James v. Uber Technologies Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 31, 2022
• Docket: 3:19-cv-06462
• Status: Unknown

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 DENYING NON-PARTY’S 9 v. MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 10 UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., Docket No. 204 11 Defendant.

12 13 Non-Party S. Patrick Mendel moves for a temporary restraining order to prohibit 14 Defendant Uber from operating its business to broker passenger transportation and to stay or 15 dismiss this action. See Docket No. 204 (“Mot.”). 16 As an initial matter, there is insufficient information to find that Mendel has standing to 17 intervene in this action to seek the relief he requests. Even if Mendel does have standing, he has 18 not raised a “serious question[] going to the merits” of his claims nor shown a likelihood of 19 success to warrant the relief he requests. See All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 20 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). Moreover, Mendel’s assertion that he “has the right to work in the lawful 21 profession of his choice,” which he believes requires Uber to be enjoined from operating its 22 ridesharing business, Mot. at 32, is insufficient to establish that he will suffer irreparable injury in 23 the absence of the relief he requests. Cottrell, 632 F.3d at 1135. Thus, Mendel’s motion for 24 temporary restraining order is DENIED. This order disposes of Docket No. 204. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: May 31, 2022 27 ______________________________________