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

Filing 837

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 836 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion to Stay Issuance of Corrective Notice Pending Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY ISSUANCE OF CORRECTIVE NOTICE PENDING APPEAL Docket No. 836 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC 13 Plaintiffs‟ request for a stay is DENIED. A court may issue a stay pending interlocutory 14 appeal based on evaluation of four factors: (1) whether the moving party has made a showing that 15 he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the moving party will be irreparably injured 16 absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of a stay will substantially injure other parties interested in the 17 proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009). In 18 the context of a petition for appeal, a likelihood of success on the merits means that there is a “fair 19 prospect” that the appellate court will conclude the decision was erroneous. See also Levia-Perez 20 v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 964 (9th Cir. 2011). 21 These factors do not weigh in favor of a stay. First, Plaintiffs have not made a showing 22 that they are likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiffs argue that “the Ninth Circuit may well find 23 that Counsel‟s communications did not violate the protective order and that the Court‟s adopted 24 notice – and underlying order imposing sanctions – could undermine class members‟ cooperation 25 with and confidence in Plaintiffs‟ counsel and is not reasonably tailored to simply correct the risk 26 of misunderstanding that led the Court to order the corrective notice.” Docket No. 836 at 7. The 27 Court did not simply find the communications violated the protective order, however. The Court 28 independently found that the communications violated the California Rules of Professional 1 Conduct because they were misleading. See Docket No. 825 at 9-11. Plaintiffs present no 2 argument challenging that finding. Nor do they present any argument that the Court abused its 3 discretion in issuing a corrective notice pursuant to Rule 23(d), independent of its sanctioning 4 authority. For these reasons and for the reasons expressed in the Court‟s order regarding 5 Plaintiffs‟ first emergency motion, see Docket No. 834 at 2, Plaintiffs have not shown they are 6 likely to prevail in their appeal. Docket No. 834 at 2. 7 Second, Class Counsel has not shown it will be irreparably injured. Class Counsel‟s 8 characterization of the corrective notice as containing an “abundant use of inflammatory language 9 [that] suggests misconduct far more egregious than conduct falling into a „grey area‟ of Counsel‟s solicitation e-mail was “misleading,” which correctly describes the Court‟s ruling. See 12 For the Northern District of California permissibility” is hyperbolic. Docket No. 836 at 7. The corrective notice simply states that Class 11 United States District Court 10 Docket No. 825 at 10-11. 13 Third, any conceivable harm to Counsel is outweighed by the harm to Class Members. 14 The Court found the Class was misled; the misleading information must be corrected promptly in 15 order to prevent any further reliance on such information. 16 Fourth, Class Counsel has not shown that the public interest weighs in favor of a stay. The 17 Court‟s order does not impose any prior restraint on any party‟s speech. It simply corrects 18 misleading speech. 19 Accordingly, a stay is not warranted. Nor is an extension. The Court‟s order was entered 20 on September 6. Counsel has had over a week to request a stay. The Court already granted a one- 21 week extension for that purpose. Counsel still has six days to do so at the Ninth Circuit if it so 22 chooses. 23 This order disposes of Docket No. 836. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 27 28 Dated: September 14, 2017 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 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?