John Rogers; v. Lyft, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN ROGERS; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
LYFT, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-15689
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-01938-VC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: SILER,*** S. R. THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
FEB 16 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s decision to compel arbitration and
dismiss the arbitrable claims. We affirm. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291. See also Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072,
1074 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding when a district court determines all of the claims
raised in an action are subject to arbitration, it may either stay the action or dismiss
it, and a dismissed action is subject to appeal). We review a decision to grant a
motion to compel arbitration de novo. Casa del Caffe Vergnano S.P.A. v.
ItalFlavors, LLC, 816 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 2016).
At issue in this appeal is whether Lyft drivers are engaged in interstate
commerce and therefore exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). See
Romero v. Watkins & Shepard Trucking, Inc., 9 F.4th 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2021)
(“[Section] 1 of the FAA exempts from the Act’s coverage all ‘contracts of
employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged
in foreign or interstate commerce.’” (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 1) (emphasis added)).
We recently decided this question in Capriole v. Uber Techs., Inc., 7 F.4th
854 (9th Cir. 2021), holding that rideshare drivers “do not fall within the ‘interstate
commerce’ exemption from the FAA.” Id. at 861. Because Capriole controls the
outcome in this case, we affirm the judgment of this district court.
All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --