James v. Uber Technologies Inc.

Background

The underlying class action concerned 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. S. Patrick Mendel, a former Uber driver and settlement class member, objected to the proposed settlement and indicated that he might appeal the court’s rejection of his objections.

The plaintiffs asked the court to require Mendel to post an appeal bond under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7. An appeal bond is security intended to ensure payment of recoverable appellate costs if an appeal is unsuccessful. The plaintiffs initially sought between $5,000 and $10,000, citing estimated transcript, record-preparation, and attorneys’ fees.

Analysis

The court considered three factors: Mendel’s financial ability to post a bond, the risk that he would not pay costs if the appeal failed, and the likelihood that he would lose the appeal.

For the financial-ability factor, Mendel said he was broke, had no funds or assets, was approaching 65, and could not obtain viable employment. He also pointed to an earlier order granting him permission to proceed without paying court fees. The court found that he had not provided a declaration or other current evidence of his finances. It concluded that this factor weighed only slightly against requiring a bond.

The nonpayment factor was neutral. Although the court agreed that Mendel had filed procedurally improper motions and had continued pressing arguments previously rejected by the Ninth Circuit, it did not find that this conduct necessarily showed he would refuse to pay appeal costs. The court also noted that Mendel had a mailing address in California.

The merits factor weighed decisively in favor of a bond. The court had already found Mendel’s objections concerning the requirement to defer to related state-court proceedings to be without merit. It also noted that the Ninth Circuit had affirmed dismissal of claims concerning Uber’s alleged violations of federal motor-carrier and antitrust laws as barred because they arose from the same factual basis as claims previously adjudicated.

For the bond amount, the court explained that Rule 7 permits only recoverable appeal costs, including the types of costs listed in Rule 39(e). The plaintiffs did not provide evidence supporting their estimate or authority allowing attorneys’ fees to be included in the bond under these circumstances. The court therefore concluded that $1,000 was sufficient to secure the allowable appeal costs.

Disposition

Judge Edward M. Chen granted in part the plaintiffs’ request for an appeal bond and ordered S. Patrick Mendel to post a $1,000 bond if he wished to pursue his objections on appeal. This order addressed the appeal-bond request, not the underlying driver claims.