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)
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?