Legal Opinion
Congdon v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided December 8, 2016No. Case No. 16-cv-02499-YGRPublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Compel and Stay; Denying as Moot Motion to Certify Class
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, United States District Court Judge
Plaintiffs bring this putative class action complaint against defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries (collectively, “Uber”) for alleged breaches of contract related to the charging of certain fees. (Dkt. No. 49, the “FAC.”) Relevant to the instant motion, certain plaintiffs entered into arbitration agreements with Uber. Specifically, plaintiffs Bailey, Congdon, Martinez, Scheink-man, Torres, Webber,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Cmax, Inc. v. HallCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Kai Peng v. Uber Technologies, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2017
- De Angelis v. Icon Entm't Grp. Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2019
- Saizhang Guan v. Uber Technologies, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2017
- SteppeChange LLC v. Veon Ltd.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
- Mcgovern v. U.S. Bank N.A.District Court, S.D. California · 2019
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.