Legal Opinion
Mohamed v. Uber Technologies
District Court, N.D. California
Decided July 22, 2015No. C-14-5200 EMCPublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
On June 9, 2015, this Court denied a motion to compel arbitration filed by Defendants Uber Technologies and Rasier LLC (collectively, Uber). See Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc., 109 F.Supp.3d 1185, 2015 WL 3749716 (N.D.Cal.2015).1 Uber’s co-defendant in'this action, Hirease, filed a joinder in Uber’s motion to compel arbitration which was also denied'. See id. at 1236-37, 2015 WL 3749716 at *36. Both Uber and Hirease have appealed this Court’s orders to the Ninth Circuit.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Nken v. HolderSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- Leiva-Perez v. HolderCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Gentry v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Leibel v. City of BuckeyeDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2019
- Aliff v. Vervent, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2021
- Ashker v. NewsomDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2022
- Assurance Wireless USA, L.P. v. ReynoldsDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2023
- California Specialty Insulation, Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2021
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.