Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—CLASS ACTIONS—D. Utah: Pizza Hut franchisee faces class-action lawsuit by drivers, (Nov 20, 2025)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

Employees of the franchisee are not bound by arbitration agreements that waive the right to join a class action lawsuit.

In an action alleging that a Pizza Hut franchisee, MP2 Enterprises, LLC, willfully failed to pay the required minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act to employees, the federal district court in Utah has certified the case as a class-action lawsuit. The court held that the franchisee is not an “affiliate” of Pizza Hut, Inc., the franchisor, and is not a party to the original arbitration agreement. The court also held that arbitration agreements signed by employees after litigation began are not enforceable. Therefore, the employee drivers of the franchisee are not bound by arbitration agreements that waive the right of employees to join a class action lawsuit (Brandi-Vanmeter v. MP2 Enterprises, LLC, No. 4:23-cv-00081-DN-PK (D. Utah Nov. 17, 2025)).

A delivery driver who worked for a Pizza Hut franchisee restaurant filed a proposed class action lawsuit against her former employer alleging that the franchisee willfully failed to pay the required minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The franchisee, MP2 Enterprises, LLC (“MP2”) operates Pizza Hut locations in Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. The pizza delivery driver moved for class certification on behalf of herself and 147 others similarly situated drivers. The franchisee opposed the motion for class certification arguing that the class-action requirements cannot be met because employees are bound by an arbitration agreement that requires arbitration and waives an employee’s right to join a class action.

Original arbitration agreement. The court found that the fundamental issue is whether the arbitration agreements are enforceable. First, the court analyzed whether the original arbitration agreement entered into with Pizza Hut, Inc., the franchisor, extends to MP2, as an affiliate of Pizza Hut. Although the Federal Arbitration Act strongly favors enforcement of agreements to arbitrate, a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which it has not agreed so to submit. If an enforceable agreement is found, then it is necessary to determine who is bound by the agreement and whether the agreement covers a particular controversy. In applying Arizona, Utah, and Nevada state law, the courts first look at the plain language within the four corners of the contract.

In this case, the court found that a plain reading of the original arbitration agreement, when considered together with the franchise agreement, demonstrates that MP2 is not an “affiliate” of Pizza Hut. The original arbitration agreement states that the agreement applies to “Pizza Hut, Inc... and its parents and affiliates, officers and director (collectively, ‘Pizza Hut’).” The court found that MP2, as the franchisee, is not a party to the original arbitration agreement. Rather, the franchisee is an “operator” and a “licensee” of Pizza Hut, while referring to Pizza Hut and its “affiliates” are described as separate from MP2. Therefore, the franchisee cannot enforce the terms of the franchise agreement against the franchisee’s employees.

Post-litigation agreements. The court also found that arbitration agreements signed by employees after litigation began are also not enforceable. The court held that the franchisee’s process of obtaining opt-outs through potentially ex parte communications before certification, and after notice was sent, unquestionably frustrates the purpose of the class action mechanism. By the franchisee’s own admissions, all potential class members identified after litigation had begun were contacted and approached about signing the newer post-litigation arbitration agreement.

Class certification. Finally, the court found that the class meets the requirements for class certification under Rule 23 for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The pizza delivery driver met the rigorous analysis required under Rule 23, and class certification is warranted. Therefore, the court granted the motion for class certification. The court also ordered the franchisee to refrain from any further communication regarding this lawsuit with the other employees until after the opt-in period has closed.

The case is No. 4:23-cv-00081-DN-PK.

Judge: Nuffer, D.

Attorneys: Andrew R. Biller (Biller & Kimble LLC) for Rebecca Brandi-Vanmeter. Seth D. Needs (Fisher & Hunter, LLC) for MP2 Enterprises LLC.

Companies: MP2 Enterprises LLC

Cases: WageHour ClassActions MinimumWage Arbitration UtahNews