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Plaintiffs have withdrawn their Emergency Motion for Authorization to Communicate with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