Todd Johnston v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TODD JOHNSTON, Case No. 16-cv-03134-EMC
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
9 v. MOTION TO COMPEL INDIVIDUAL
ARBITRATION
10 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Docket No. 110 11 Defendant.
12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Todd Johnston (“Plaintiff”) filed a class action lawsuit against Defendant Uber 15 Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”). Mr. Johnston asserts one cause of action: a violation of the 16 WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2102 et seq. He contends that Uber Technologies violated the WARN 17 Act when it ceased operations in Austin, Texas without providing WARN Act notice to drivers at 18 least 60 days in advance. Uber argues that this matter is not properly before the Court because Mr. 19 Johnston agreed to bring this dispute in arbitration. 20 In April 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. On June 22, 2017, the 21 Court stayed this matter because of pending appeals at the Ninth Circuit regarding the validity of…