O'Connor et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
Filing
849
ORDER Regarding 846 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion and 848 Uber's Request for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on September 22, 2017. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
11
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS'
EMERGENCY MOTION AND UBER'S
REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND COSTS
Docket No. 840, 846, 847, 848
Plaintiffs have withdrawn their Emergency Motion for Authorization to Communicate with
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC
13
Class Members. See Docket Nos. 840, 846. It is therefore moot. In its opposition to the motion,
14
Uber separately requests that the Court “amend its sanctions order to grant monetary sanctions in
15
an amount sufficient to compensate Uber for the fees it has incurred defending against these
16
numerous filings.” Docket No. 847 at 3. Uber’s request for sanctions appears to be based on
17
conduct following the Court’s sanction’s order, namely, Plaintiffs’ emergency motions for relief
18
from that order. See Docket Nos. 830, 836, 840. Subsequent conduct is not a basis for the Court
19
to amend its earlier sanctions order. To the extent Uber seeks sanctions for that later conduct, it
20
must file a separate, properly-noticed motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated:
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
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?