Legal Opinion
Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided May 11, 2017No. C 17-00939 WHAPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
William Alsup, United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
INTRODUCTION
Defendants seek to steer this case into arbitration even though they have no agreement with anyone to arbitrate the case. Instead, they rely on a non-party’s employment agreements with plaintiff, which contained an arbitration clause, and attempt to invoke “equitable estoppel.” This order holds that defendants have not shown the elements necessary to justify application of equitable estoppel.
STATEMENT
In 2009 and 2012, while working at Way-mo LLC, Anthony Levandowski signed two “At-Will Employment,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Arthur Andersen LLP v. CarlisleSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Jessica Kramer v. Toyota Motor CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- Goldman v. KPMG, LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- John Murphy v. Directv, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
- HUONG QUE, INC. v. LuuCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Open Text Corp. v. GrimesDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2017
- Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- Frontier Credit Union v. SerrDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 2024
- Mattson Technology v. Applied MaterialsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
- Mattson Technology, Inc. v. Applied Materials, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2023
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.