Legal Opinion

Lee v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided September 21, 2016No. 15 C 11756PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

REVISED ORDER

John J. Tharp, Jr., United States District Judge

The defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the action [9] is granted in part and denied in part. For the reasons stated below, the plaintiffs’ claims must be submitted to arbitration; pending arbitration, this matter is stayed. Plaintiffs *888are directed to notify the Court within 14 days of the issuance of any arbitration award or other action that terminates the arbitration proceedings or otherwise concludes this matter.

STATEMENT

The plaintiffs, Horace Lee and Imran Sandozi, bring this action on behalf of themselves…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  2. At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  5. Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.California Supreme Court · 2015

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Kai Peng v. Uber Technologies, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2017
  2. Mohammed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2017
  3. Saizhang Guan v. Uber Technologies, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2017
  4. Uber Techs., Inc. v. RoyzNevada Supreme Court · 2022
  5. Stiner v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2019

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API