James v. Uber Technologies Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-06462
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In James v. Uber Technologies Inc., Judge Chen denied non-party S. Patrick Mendel’s request to stop Uber’s ridesharing business and end or pause the case.
Non-party S. Patrick Mendel’s requested relief was denied; Uber was not subjected to the requested temporary restraining order.
What happened
In James v. Uber Technologies Inc., non-party S. Patrick Mendel asked the court to temporarily stop Uber from brokering passenger transportation and to pause or dismiss the case.
The court said there was not enough information to determine whether Mendel was legally entitled to intervene. It also said that, even if he was entitled to participate, he had not shown a serious basis for his claims, a likely chance of success, or likely irreparable harm without the requested order.
The court denied Mendel’s motion for a temporary restraining order. Judge Edward Chen stated that the order disposed of the motion listed as Docket No. 204.
The detailed version
- James v. Uber Technologies Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-06462
- Edward Chen
- May 31, 2022
Background
Non-party S. Patrick Mendel moved for a temporary restraining order, which is an emergency court order intended to prevent immediate harm. He asked the court to prohibit Uber Technologies Inc. from operating its business of brokering passenger transportation. He also asked the court to stay or dismiss the action.
Court’s Analysis
The court first found that the available information was insufficient to determine whether Mendel had standing to intervene. Standing is the legal requirement that a person show a sufficient connection to the dispute to seek relief from the court.
The court then addressed the motion on the assumption that Mendel did have standing. It concluded that he had not raised a serious question going to the merits of his claims or shown a likelihood of success. The court also held that Mendel’s assertion that he had the right to work in the lawful profession of his choice did not establish that he would suffer irreparable injury without the requested relief.
Disposition
The court DENIED Mendel’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The order states that it disposes of Docket No. 204. Judge Edward Chen did not order the relief Mendel requested in this opinion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.