Cases

ORDER The opinion filed on September 7, 2016, is hereby amended as follows: 1. On page 18 of the slip opinion, in footnote 6, the last sentence (and related citations) should be deleted. We note that Plaintiffs also raised the argument that the class and collective action waivers in the arbitration agreements may violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) for the first time in a sur

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED, No. 15-16178 individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellee, 3:14-cv-05200-EMC v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RASIER, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, and HIREASE, LLC, Defendant. RONALD GILLETTE, No. 15-16

*1189ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; DENYING DEFENDANT HIREASE’S JOINDER IN MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Ronald Gillette began driving for Uber in the San Francisco Bay Area in March 2013. Gillette Docket No. 7 at ¶

OPINION CLIFTON, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-Appellees Abdul Mohamed and Ronald Gillette, former Uber drivers, filed an action in district court alleging on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of other drivers that Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Hirease, LLC, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and various state statute

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED, No. 15-16178 individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellee, 3:14-cv-05200-EMC v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RASIER, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, and HIREASE, LLC, Defendant. RONALD GILLETTE, No. 15-16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER John Z. Lee, United States District Judge Plaintiff Abdul Mohammed (“Mohammed”), formerly a driver for Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), filed a twenty-one count pro se complaint [1] against Uber, Uber’s wholly owned subsidiary Raster, LLC (“Raster”), as well as individuals Travis Kalanick, Garrett Camp, and Ryan Graves (collectively, “Defendants”). The various counts allege v

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JONATHAN CAMILLE MANDENG, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 24-3488 (JDB) UBER COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Jonathan Camille Mandeng, a former driver for the rideshare company Uber, sued Uber in D.C. Superior Court. After removing the action to this Cou

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION On June 9, 2015, this Court denied a motion to compel arbitration filed by Defendants Uber Technologies and Rasier LLC (collectively, Uber). See Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc., 109 F.Supp.3d 1185, 2015 WL 3749716 (N.D.Cal.2015).

J-A03009-22 2022 PA Super 172 SHANNON CHILUTTI AND KEITH IN THE SUPERIOR COURT CHILUTTI, H/W OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., GEGEN, LLC, RAISER-PA, LLC, RAISER, LLC, SARAH’S CAR CARE, INC. AND MOHAMMED BASHIER Appellees No. 1023 EDA 2021 Appeal from the Order Entered

J-A03009-22 2022 PA Super 172 SHANNON CHILUTTI AND KEITH : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CHILUTTI, H/W : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellants : : : v. :

J-E01003-23 2023 PA Super 126 SHANNON CHILUTTI AND KEITH IN THE SUPERIOR COURT CHILUTTI, H/W OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., GEGEN, LLC, RAISER-PA, LLC, RAISER, LLC, SARAH’S CAR CARE, INC. AND MOHAMMED BASHIER Appellees No. 1023 EDA 2021 Appeal from the Order Entere

J-E01003-23 2023 PA Super 126 SHANNON CHILUTTI AND KEITH : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CHILUTTI, H/W : PENNSYLVANIA : Appellants : : : v. :

Filed 6/8/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE RYAN SMYTHE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A149891 v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CGC1

Filed 1/29/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE LEONID GONCHAROV et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A149347 v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., (San Francisco City & County Supe

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.

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 21-3234 ______________ JASWINDER SINGH, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, Appellant v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ______________ No. 21-3

MEMORANDUM OPINION Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge I. Introduction Before the Court is defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed December 7, 2015 [ECF No. 8], plaintiffs’ Opposition, filed January 4, 2016 [ECF No. 9], defendants’ Reply, filed January 19, 2016 [ECF No. 15], plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply, filed February 1, 2016 [ECF No. 17], and other supplemental authorities and resp

ORDER CARLOS E. MENDOZA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Strike Class Action Allegations (“Motion to Compel,” Doc. 23). United States Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spauld-ing submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” Doc. 61), in which she recommends that the Motion be granted. Plainti

MEMORANDUM & ORDER PAMELA K. CHEN, United States' District Judge: Plaintiffs are car service drivers (“drivers”) who have brought this lawsuit, as a putative class action, alleging breach of contract by Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant” pr “Uber”), Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. For the reasons stated herein, the Defendant’s motion is GRANTED, and this action is

MEMORANDUM & ORDER NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge. Plaintiffs in these two related putative class actions assert claims under New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) and other New York statutory and common law against Uber Technologies, Inc. and a number of related or affiliated entities (collectively, “Uber”). In the first action (the “Mumin Action”), Plaintiffs Manzoor Mu-min and Victor Mallh (