O'CONNOR v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC.

DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

July 29, 2019.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

S. Patrick Mendel, Plaintiff, pro se.

Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant, represented by Jay Craig Russell , Office of the Attorney General.

Michael Picker, in his individual and official capacity as President, Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission, Carla J. Peterman, in her individual and Official Capacity as Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission, Liane M. Randolph, in her individual and official capacity as Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission, Clifford Rechtschffen, in his individual and official capacity as Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission, Martha Guzman Aceves, in her individual and official capacity as Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission, Maritza Perez, in her individual and official capacity as Section Supervisor Badge #11, Transportation License Section, California Public Utilities Commission & California Public Utilities Commission, Defendants, represented by Edward Moldavsky , California Public Utilities Commission.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser-CA, LLC, Uber USA, LLC, Travis Kalanick, Board Member, former CEO, Garrett Camp, Board Member and Founder, Ryan Graves, Board Member, former CEO & Portier, LLC, Defendants, represented by Brian C. Rocca , Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Jordan Mundell , Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP, Kent Michael Roger , Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Minna L. Naranjo , Morgan Lewis and Bockius & Sujal Shah , Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

Docket No. 950

The Court previously denied without Plaintiff's administrative motion to consider whether Mendel v. Chao, No. 19-cv-3244 (N.D. Cal. filed June 7, 2019), currently...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases