Mohamed
Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Clifton, J.
ORDER
The opinion filed on September 7, 2016, is hereby amended as follows:
1. On page 18 of the slip opinion, in footnote 6, the last sentence (and related citations) should be deleted.
With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc has been circulated to the full court, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.
*1206 The petition rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petition for rehearing may be filed.
OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellees Abdul Mohamed and Ronald Gillette, former Uber drivers, filed an action in district court alleging on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of other drivers that Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Hirease, LLC, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and various state statutes. Gillette has also brought a representative claim against Uber under California’s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) alleging that he was misclassified as an independent contractor rather than an employee. The district court denied Uber’s motion to compel arbitration of the claims. Mohamed v. Uber Technologies,…