Fridman v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filing 71

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING 63 MOTION TO STAY THE ACTION PENDING DECISION ON MOTION TO COMPEL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL FRIDMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY THE ACTION PENDING
DECISION ON MOTION TO COMPEL
Re: Dkt. No. 63

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-02815-HSG

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and

12
13

Portier, LLC’s motion to stay the action until the Court rules on Defendants’ motion to compel

14

arbitration. See Dkt. No. 63 (“Mot.”). Plaintiffs opposed, see Dkt. No. 64 (“Opp.”), and

15

Defendants replied, see Dkt. No. 65 (“Reply”). The motion to stay is GRANTED.1
Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action on September 14,

16
17

2018, see Dkt. No. 49, which was argued and submitted on December 20, see Dkt. No. 66.
“A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings.” Fuller v. Amerigas

18
19

Propane, Inc., No. 09-2616 TEH, 2009 WL 2390358, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009). The power

20

to stay is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes

21

on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Id.

22

(internal quotation omitted).
Here, a short stay until the Court rules on Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and

23
24

stay the action will promote economy of time and effort. See Stiener v. Apple Computer, Inc., No.

25

C 07-4486 SBA, 2007 WL 4219388, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2007); Mahamedi IP Law, LLP v.

26

Paradice & Li, LLP, No. 5:16-CV-02805-EJD, 2017 WL 2727874, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14,

27
28

1

The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is
deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).

1
2

2017) (“Courts routinely grant stays under similar circumstances.”).
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay the action pending a decision on the motion to

3

compel is GRANTED. All discovery shall be stayed until the Court issues a ruling on the motion

4

to compel arbitration.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/11/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2