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.

Johnston v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California

November 15, 2019

TODD JOHNSTON, Plaintiff,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DOCKET NO. 121

          EDWARD M. CHEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On September 16, 2019, this Court granted Defendant's Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration. See Docket No. 120 (“Order”). On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. See Docket No. 121 (“Mot.”).

         I. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party must seek leave of the court to file a motion for reconsideration. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). To prevail, a party “must specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion” and establish one of the following:

(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. L.R. 7-9(b). Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). “Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought.” Gray v. Golden Gate Nat. Recreational Area, 866 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1132 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (citing United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998)).

         B. Analysis

         Plaintiff first notes:

The Court's Order states that “both parties agreed” that it would be inappropriate for the Court to decide the employee issue. To be clear, Plaintiff does not agree that it would be inappropriate for the Court to decide the employee issue, and accordingly seeks reconsideration on this point.

Mot. at 2 (citation omitted). Upon review, the record is less clear and the Court may have overstated Plaintiff's position. Plaintiff argued that the question of arbitrability should turn on legal analysis of the WARN Act, and not on the determination of a putative employee's classification, and thus Plaintiff did not seek resolution of classification status as a threshold question. In any event, the Court does not find sufficient cause to grant Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.

         The Court thoroughly considered the legal arguments Plaintiff presented the Court before it issued its Order.[1] The Court identified two provisions from the Arbitration Agreement in support of its determination that the case should proceed to arbitration as ordered. First, “[t]he Arbitration Provision clearly and unmistakably provides that . . . the arbitrator must decide all disputes . . . including the enforceability, revocability of the Arbitration Provision.” Order at 8-9. Since the arbitrability of the WARN Act claim turns upon whether Plaintiff is an employee, Plaintiff's status informs arbitrability, and therefore must be decided by the arbitrator. Id. Second, the Delegation Clause specifies that the issues “arising out of or relating to” the enforceability of the Arbitration Agreement are to be decided by the arbitrator. Id. (citing O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 904 F.3d 1087, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding that the Delegation Clause is not ...


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.