Aleksanian v. Uber Technologies Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-10308
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Aleksanian v. Uber Technologies Inc., Judge Carter denied discovery, granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, and dismissed the case.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs, including Levon Aleksanian and the other named plaintiffs, and the defendants, including Uber Technologies Inc. The plaintiffs’ discovery motion was denied, the defendants’ arbitration motion was granted, and the case was dismissed.
What happened
Aleksanian v. Uber Technologies Inc. involved plaintiffs, including Levon Aleksanian, and defendants including Uber Technologies Inc. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for discovery and granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. It dismissed the case and closed it.
Judge Andrew Carter issued the ruling referenced by the March 8, 2021 judgment. The judgment states that the reasons were provided in the court’s Order and Opinion dated that day.
The detailed version
- Aleksanian v. Uber Technologies Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10308
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 8, 2021
Background
The caption identifies Levon Aleksanian and other plaintiffs, including a class representative, as suing Uber Technologies Inc. and other defendants. The provided text is a judgment and does not describe the plaintiffs’ underlying claims or the parties’ arguments.
Motions and Rulings
The judgment states that, for the reasons in the court’s March 8, 2021 Order and Opinion:
- The plaintiffs’ motion for discovery was denied. - The defendants’ motion to compel arbitration was granted. - The case was dismissed.
The judgment also states that the case was closed. It cites a prior appellate decision for the conclusion that outright dismissal, rather than a stay, is appropriate when none of the parties requested a stay.
What the Opinion Does Not Establish
The provided judgment does not state the basis for compelling arbitration, explain the underlying claims, or provide a separate merits analysis. The classification therefore reflects a procedural disposition rather than a decision resolving the underlying legal claims.
Judge
Judge Andrew Carter is the judge identified for this matter.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.