O'Connor et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 160

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen denying 138 Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Review (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 DOUGLAS O’CONNOR, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-13-3826 EMC UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CERTIFY ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW Defendants. ___________________________________/ (Docket No. 138) 13 14 Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to have this Court certify its order 15 granting Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1292(b). The Court finds this motion suitable for disposition without oral argument and 17 VACATES the hearing currently set for October 9, 2014. 18 In attempting to establish that there is a “substantial ground for differences of opinion” as to 19 this Court’s extraterritoriality ruling, Plaintiffs rely primarily on Taylor v. Eastern Connection 20 Operating, Inc., 988 N.E. 2d 408 (Mass. 2013). Plaintiffs are correct that Taylor held that because 21 the Massachusetts law in question did not contain an express geographical limitation, a choice of 22 law provision could apply that law extraterritorially to conduct occurring outside Massachusetts. 23 See Taylor, 988 N.E.2d at 413. Taylor cites with approval Gravquick A/S v. Trimble Navigation 24 Int’l Ltd., 323 F.3d 1219, 1223 (9th Cir. 2003). Taylor, 988 N.E.2d at 414. However, Taylor differs 25 from the present case in one critical respect: there is no implicit presumption against the 26 extraterritorial application of Massachusetts law. Taylor made this point explicit. See Taylor, 988 27 N.E.2d at 413 n.9 (“[W]e conclude that there is no corresponding presumption against the 28 application of Massachusetts statutes to conduct occurring outside Massachusetts but within the 1 United States.”).1 California, by contrast, has a strong, nearly century old presumption against the 2 extraterritorial application of its laws. See Ehret v. Uber Technologies, Inc., — F. Supp. 3d — , 3 2014 WL 4640170, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014). As a result, Taylor does not address the 4 effectiveness of a choice of law provision where there is a presumption against extraterritorial 5 application of a state’s laws. Nothing in Taylor or any other case cited by Plaintiffs suggests this 6 Court erred when it concluded that when such a presumption exists, the parties’ choice of law to the 7 contrary must be disregarded. 8 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that there is a have failed to articulate a logical reason why a choice-of-law provision should yield to an express 11 For the Northern District of California “substantial ground for difference of opinion” on this Court’s extraterritoriality ruling. Plaintiffs 10 United States District Court 9 geographical limitation in a statute and yet be able to overcome the strong presumption against 12 extraterritorial application of California law that the state has adopted. Further, Plaintiffs have cited 13 no authority that would support such a distinction. Plaintiffs’ motion for § 1292(b) certification is 14 therefore DENIED. See Couch v. Telescope, 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that the 15 statutory requirements of § 1292(b) are jurisdictional and an interlocutory appeal cannot proceed if 16 those requirements are not met). 17 This order disposes of Docket Number 138. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: October 6, 2014 22 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 Plaintiffs’ reliance on Harlow v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, 574 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (D. Kan. 2008), is similarly misplaced. Harlow relied on Gravquick and did not address whether there was an implicit presumption against extraterritorial application under Kansas law which would dictate a different result. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?