O'Connor et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
Filing
447
ORDER RE 446 CLASS NOTICE. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/5/2016. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
9
Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC
ORDER RE CLASS NOTICE
v.
Docket No. 446
10
Defendants.
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
13
On January 4, 2016, the parties submitted a Joint Statement and Stipulated Proposed
14
Schedule Regarding Class Notice. Docket No. 446. The Court has reviewed the Joint Statement
15
and resolves the issues raised by the parties as follows.
16
First, with respect to drivers who failed to provide tax classification data, Uber is to review
17
its records to determine if the driver is listed as being paid as an individual or as a business. Any
18
drivers to whom payment was not clearly made to a business shall be included in the class list.
19
Ambiguities shall be resolved in favor of inclusion in the class for purposes of class notice.
20
Second, drivers who changed their classification over time must be included in the class.
21
While their damages may be limited to the period in which they drove under their individual
22
name, these drivers are still class members and should receive class notice.
23
Third, while the parties appear to agree that a single notice should be disseminated to all
24
drivers, the Court will require that separate notices go out for class and non-class members.
25
Issuing a single notice creates ambiguity for drivers as to whether or not they are class members,
26
and whether they will need to act in order to preserve their rights. A single class notice sent to
27
class members only will minimize confusion.
28
Fourth, the Court will not stay dissemination of class notice pending the appeal. The Court
1
has already denied Uber’s motion to stay the entire case (see Docket No. 429), and the trial is set
2
to proceed on June 20, 2016. Any further delays in issuing class notice will likely disrupt the trial
3
schedule.
Fifth, the class notice shall include an opt-out mechanism, the simplicity of which shall be
4
5
as similar to the opt-out function ordered by the Court as to Uber’s arbitration agreement (i.e., a
6
hyperlink that brings up a pre-addressed e-mail and does not require the recipient to draft an e-
7
mail from scratch) as possible. See Docket No. 435. The parties are to meet-and-confer as to the
8
revised class notice and opt-out mechanism, and must submit their proposed notice by Thursday,
9
January 7, 2016. 1
Finally, the following deadlines will apply in this case:
10
Deadline for parties to submit further
revisions to class notice.
Deadline for production of class list, with
e-mail addresses, to Notice Administrator
Deadline to complete dissemination of
notice and set up of neutral website
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
13
14
15
Opt-out deadline
Non-expert discovery cut-off
Expert Reports
16
17
18
19
Expert-discovery cut-off
20
January 15, 2016
Within 14 days of receipt of list of notice
recipients by Notice Administrator, but
no later than January 29, 2016
60 days from dissemination of notice
30 days after opt-out deadline
Opening reports by 30 days after opt-out
deadline
Rebuttal reports by 14 days after filing of
opening reports
14 days after filing of rebuttal reports
No further dispositive motions will be permitted.
21
22
January 7, 2016
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2016
23
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Court notes that both parties appear to have requested that the Court delay issuance of the
corrective notice as to the arbitration agreement (see Docket No. 435); Uber seeks a complete stay
while Plaintiffs request that the corrective notice be delayed until after the class notice process in
this case is complete. The Court will address this request in its order on Uber’s motion to stay
(see Docket No. 439).
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?