Todd Johnston v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:16-cv-03134
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Todd Johnston v. Uber, Judge Chen denied Johnston leave to seek reconsideration of an order compelling individual arbitration.
Todd Johnston and Uber Technologies, Inc.; the ruling leaves in place the earlier order requiring Johnston to pursue individual arbitration.
What happened
Todd Johnston v. Uber Technologies, Inc. concerns Johnston’s request to reconsider an earlier order requiring him to pursue arbitration individually.
Johnston argued that the court had misunderstood his position about whether it should decide his employee status and that arbitration was improper because that status relates to his WARN Act claims. The court said these arguments had already been presented and considered.
Judge Chen denied Johnston’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, leaving the earlier order compelling individual arbitration in place.
The detailed version
- Todd Johnston v. Uber Technologies, Inc. · No. 3:16-cv-03134
- Edward Chen
- Nov. 15, 2019
Background
On September 16, 2019, the court granted Uber Technologies, Inc.’s motion to compel individual arbitration. Johnston then asked for permission under Civil Local Rule 7-9 to file a motion asking the court to reconsider that order.
Johnston argued that the earlier order incorrectly stated that both parties agreed the court should not decide whether he was an employee. He said that the question of arbitrability should instead be resolved through legal analysis of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, rather than by first deciding his employment classification. He also argued that his employment status was an element of his WARN Act claims and that requiring arbitration would change the case by allowing Uber to seek enforcement of the class-action waiver.
Court’s analysis
Civil Local Rule 7-9 requires a party seeking permission to request reconsideration to show reasonable diligence and one of specified grounds, such as a material difference in facts or law, new material facts or a change in law, or the court’s failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. The court explained that reconsideration is generally disfavored and cannot be used simply to repeat arguments already made or ask the court to rethink its prior decision.
The court acknowledged that the record was less clear than its earlier statement that both parties agreed the court should not decide the employee-status issue. But the court found no sufficient reason to reconsider its ruling. It said it had thoroughly considered Johnston’s earlier arguments and had relied on provisions in the arbitration agreement stating that the arbitrator would decide disputes concerning the agreement’s enforceability and that the arbitrability issue turned on Johnston’s employment status. The court also noted that Johnston’s arguments about the WARN Act, the Federal Arbitration Act, the class-action waiver, and the effect of arbitration had been presented before the earlier order.
Disposition
The court DENIED Johnston’s Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. The order states that this disposition resolves Docket No. 121. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order on November 15, 2019.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.