Michael Gonzales v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 53

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 52 Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL GONZALES, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No.17-cv-02264-JSC v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING UBER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Re: Dkt. No. 52 12 13 Plaintiff Michael Gonzales brings this action on his own behalf and as a putative class 14 action for Lyft drivers whose electronic communications and whereabouts were allegedly 15 intercepted, accessed, monitored, and/or transmitted by Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber 16 USA LLC, and Raiser-CA (together, “Uber”). Now pending before the Court is Uber’s motion for 17 leave to seek partial reconsideration of the Court’s Order dismissing the majority of Plaintiff’s 18 claims with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 52.) Uber specifically seeks reconsideration of the Court’s 19 decision to deny Uber’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s UCL claim. (Id.) For the reasons discussed 20 below, Uber’s motion is GRANTED. 21 DISCUSSION 22 A party seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration must show either: (1) “at the time 23 of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to 24 the Court”; (2) “[t]he emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time 25 of such order;” or (3) a “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive 26 legal arguments” previously presented to the court. N.D. Cal. Civ. L . R. 7-9(b). “No motion for 27 leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the 28 applying party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party ... seeks to 1 2 have reconsidered.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). While the Court’s Order did discuss whether Plaintiff has standing to seek equitable relief 3 it did not squarely address Uber’s argument that Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief because 4 Plaintiff stopped driving for Uber in 2014 nor that the decreased effectiveness of the Lyft app was 5 a lost opportunity to earn revenue, not a loss of revenue already earned. 6 7 8 Accordingly, Uber’s motion for leave is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s opposition to Uber’s motion for reconsideration is due May 16, 2018. Uber’s reply must be filed by May 23, 2018. This Order disposes of Docket No. 52. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 2, 2018 12 13 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?