Uber Case

O’Connor v Uber Technologies

US District Court for the Northern District of California, 2015

Pg 166

FACTS:

* Plaintiffs Douglas O’Connor and Thomas Colopy drive principally for Uber’s “UberBlack” service, and say they are owed fees from Uber for unpaid tips and expenses incurred

* Plaintiffs bring numerous causes of action, including tortious interference with contractual and/or advantageous relationship, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and violations of various California statutes.

* Plaintiffs allege Uber's conduct harms drivers in two ways. First, Uber wrongfully deprives drivers of the full amount of the gratuity that Uber advertises as being included in the cost of its car service.

* Second, Uber's advertising creates the misconception that patrons do not need to leave additional gratuity because it is already included in the cost of the service, which, in turn, causes Uber drivers to lose gratuities they would have otherwise received.

* Plaintiffs filed an "Emergency Motion for Protective Order to Strike Arbitration Clauses." 

ISSUE: Does Uber owe the Plaintiffs tips and reimbursement for expenses, and have they breached their contract with them? Is Uber’s most recent contract, where employees must accept new terms such as an arbitration clause, legal?

DECISION:

* Court declines to grant request for declaratory relief (compensation for expenses and unpaid tips)

* Uber is denied summary judgement as it fails to prove that it does not have employees

REASONING:

* Plaintiffs fail to cite any statute, case, rule, or any other authority that permits this court to grant the relief requested

* None of the cases Plaintiffs cite in their Motion stands for the proposition that a court may determine the validity of such a provision before service of the summons and complaint on the defendant. 

* Plaintiffs do not cite any authority permitting the filing of this Motion on an emergency basis; nor have they...