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)

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