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 TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. Docket No. 227 10 UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., 11 Defendant.

12 13 14 On July 5, 2022, S. Patrick Mendel, a settlement class member who is proceeding pro se, 15 moved to dismiss the case on the basis of the Younger abstention doctrine. Docket No. 216. The 16 Court exercised its discretion to construe Mr. Mendel’s motion to dismiss as objections to the 17 class settlement and considered the merits of his arguments. Docket No. 221. 18 On July 21, 2022, during the hearing on the motion for final approval of the class 19 settlement, the Court explained that it was overruling Mr. Mendel’s objections because, for the 20 reasons stated on the record, Younger abstention does not apply. Docket No. 227. The Court 21 indicated during the hearing that it would require Mr. Mendel to show cause why he should not be 22 required to post a bond as a condition of appealing the Order and Final Judgment. Id. 23 On July 26, 2022, the Court ordered Mr. Mendel to show cause why the Court should not 24 require an appeal bond, should Mr. Mendel wish to pursue his objections on appeal. Docket No. 25 227. Mr. Mendel’s response to the Order was due by or before August 3, 2022. Id. To date, the 26 Court has not received a response to its Order. In the event that Mr. Mendel did not receive notice 27 of the Court’s previous Order to Show Cause, the Court will give Mr. Mendel another opportunity 1 The Court hereby orders Mr. Mendel to show cause why he should not be required to post 2 a bond as a condition of appealing this Order and Final Judgment. In his response, Mr. Mendel 3 shall indicate: (1) his financial ability to post bond; (2) the risk that he would not pay the costs if 4 the appeal loses; and (3) an assessment of the likelihood that he will lose the appeal and be subject 5 to costs. Schulken v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. 09-cv-02708-LHK, 2013 WL 1345716, at *4 6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013); Fleury v. Richemont N. Am., Inc., No. 05-cv-4525-EMC, 2008 WL 7 4680033, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2008). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of the 8 instant order to Mr. Mendel. 9 Mr. Mendel’s response is due by August 22, 2022. Plaintiffs will then have fourteen days 10 from the date of his submission to respond. No further briefing will be allowed without express 11 permission from the Court. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: August 8, 2022 16 17 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27