Feifei Gu v. Uber Tech. Inc.

2025 NY Slip Op 31733(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: May 13, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 100269/2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Feifei Gu v Uber Tech. Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 31733(U) May 13, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 100269/2023 Judge: Debra A. James Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 100269/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. DEBRA A. JAMES PART 59 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 100269/2023 FEIFEI GU, MOTION DATE 04/24/2025 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 -v- UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., ORDER - AMENDED (MOTION RELATED) Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 62, 63, 64, 65 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - DEFAULT .

Upon the foregoing documents, it is

ORDERED that the Order of May 13, 2025 (NYSCEF Doc No 65),

resolving motion sequence number 004 in this action, is VACATED,

RESETTLED, AND CORRECTED, nunc pro tunc, pursuant to CPLR § 5019(a)

[see Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879 (1995)] as follows:

ORDER

ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 756

and CPLR § 3126(3), of plaintiff to hold defendant in contempt

and for a default judgment is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that, upon exhaustion of any deadlines set forth in

any discovery conference order, plaintiff pro se has leave to

move by show cause order (OSC) for contempt, in which OSC the

100269/2023 GU, FEIFEI vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 004

1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 100269/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025

court shall set the requisite dates for service and a hearing,

as required by Judiciary Law § 756; and it is further

ORDERED any such OSC must seek a contempt order, in

addition to naming the corporate defendant, as alleged

contemnor, must name an officer or agent of the corporate

defendant, who acts for such corporate defendant, and upon whom

the signed show cause order and supporting papers must be served

personally by a process server or any other person plaintiff

chooses, as plaintiff may not serve process herself; and it is

further

ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff for a default judgment

is denied as neither party has submitted a proposed compliance

discovery conference stipulation, to be so-ordered, as directed

by the Preliminary Conference Order dated April 18, 2024 (NYSCEF

Doc No 33); and it is further

ORDERED that, except as exhibits to motions or for demands

for bills of particulars and responses thereto (as latter

constitute an amplification of the pleadings), counsel and pro

se plaintiff shall refrain from posting on NYSCEF any discovery

demands or responses thereto, as same unnecessarily and

improperly clutter the docket, and should be exchanged among the

parties only, see In Re Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc.,

66 AD2d 335, 338 (2nd Dept 1979); and it is further

100269/2023 GU, FEIFEI vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 004

2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 100269/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025

ORDERED that pro se plaintiff and defense counsel shall

post on NYSCEF a proposed discovery compliance order or dueling

proposed discovery compliance conference orders (i.e. each party

shall complete and upload the fillable form provided by the

court on NYSCER) at least two days before June 26, 2025, on

which date pro se plaintiff and defense counsel shall appear in

courtroom 331 of New York State Supreme Court, 60 Centre Street,

New York, New York for a discovery compliance conference.

DECISION

In her notice of motion, plaintiff pro se sets the date of

the hearing for her application to hold the corporate defendant

in contempt at more than thirty days after she served

electronically upon defendant such notice of motion on March 19,

2025, in contravention of Judiciary Law § 756. As plaintiff has

not served defendant in accordance with Judiciary Law § 756,

this court has no jurisdiction to hold such defendant in

contempt. See Michael N.G. v Elsa R., 233 AD2d 264, 266 (1st

Dept 1996).

Should plaintiff pro se seek to renew her application for

an order of contempt in the future, such application must be by

order to show cause, which show cause order shall name in

addition to the corporate defendant, as alleged contemnor, the

individual officer(s) or agent(s) who allegedly, acted on behalf

of the corporate defendant, in disobeying a clear mandate of the

100269/2023 GU, FEIFEI vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 004

3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 100269/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 66 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025

court. In such instance, plaintiff shall serve such officer(s)

or agent(s) personally by causing a process server or other

person she designates to serve such papers personally upon such

individual, in accordance with Judiciary Law § 761 and CPLR 308.

See Long Is Trust Co v Rosenberg, 82 AD2d 591 (2d Dept 1981).

Under no circumstances, shall plaintiff seek such extraordinary

contempt relief unless all deadlines set forth in any discovery

conference orders have been exhausted.

.v-~ JI - } ~ 2025051317 4435DJ AMESD97 4646ADBC B4B10BEB5F 1DD7022D70E

5/13/2025 DATE DEBRA A. JAMES, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□ □ GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

100269/2023 GU, FEIFEI vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 004

4 of 4 [* 4]