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

Filing 473

ORDER by MDL Panel DENYING TRANSFER re MDL No. 2686. (slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2016)

Case MDL No. 2686 Document 73 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., WAGE
AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
LITIGATION

MDL No. 2686

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in one action in the Eastern District of New York
(Ogunmokun) move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of
California or, alternatively, the Western District of Texas.1 This litigation currently consists of seven
actions pending in seven districts, as listed on Schedule A.2 This litigation arises from the allegation
that defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and its subsidiary Rasier, LLC (collectively, Uber),
misclassify Uber transportation providers as independent contractors instead of employees, fail to
provide reimbursement of necessary business expenses, and withhold gratuities.
Plaintiffs in seven actions, including two potentially related actions, share counsel with
movants and support the motion. They are joined by plaintiff in one other potentially related action
in the Middle District of Florida (Rimel). Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California action on
the motion (O’Connor) oppose centralization and, alternatively, request exclusion of O’Connor or
centralization in their district. Additionally, plaintiffs in five potentially related actions oppose
centralization or request exclusion of their actions.3 The Uber defendants oppose centralization and,
alternatively, request exclusion of O’Connor and centralization in a geographically central district.
And Hirease, Inc., a defendant in two actions involving Uber’s background check practices, requests
exclusion of those actions.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization
will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation. Although these actions share certain factual issues regarding Uber’s classification
of drivers as independent contractors and its business practices concerning payment of gratuities and
business expenses to drivers, the standards for determining whether independent contractors are

*

Judge Charles R. Breyer took no part in the decision of this matter.

1

Movants originally requested centralization in the Western District of Texas in the first
instance, but subsequently changed their position in light of developments in the litigation.
2

Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been notified of ten potentially related actions.

3

Some of those plaintiffs alternatively request the Northern District of California.

Case MDL No. 2686 Document 73 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 4

-2employees vary substantially from state to state and involve a broad range of factors which require
consideration of distinct aspects of the alleged employer’s relationship with plaintiffs.4 The record
before the Panel indicates that, consequently, the determination of whether a plaintiff is an employee
or independent contractor will rest on state-specific legal and factual inquiries that are not suitable
for centralized pretrial proceedings. Moreover, the seven actions on the motion involve nonoverlapping certified and putative state-specific classes, which also are distinct from nearly all of the
putative classes in the related actions before the Panel. Denying centralization will keep the actions
pending in the states where plaintiffs and the putative class members worked and where relevant
witnesses and documents are likely to be found.
The circumstances of this litigation indicate that voluntary coordination is preferable to
centralization. Plaintiffs in six of the seven actions on the motion and two related actions are
represented by the same counsel, and all of those actions are in their infancy. The defendants are the
same in all actions, and they have represented that, to the extent pretrial proceedings overlap, they
are amenable to informal coordination. Given the limited number of involved counsel, informal
coordination of discovery and pretrial motions should be practicable.5 Moreover, the sole action on
the motion involving a different plaintiffs’ counsel (O’Connor) is nearing the end of pretrial
proceedings and thus, there is little, if any, discovery left to coordinate in that action.6

4

See In re: DIRECTV, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour Litig.,
84 F. Supp. 3d 1373, 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2015) (“The issue of whether an individual is an employee or
independent contractor involves multiple factors, which require individualized inquiry.”).
5

See In re: SFPP, L.P., Railroad Property Rights Litig., — F. Supp. 3d —, 2015 WL
4879677, at *1 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 10, 2015) (denying centralization of litigation involving a total of
fifteen actions where informal coordination was practicable “[g]iven the few involved counsel and
limited number of actions”).
6

In O’Connor, class discovery is complete, a statewide class has been certified, merits
discovery closes within the next three months, and trial is scheduled for June 2016. This substantial
procedural disparity further weighs against centralization. See In re: CVS Caremark Corp., Wage
and Hour Employment Practices Litig., 684 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2010).

Case MDL No. 2686 Document 73 Filed 02/03/16 Page 3 of 4

-3IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of the actions listed on
Schedule A is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

Case MDL No. 2686 Document 73 Filed 02/03/16 Page 4 of 4

IN RE: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., WAGE
AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
LITIGATION

MDL No. 2686

SCHEDULE A

District of Arizona
SENA v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:15-02418
Northern District of California
O'CONNOR, ET AL. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:13-03826
District of Maryland
VARON v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-03650
Eastern District of New York
OGUNMOKUN, ET AL. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-06143
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
DINOFA v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:15-06121
Western District of Texas
MICHELETTI v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:15-01001
Western District of Washington
FISHER v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:15-01787