Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 22-1131

STEPHEN LEVINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

GRUBHUB HOLDINGS INC. and GRUBHUB INC.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Lynch and Selya, Circuit Judges, and McElroy,* District Judge.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, with whom Michelle Cassorla and Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. were on brief, for appellant. Theane Evangelis, with whom Blaine H. Evanson, Dhananjay S. Manthripragada, Alexander Harris, Samuel Eckman, Allison L. Mather, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP were on brief, for appellees.

* Of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation. December 2, 2022 SELYA, Circuit Judge. The question before us in this

appeal is whether couriers who deliver meals and packaged goods

from local restaurants to local customers are transportation

workers engaged in interstate commerce such that they are exempt

from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). See

. The

district court answered this question in the negative and

subsequently entered the judgment from which the plaintiff now

appeals.

After this appeal was argued, we recently addressed the

same issue, on substantially similar facts, in a published opinion.

See Immediato v. Postmates, Inc., ___ F.4th ___, ___ (1st Cir.

2022) [No. 22-1015, slip op. at 7-24]. There, we held that a

comparable class of workers could not escape from the reach of the

FAA by attempting to invoke the section 1 exemption. See

at

___ [slip op. at 24]. We also held that their contracts with the

company for which they worked were nonetheless encompassed by

, and that the workers were therefore required to

arbitrate their disputes according to the terms of those contracts.

See

at ___ [slip op. at 24-27].

It would serve no useful purpose to repastinate ground

already well-plowed. The reasoning in Immediato is fully

applicable here, and the holding in that case squarely answers the

question presented by this appeal. Thus, we summarily affirm the

- 3 - judgment below for essentially the reasons explicated in

Immediato.

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

- 4 -