Namisnak

Namisnak v. Uber Techs., Inc.

Good Law
315 F. Supp. 3d 1124
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 13, 2018Case No. 17–cv–06124–RSCalifornia2,407 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Seeborg, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants Uber Technologies Inc. and Raiser, LLC (collectively "Uber") move to *1126 compel arbitration of all claims asserted by plaintiffs Stephan Namisnak, Francis Falls, and Mitchell Miraglia. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument, and the hearing set for April 19, 2018, is vacated. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted as to claims asserted by Miraglia and denied as to claims asserted by Namisnak and Falls.

II. BACKGROUND

Namisnak, Falls, and Miraglia are persons with disabilities who live in New Orleans, Louisiana. As a result of their physical limitations, they are dependent on electric wheelchairs for mobility. One service they cannot utilize is Uber's ride-sharing service, which allows mobile phone app users to call a car to get from one place to another. Because the Uber App in New Orleans does not provide an option for riders to call a wheelchair-accessible vehicle, plaintiffs are unable to use the service. Accordingly, plaintiffs allege, Uber has violated its obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the California Disabled Persons Act ("CDPA"), and the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.