United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING UBER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge
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.
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.
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.
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”).
Whether Metter Would Have Seen the Terms ...