Legal Opinion
Broadnax v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
District Court, D. Nevada
Decided July 1, 2025No. 2:25-cv-00113Unknown
1Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Rafford Broadnax, Case No. 2:25-cv-00113-JAD-MDC 5 Plaintiff v. Order Denying Motions 6 Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., ECF Nos. 52, 53, 59, 61 7 Defendants 8 9 Last month, I granted Uber Technologies, Inc.’s motion to compel the arbitration 10 of former Uber driver Rafford Broadnax’s claims for employee misclassification, unjust 11 enrichment, breach of contract, negligence, estoppel, employment discrimination, 12 retaliation, and misrepresentation.1 Broadnax moves for reconsideration of that order and 13 seeks to disqualify me and the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Liteky v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- United States v. HollandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- United States v. Ruth StudleyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Ernest S. Little v. City of Seattle John Doe Jane Doe, and David PaulCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- In the Matter of Beverly Hills Bancorp, a California Corporation, Debtor. Commercial Paper Holders v. R.W. Hine, as Trustee of Beverly Hills BancorpCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.