Cases

ORDER VANESSA D. GILMORE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pending before the Court are Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”)’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (Instrument No. 112) and Uber’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Instrument No. 129). I. FACTUAL SUMMARY & PROCEDURAL POSTURE A. Statement of the Case

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL R. RATTAGAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. S272113 Ninth Circuit 20-16796 Northern District of California 3:19-CV-01988-EMC August 22, 2024 Justice

Filed 6/24/24 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO JANE DOE WHBE 3, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A167458, A167709 v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et (San Francisco City & County al., Super. Ct. No. CJC21005188)

J-E01003-23 2023 PA Super 126 SHANNON CHILUTTI AND KEITH IN THE SUPERIOR COURT CHILUTTI, H/W OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., GEGEN, LLC, RAISER-PA, LLC, RAISER, LLC, SARAH’S CAR CARE, INC. AND MOHAMMED BASHIER Appellees No. 1023 EDA 2021 Appeal from the Order Entere

Filed 10/22/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A160701, A160706 v. (City & County of San Francisco UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Super. Ct. No. CGC-20-584402) Defendants and Appella

Filed 11/20/20 (unmodified opinion attached) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR THE PEOPLE, A160701, A160706 Plaintiff and Respondent, (City & County of San Francisco v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW CLAIM William Alsup, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION In this action asserting claims for trade secret misappropriation, patent infringement, and unfair competition, defendants *1061move to dismiss the latter as superseded by California’s Uniform Trade Secrets

MEMORANDUM & ORDER PAMELA K. CHEN, United States' District Judge: Plaintiffs are car service drivers (“drivers”) who have brought this lawsuit, as a putative class action, alleging breach of contract by Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant” pr “Uber”), Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. For the reasons stated herein, the Defendant’s motion is GRANTED, and this action is

MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge For generations, parents have admonished their children not to get into cars with strangers. See, e.g., Forrest Gump (Paramount Pictures 1994) (“Mama said not to be taking rides from strangers.”). But in today’s “sharing economy,” that warning is an anachron

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; No. 23-3445 RASIER, LLC; RASIER-CA, LLC, MDL. No. 3084 Petitioners, United States v. Judicial Panel on

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Docket No. 99 EDWARD M. CHEN, United States. District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Caren Ehret filed the instant putative class action against Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., alleging that Defendant violated the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumers Legal Reme

MEMORANDUM & ORDER PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge: Plaintiffs are car service drivers (“drivers”) who have brought this lawsuit, as a putative class action, alleging breach of contract by Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Uber”). Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. For the reasons stated herein, the Defendant’s motion is GRANTED, and this action

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; No. 25-228 PORTIER, LLC, D.C. No. 2:24-cv-02103- Plaintiffs - Appellants, MJP and OPINION MAPLEBEAR INC., doing business as Instacart, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. CIT

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 18-1944 ______________ ALI RAZAK; KENAN SABANI; KHALDOUN CHERDOUD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; GEGEN, LLC ______________ On Appeal from the United States Dis

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 19-3891 ____________ PAUL O’HANLON, an individual; JONATHAN ROBISON, an individual; GAYLE LEWANDOWSKI, an individual; IRMA ALLEN, an individual; PITTSBURGHERS FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT, a project of Thomas Merton Center, Inc., a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation, on behalf of thems

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § No. 08-24-00099-CV GUILLERMO ACOSTA and JOSE MOLINA, § Appeal from the Appellants, §

Filed 9/28/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A166355 In re UBER TECHNOLOGIES WAGE AND HOUR CASES. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CJC-21-005179; J.C.C.P.

138 Nev., Advance Opinion IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A No. 82556 CORPORATION; RASIER, LLC, A CORPORATION; AND RASIER-CA, LLC, Appellants, FilLED vs. MEGAN ROYZ, AN INDIVID

SUPERIOR COURT MAURA HEALEY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND LYFT, INC. Docket: 2084CV01519-BLS1 Dates: March 25, 2021

Filed 5/17/19; certified for publication 6/11/19 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent, A153205 v. (San Francisco County UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL,