Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Metter v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California

May 10, 2017

JULIAN METTER, Plaintiff,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING UBER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

          RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) moves for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the order denying its motion to compel arbitration. Because it is flawed in numerous respects, Uber's motion is denied.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On April 17, 2017, the Court issued an order denying Uber's motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff Julian Metter's putative class claims. The Court found Metter's declaration that he never saw Uber's terms of service alert credible and consistent with the functioning of the Uber app because, during ordinary use of the app, a pop-up keypad would have obscured the terms of service alert before a user would have had notice of it. Accordingly, the Court held Metter raised a genuine issue of fact concerning his notice of, and assent to, Uber's terms of service (and included arbitration agreement), and that it was therefore improper to conclude as a matter of law that Metter had actual notice of Uber's terms of service, or that he was on inquiry notice of the terms of service and affirmatively assented to them. The Court therefore denied Uber's motion to compel arbitration. On May 5, 2017, Uber filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         A party seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration must show:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

Civ. Local R. 7-9(b). “No motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.” Civ. Local R. 7-9(c). “Any party who violates this restriction shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.” Id.

         IV. DISCUSSION

         Uber's proposed bases for reconsideration are: that the court erred in its findings regarding whether Metter would have seen Uber's terms of service alert, and that the court erred in not immediately ordering a trial on the issue of Metter's assent to Uber's terms of service as required by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).

         A. Whether Metter Would Have Seen the Terms ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.