Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 156

ORDER re Revised Arbitration Provision and Corrective Cover Letter. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/19/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

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

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Case No. 14-cv-5200-EMC
Case No. 15-cv-0262-EMC

v.

11

13

Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC

IN RE UBER FCRA LITIGATION

ORDER RE REVISED ARBITRATION
PROVISION AND CORRECTIVE
COVER LETTER

14
15
16
17

HAKAN YUCESOY, et al.,

18
19
20
21

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

22
23

On January 13, 2016, the parties submitted a “Joint Statement Regarding a Further Revised

24

Arbitration Provision and Corrective Cover Letter.” O’Connor, Docket No. 462; In re Uber

25

FCRA Litigation, Docket No. 154; Yucesoy, Docket No. 180 (Joint Statement). The Court has

26

reviewed the revised arbitration provision and corrective cover letter, and resolves the issues

27

raised by the parties as follows.

28

First, Plaintiffs propose characterizing the O’Connor action as a nationwide class action.

1

The Court has previously found that the California laws upon which the O’Connor Plaintiffs rely

2

do not apply extra-territorially, and thus limited the case to drivers who worked in California. See

3

O’Connor, Docket No. 136 at 16-21. The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ proposal, as shown by the

4

attached Exhibit A.
Second, Uber reiterates its view that it may enforce the new arbitration agreement against

5
6

the O’Connor class as to certified claims. Joint Statement at 5 n.3. The Court again rejects this

7

contention, which is inconsistent with Uber’s prior position represented to the Court and the

8

public. See O’Connor, Docket No. 408, Exh. C; Docket No. 410 at 4; Docket No. 428 at 38:24-

9

39:7. The new arbitration agreement is unenforceable against the O’Connor class as to certified

10

claims. See O’Connor, Docket No. 454 at 4 n.1.
Third, Uber requests reconsideration of the Court’s finding that the corrective cover letter

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

must be distributed to prospective drivers. Joint Statement at 9. The Court denies this request; as

13

a practical matter, once an individual signs up as a driver, he or she becomes a putative class

14

member, i.e., in the nation-wide In re Uber FCRA Litigation case (as well as the other class

15

actions that have been filed throughout the country).
Fourth, a redlined version of the corrective cover letter is attached as Exhibit B. With

16
17

respect to the opt-out function, despite the Court expressing its concerns about the adequacy of

18

Uber’s prior suggestion, Uber again proposes to have a link to the arbitration agreement’s opt-out

19

provision. See O’Connor, Docket No. 454 at 6; Joint Statement at 7. The Court finds this

20

proposal inadequate, and will require a pre-addressed e-mail accessible via hyperlink. The content

21

of this e-mail (which the parties were also unable to agree on) will be: “My name is

22

out of the Arbitration Provision in the driver-partner agreement.”

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

. I opt

1

Finally, the Court finds that when sent to the drivers, the subject heading of the corrective

2

cover letter will be: “Notice re Updated Driver-Partner Agreement and Opt-Out from Arbitration

3

Agreement.”

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8
9

Dated: January 19, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

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

3