James v. Uber Techs. Inc.

James v. Uber Techs. Inc.

Opinion

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL BOND

Docket No. 233

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs ask the Court to impose an appeal bond should S. Patrick Mendel, a settlement class member who is proceeding pro se, wish to pursue his objections on appeal. See Docket No. 207 (Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement, or "Mot.") at 20 & 20 n.13; Docket No. 239 ("Plaintiffs' Response to Mendel's Response to Order to Show Cause, or "Pl. Resp."). The detailed factual and legal background of the case is set forth in the Court's January 26, 2021 Order. See Docket No. 143. This [*2]  background information is recounted below to the extent relevant to Mr. Mendel's objections and the present motion. For the reasons provided below, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs' request for an appeal bond and requires Mr. Mendel to post a $1,000 appeal bond.

II. BACKGROUND

The underlying class action arose out of allegations that certain Uber and Uber Eats drivers were misclassified as independent contractors under California law. Plaintiffs brought various wage and sick leave claims under the California Labor Code. See generally Docket No. 81 (Amended Complaint). Mr. Mendel, as a former driver for Uber, is a member of the class. Docket No. 221 (July 8, 2022 Order) at 2. At no point did Mr. Mendel seek to intervene in the case.

On April 5, 2022, after two and a half years of litigation, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Docket No. 195. The Court set the fairness hearing for July 14, 2022. Id.

On May 27, 2022, Mr. Mendel filed an emergency temporary restraining order and sought a stay "to prevent the imminent murder, rape and assault of Uber drivers and passengers and an unjust settlement of valid claims against Uber." Docket [*3]  No. 204 (Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, or "TRO Mot.") at 2. In his motion, Mr. Mendel argued that the Court should abstain from the case on the basis of Younger abstention doctrine "because the Attorney General of California is currently engaged in litigation in State Court over the very same labor and expense violations that are the subject of this dispute." Id. at 7. Mr. Mendel also devoted several pages to his argument that Uber operated in violation of the Federal Motor Carrier Act and related regulations. Id. at 10-25. As Mr. Mendel acknowledged in his briefing, this particular argument was not new: in a related case three years earlier, the Court rejected the same argument from Mr. Mendel because the alleged violations of federal and state law were "outside the scope" of the settlement agreement. Id. at 12 (quoting O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 13-cv-03826-EMC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157070, 2019 WL 4394401, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2019), aff'd, No. 19-17073, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 38083, 2019 WL 7602362 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2019)).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.