In a published opinion on June 19, 2020 the California Court of Appeal in San Francisco affirmed the trial court’s denial of a petition by Lime to compel arbitration, calling Lime’s arguments in the case “pure sophistry.”  The court’s decision is here.

In November 2018 Plaintiff Yassin Olabi (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendant Neutron Holdings, Inc. dba LimeBike aka Lime (“Lime”) in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco, where Lime is headquartered. The allegations in the Complaint detailed a system through which Lime, a company that rents electric scooters, avoids paying Plaintiff and its other “Juicers” for the time and money they spend locating and recharging Lime scooters and returning them to service. On September 9, 2019 the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to coordinate all four statewide misclassification cases against Lime in San Francisco.  See Lawsuits Alleging Lime Misclassifies Workers as Independent Contractors to be Coordinated in SF Superior Court

RBGG’s Gay Grunfeld, Michael Friedman, and Jenny Yelin represent Mr. Olabi.  Grunfeld, who argued the case before the appellate panel, noted “We’re delighted that the court agrees with us that Lime’s arguments were ‘pure sophistry.’  We look forward to trying the case on March 1, 2021.”  The court’s decision was covered by Law360 on June 22, Lime Bid to Arbitrate PAGA Claim “Pure Sophistry,” Court Says.