James

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CHRISTOPHER JAMES, et al., Case No. 19-cv-06462-EMC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

v. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., Docket No. 144 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Uber Technologies Inc.’s (“Uber”) motion to clarify or, in the alternative, for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. See Docket No. 144 (“Mot.”). Uber asks to clarify the Court’s statement that “Proposition 22 does not apply retroactively.” See Docket No. 143 (“Class Cert. Order”) at 29. According to Uber, this is a merits question that should not have been decided in a class certification order. See Mot. Uber is correct that the retroactive application of Proposition 22 is ultimately a merits question that can dispose entirely of Plaintiffs’ claims, and thus should not be decided in the context of class certification. See Class Cert Order at 3 (“[T]he only question before the Court is whether the…