James v. Uber Technologies Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRISTOPHER JAMES, et al., Case No. 19-cv-06462-EMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 9 v. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

10 UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., Docket No. 144 11 Defendant.

12 13 14 Pending before the Court is Defendant Uber Technologies Inc.’s (“Uber”) motion to clarify 15 or, in the alternative, for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. See Docket No. 144 (“Mot.”). 16 Uber asks to clarify the Court’s statement that “Proposition 22 does not apply retroactively.” See 17 Docket No. 143 (“Class Cert. Order”) at 29. According to Uber, this is a merits question that 18 should not have been decided in a class certification order. See Mot. 19 Uber is correct that the retroactive application of Proposition 22 is ultimately a merits 20 question that can dispose entirely of Plaintiffs’ claims, and thus should not be decided in the 21 context of class certification. See Class Cert Order at 3 (“[T]he only question before the Court is 22 whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met.”). Id. at 3. Deciding whether Proposition 22 applies 23 retroactively risks contravening the rule against one-way intervention. See, e.g., Diva Limousine, 24 Ltd. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 392 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“The one-way 25 intervention rule exists to ‘protect defendants from unfair “one-way intervention,” where the 26 members of a class not yet certified can wait for the court’s ruling on summary judgment and 27 either opt in to a favorable ruling or avoid being bound by an unfavorable one.’” (quoting Villa v. 1 Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 547(1974)))). 2 Plaintiffs oppose Uber’s clarification motion by arguing that the Court’s class certification 3 order does not go against the one-way intervention rule because it “does not constitute a judgment 4 on the merits of any claim at issue in this case, much less a final judgment.” See Docket No. 145 5 (“Opp’n to Clarif. Mot.”). But the Court would have had to enter judgment in favor of Uber had it 6 agreed with Uber that Proposition 22 applies retroactively to bar Plaintiffs’ claims. In fact, this 7 Court rejected this exact argument in Diva Limousine, holding that “[t]he one-way intervention 8 rule applies in the context of merits rulings, not just final merits judgments.” 392 F. Supp. 3d at 9 1095. The reason for this is that “[a] merits ruling, even if not a final judgment, can still affect 10 putative class members’ decisions whether or not to opt in.” Id. 11 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Uber’s motion and clarifies that it is not deciding at this 12 time whether Proposition 22 applies retroactively. Withholding adjudication of the merits of the 13 retroactivity claim does not negate class certification—the issue of the retroactivity of Proposition 14 22 is a matter that may properly be decided on a class-wide basis. 15 This order disposes of Docket No. 144. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: April 9, 2021 20 21 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27