Feifei Gu v. Uber Tech. Inc.

2025 NY Slip Op 31732(U)

Opinion

Feifei Gu v Uber Tech. Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 31732(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. 65 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 04/25/2025 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 -v- UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

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

ORDER

Upon the foregoing documents, it is

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 for contempt, in which OSC the court

shall set the requisite dates for service and hearing, as

required by Judiciary Law § 756; and it is further

ORDERED any such OSC must seek a contempt order against the

alleged contemnor, who must be an officer or agent of the

corporate defendant, who acts for such corporate defendant, and

upon whom the signed show cause order and papers must be served

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. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025

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 no preliminary conference order has ever been

issued by the court, as required by 22 NYCRR 202.8(f); and it is

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 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

ORDERED that pro se plaintiff and defense counsel shall

post on NYSCEF a proposed preliminary discovery order or dueling

proposed preliminary discovery 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 preliminary discovery conference.

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. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025

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, 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 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

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. 65 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2025

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.

P- ~ .A - } ~ 20250513141806DJAMESBF9F27BD1CB948FA93EF1D8FFDD1CCE2

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]