.

While the case was on hold, OOIDA filed its motion to serve as an intervenor in April 2021.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta opposed the motion on Sept. 16, telling the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California that OOIDA didn’t file its motion in time.

“Timeliness is an indispensable threshold requirement for intervention,” Bonta wrote in the court filing. “Here, OOIDA’s motion, filed years after the action was brought and after numerous substantive proceedings on the legal claims at issue, does not meet this requirement.”

What’s next?

The injunction centered around the California Trucking Association’s argument that AB5 was preempted by the F4A. However, the original lawsuit also contended that AB5 violates the Commerce Clause.

The Commerce Clause protects the right to engage in interstate commerce free of undue burdens and discrimination by state governments. OOIDA argues that AB5 will plan an undue burden on owner-operators traveling in and out of California.

“OOIDA seeks to challenge AB5 by contending that it violates the dormant Commerce Clause,” Benitez wrote. He added that allowing OOIDA to serve as an intervenor to the case gives representation to interstate truck drivers who want to continue operating in California. LL