Lee v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
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
- 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
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co.California Supreme Court · 2015
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Kai Peng v. Uber Technologies, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2017
- Mohammed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2017
- Saizhang Guan v. Uber Technologies, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2017
- Uber Techs., Inc. v. RoyzNevada Supreme Court · 2022
- Stiner v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2019
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.