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

Filing 949

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying Without Prejudice 946 Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC

v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
SHOULD BE RELATED
Docket No. 946

13
14

Plaintiff S. Patrick Mendel filed an administrative motion to consider whether Mendel v.

15

Chao, No. 19-cv-3244 (N.D. Cal. filed June 7, 2019), currently assigned to Judge White, should

16

be related to O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 13-cv-3826 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 16,

17

2013), before this Court. Docket No. 946. However, Plaintiff has not yet served the Defendants

18

in Mendel with summons and copies of the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil

19

Procedure 4(c). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (“A summons must be served with a copy of the

20

complaint. The plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the

21

time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes

22

service.”). Nor has Plaintiff served Defendants in Mendel with copies of the instant motion in

23

accordance with Local Rule 3-12(b) to allow them an opportunity to respond. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R.

24

3-12(b) (“[A] copy of the motion [to relate], together with proof of service pursuant to Civil L.R.

25

5-5, must be served on all known parties to each apparently related action.”).

26

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to relate is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may

27

refile the motion once the Mendel Defendants have been served in compliance with Rule 4(c) and

28

Local Rule 3-12(b). If he does so, Plaintiff should ensure that the motion does not exceed 5 pages.

1

See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-11(a) (“A motion for an order concerning a miscellaneous

2

administrative matter may not exceed 5 pages (not counting declarations and exhibits) . . . .”).

3

This order disposes of Docket No. 946.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: June 21, 2019

8
9
10

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2