Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 60

ORDER REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 5/12/15. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED, et al.

9

Plaintiff,

No. C-14-5241 EMC

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-14-5200 EMC

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

12

Defendants.
___________________________________/

ORDER REGARDING ORAL
ARGUMENT

13
14

RONALD GILLETTE, et al.

15

Plaintiff,

16

v.

17

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, et al.,

18

Defendants.
___________________________________/

19
20
21

The parties shall be prepared to discuss at oral argument on May 14, 2015, the California

22

Supreme Court’s opinion in Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal App. 443 (2007), and specifically the

23

Supreme Court’s discussion of procedural unconscionability at Section II.B (“The Opt-out Provision

24

and Procedural Unconscionability”). The parties shall also be prepared to address the discussions

25

regarding the enforceability of delegation clauses under the “clear and unmistakable” test as

26

discussed by:

27

///

28

///

1

(1) Parada v. Superior Court, 176 Cal. App. 4th 1554 (2009); (2) Baker v. Osborne Development

2

Corp., 159 Cal. App. 4th 884 (2008); and (3) Hartley v. Superior Court, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1249

3

(2011).

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
Dated: May 12, 2015
8
9

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

2