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

Filing 955

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying Without Prejudice 950 Plaintiff's Amended Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2019)

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

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
SHOULD BE RELATED
Docket No. 950

12
13

The Court previously denied without Plaintiff’s administrative motion to consider whether

14

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

15

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

16

Aug. 16, 2013), before this Court. Docket No. 949. The Court explained that Plaintiff had not yet

17

served the Defendants in Mendel with summons and copies of the complaint in accordance with

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c). Nor had Plaintiff served Defendants with copies of the

19

motion to relate in accordance with Local Rule 3-12(b) to allow them an opportunity to respond.
Plaintiff has now filed an amended motion to relate Mendel to O’Connor. Docket No. 950.

20
21

However, it still appears that Plaintiff has not served all Mendel Defendants with the instant

22

motion. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-12(b) (“[A] copy of the motion [to relate], together with proof

23

of service pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-5, must be served on all known parties to each apparently

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

1

related action.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amended motion to relate is DENIED without

2

prejudice. Plaintiff may refile the motion and serve the Mendel Defendants in compliance with

3

Local Rule 3-12(b).

4

This order disposes of Docket No. 950.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: July 29, 2019

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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