James v. Uber Technologies Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-06462
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In James v. Uber Technologies, Judge Chen ordered pro se settlement member S. Patrick Mendel to explain why an appeal bond should not be required.
S. Patrick Mendel, a settlement class member proceeding without a lawyer, was required to address whether he should post a bond to appeal. The plaintiffs were given an opportunity to respond.
What happened
In James v. Uber Technologies Inc., settlement class member S. Patrick Mendel, who is representing himself, objected to the class settlement based on a legal doctrine called Younger abstention. The court treated his motion to dismiss as settlement objections and overruled them, finding that the doctrine did not apply.
The court then ordered Mendel to explain why he should not have to post a bond as a condition of appealing the order and final judgment. His response must address his ability to pay, the risk that he would not pay costs if the appeal loses, and the likelihood that he will lose. The court had not received his earlier response and gave him another opportunity; it did not impose a bond in this order.
Judge Edward M. Chen set August 22, 2022, as Mendel’s response deadline and gave the plaintiffs 14 days after his submission to respond. The order also directed the clerk to mail Mendel a copy and stated that no further briefing would be allowed without the court’s permission.
The detailed version
- James v. Uber Technologies Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-06462
- Edward Chen
- Aug. 8, 2022
Background
S. Patrick Mendel, a settlement class member proceeding without a lawyer, moved to dismiss the case based on the Younger abstention doctrine. The court exercised its discretion to treat that motion as objections to the class settlement and considered his arguments. At the hearing on final approval of the settlement, the court stated that it was overruling Mendel’s objections because Younger abstention did not apply.
Order to Show Cause
The court had indicated that Mendel would be required to explain why he should not have to post an appeal bond if he pursued his objections on appeal. An appeal bond is money or security that may be required to cover costs if an appeal is unsuccessful. Because the court had not received Mendel’s earlier response, it gave him another opportunity to respond.
The court ordered Mendel to address three subjects: his financial ability to post a bond, the risk that he would not pay costs if the appeal loses, and his assessment of the likelihood that he will lose the appeal and become responsible for costs. The court did not impose an appeal bond in this order. It set August 22, 2022, as the response deadline and gave the plaintiffs 14 days from Mendel’s submission to respond. No additional briefing was permitted without express permission from the court. The clerk was directed to mail Mendel a copy of the order.
Disposition
The court issued an order to show cause concerning a possible appeal bond. Judge Edward M. Chen did not state in this order that a bond was imposed or finally decide whether one would be required.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.