Mohamed
Mohamed v. Uber Technologies
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Chen, J.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL
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). 1 Uber’s co-defendant in'this action, Hirease, filed a joinder in Uber’s motion to compel arbitration which was also denied'. See id. at 1236-37 , 2015 WL 3749716 at *36 . Both Uber and Hirease have appealed this Court’s orders to the Ninth Circuit. See Ninth Circuit Case No. 1516178. Currently pending before the Court is Uber’s motion to stay these proceedings, pending appeal. 2 Docket No. 76 (Motion). For the reasons explained below and further for the reasons articulated on the record at the hearing for this matter, Uber’s motion for a stay is granted in part and denied in part. While reasonable discovery will not be stayed in this case, adjudication of all *1027 non-discovery issues (i.e., dispositive mo-, tions) is hereby stayed pending the final resolution of Uber’s appeal of this Court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration.