Legal Opinion
O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided March 11, 2015No. C-13-3826 EMCPublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Docket No. 211)
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals who drive for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. See Docket No. 201-2 (Second Amended Class Action Complaint) (SAC). Plaintiffs claim that they are employees of Uber, as opposed to its independent contractors, and thus are eligible for various statutory protections for employees codified in the California Labor Code, such as a requirement that an employer pass on…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Pullman-Standard v. SwintSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States v. GaudinSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Miller v. FentonSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Fraser v. GoodaleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Hughes v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Bekele v. Lyft, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2016
- Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
- Harjo v. City of AlbuquerqueDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2018
- Bowerman v. Field Asset Services, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2017
- Malden Transp., Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2017
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.