James v. Uber Technologies Inc.

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRISTOPHER JAMES, et al., Case No. 19-cv-06462-EMC 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MENDEL’S 9 v. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OR RECUSE 10 UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., Docket No. 235 11 Defendant. 12 13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Mr. Mendel moves to disqualify or recuse the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) for “judicial 16 prejudicial bias.” Docket No. 235. For the reasons provided below, Mr. Mendel’s motion is 17 procedurally improper and substantively meritless. The motion is DENIED. 18 II. BACKGROUND 19 The underlying class action arose…