James v. Uber Technologies Inc.

Opinion

CHRISTOPHER JAMES, et al., Case No. 19-cv-06462-EMC

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING NON-PARTY’S v. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Docket No. 204 Defendant.

Non-Party S. Patrick Mendel moves for a temporary restraining order to prohibit Defendant Uber from operating its business to broker passenger transportation and to stay or dismiss this action. See Docket No. 204 (“Mot.”). As an initial matter, there is insufficient information to find that Mendel has standing to intervene in this action to seek the relief he requests. Even if Mendel does have standing, he has not raised a “serious question[] going to the merits” of his claims nor shown a likelihood of success to warrant the relief he requests. See All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). Moreover, Mendel’s assertion that he “has the right to work in the lawful profession of his choice,” which he believes requires Uber to be enjoined from operating its ridesharing business, Mot. at 32, is insufficient to establish that he will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of the relief he requests. Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1135. Thus, Mendel’s motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED. This order disposes of Docket No. 204. Dated: May 31, 2022 ______________________________________