Taylor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR, Case No. 24-cv-02164-AGT

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON (I) MOTION TO COMPEL

v. ARBITRATION AND (II) MOTION

FOR MORE DISCOVERY

UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 12, 41 Defendants.

Uber Technologies Inc. and Rasier LLC (collectively, “Uber”) seek to compel Adam Taylor to arbitrate his claims against them. Uber’s “motion to compel arbitration is a non- dispositive motion,” which the undersigned may resolve. Patton v. Johnson, 915 F.3d 827, 832 (1st Cir. 2019). Last year, the Court did resolve the motion, granting it. Dkt. 25. But on reconsideration, the Court vacated its order and permitted targeted discovery “related to whether Taylor consented to the arbitration agreement.” Dkt. 33 at 1. Now with discovery complete, see also Part VI, infra (denying Taylor’s request for more discovery), the Court considers the motion to compel anew, and grants it again. I. Taylor says he never agreed to arbitrate his claims against Uber. When a party “chal- lenge[s] the very existence of an agreement to arbitrate, the district court [is] required to address [that]…