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)

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