James

James v. Uber Technologies Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 8, 20223:19-cv-06462California486 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

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

Plaintiffs,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v. Docket No. 227 UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., Defendant.

12 13 On July 5, 2022, S. Patrick Mendel, a settlement class member who is proceeding pro se, moved to dismiss the case on the basis of the Younger abstention doctrine. Docket No. 216. The Court exercised its discretion to construe Mr. Mendel’s motion to dismiss as objections to the class settlement and considered the merits of his arguments. Docket No. 221. On July 21, 2022, during the hearing on the motion for final approval of the class settlement, the Court explained that it was overruling Mr. Mendel’s objections because, for the reasons stated on the record, Younger abstention does not apply. Docket No. 227. The Court indicated during the hearing that it would require Mr. Mendel to show cause why he should not be required to post a bond as a condition of appealing the Order and Final Judgment. Id. …

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.