James v. Uber Technologies Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-06462
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
James v. Uber: Judge Chen denied Mendel’s motion to disqualify or recuse, finding it procedurally improper and lacking grounds to question impartiality.
Mr. Mendel’s request to remove the judge was denied; the order did not decide the underlying drivers’ misclassification or settlement claims.
What happened
In James v. Uber Technologies Inc., Christopher James and other plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that certain Uber and Uber Eats drivers were misclassified as independent contractors under California law. Mr. Mendel, a former Uber driver and class member, objected to the settlement but never asked to formally join the case.
Mr. Mendel asked the court to remove the judge, arguing that the court and its staff had treated him unfairly. He pointed to the denial of his request for an emergency order, problems with his filing appearing on the court docket, the lack of personal service of some filings, and the court’s decision not to hear his oral argument. The court said he could not seek this relief without first following the procedure for joining the case and that his complaints did not show reasonable grounds to question the judge’s fairness.
The court denied the motion to disqualify or recuse. Judge Chen ruled that the motion was procedurally improper because Mr. Mendel had not intervened and substantively meritless because neither prior unfavorable rulings nor the other cited events established judicial bias.
The detailed version
- James v. Uber Technologies Inc. · No. 3:19-cv-06462
- Edward Chen
- Sept. 1, 2022
Background
The underlying case was a class action involving allegations that certain Uber and Uber Eats drivers were misclassified as independent contractors under California law. The plaintiffs asserted wage and sick-leave claims under the California Labor Code. Mr. Mendel, a former Uber driver, was a member of the class.
The court had preliminarily approved a settlement. Mr. Mendel sought emergency relief, moved to dismiss the case based on the Younger doctrine, and objected to the proposed settlement. The court treated his motion to dismiss as an objection to the settlement and addressed his objections at the fairness hearing. The court later granted final approval of the settlement.
Mr. Mendel then filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) to disqualify or recuse the judge based on alleged prejudicial conduct by the court and its staff. Recusal means removal of a judge from a case because the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Court’s analysis
The court first held that the motion was procedurally improper. Mr. Mendel had not filed a motion to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, even though the court had previously explained that intervention was required. His status as a class member did not eliminate that requirement. The court concluded that, because he had not intervened, he lacked standing to seek disqualification and that the motion could be denied on that ground alone.
The court also addressed the substance of the motion. It held that Mr. Mendel had not identified facts, occurring inside or outside the proceedings, that would cause a reasonable person to question the judge’s impartiality. The court said that a prior unfavorable ruling is not enough to require recusal. It also rejected Mr. Mendel’s complaints that his motion to dismiss did not appear on the court’s electronic docket and that he was not personally served with certain filings, explaining that he was not a party and had not moved to intervene. Finally, the court stated that oral argument was discretionary and that it had read and considered the substance of his objections.
Disposition
The court denied Mr. Mendel’s motion to disqualify or recuse and stated that the motion was both procedurally improper and substantively meritless. The order disposed of Docket No. 235. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order on September 1, 2022.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.