Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A DoorDash worker alleged that the company misclassified app-based drivers as independent contractors after California voters enacted Proposition 22. The operative complaint sought civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, known as PAGA, and a declaration that DoorDash had not satisfied Proposition 22’s preconditions or that federal transportation law preempted the measure.
DoorDash removed the case from Alameda County Superior Court and moved to dismiss. The threshold issue was whether the complaint necessarily raised a substantial federal question capable of supporting federal jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded the action. Whether DoorDash complied with Proposition 22 could resolve the dispute without reaching federal preemption under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act.
Because the federal issue was contingent rather than an essential element of the worker’s claim, it was not necessarily raised under the federal-question test. The court therefore did not reach the merits of DoorDash’s dismissal arguments and returned the case to Alameda County Superior Court.
Key Takeaways
- A federal preemption theory embedded as an alternative issue does not automatically create federal-question jurisdiction.
- Courts ask whether the federal issue must be decided to resolve the plaintiff’s own claim.
- Proposition 22 compliance can present a state-law pathway that avoids deciding federal transportation preemption.
- Removal strategy should be tested against the operative complaint, not anticipated defenses.
Why It Matters
The order keeps an important California worker-classification dispute in state court and illustrates the limits of using federal preemption to remove PAGA and Proposition 22 litigation. Gig-economy companies should evaluate whether a complaint can succeed on a purely state-law ground before removing.
Worker-side counsel can preserve a state forum by pleading a complete state-law theory that does not depend on resolution of federal law.