Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03826/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03826-87/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY 

ISSUANCE OF CORRECTIVE NOTICE 

PENDING APPEAL

Docket No. 836

Plaintiffs‟ request for a stay is DENIED. A court may issue a stay pending interlocutory 

appeal based on evaluation of four factors: (1) whether the moving party has made a showing that 

he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the moving party will be irreparably injured 

absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of a stay will substantially injure other parties interested in the 

proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009). In 

the context of a petition for appeal, a likelihood of success on the merits means that there is a “fair 

prospect” that the appellate court will conclude the decision was erroneous. See also Levia-Perez 

v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 964 (9th Cir. 2011).

These factors do not weigh in favor of a stay. First, Plaintiffs have not made a showing 

that they are likely to succeed on the merits. Plaintiffs argue that “the Ninth Circuit may well find 

that Counsel‟s communications did not violate the protective order and that the Court‟s adopted 

notice – and underlying order imposing sanctions – could undermine class members‟ cooperation 

with and confidence in Plaintiffs‟ counsel and is not reasonably tailored to simply correct the risk 

of misunderstanding that led the Court to order the corrective notice.” Docket No. 836 at 7. The 

Court did not simply find the communications violated the protective order, however. The Court 

independently found that the communications violated the California Rules of Professional 

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 837 Filed 09/14/17 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Conduct because they were misleading. See Docket No. 825 at 9-11. Plaintiffs present no 

argument challenging that finding. Nor do they present any argument that the Court abused its 

discretion in issuing a corrective notice pursuant to Rule 23(d), independent of its sanctioning 

authority. For these reasons and for the reasons expressed in the Court‟s order regarding 

Plaintiffs‟ first emergency motion, see Docket No. 834 at 2, Plaintiffs have not shown they are 

likely to prevail in their appeal. Docket No. 834 at 2. 

Second, Class Counsel has not shown it will be irreparably injured. Class Counsel‟s 

characterization of the corrective notice as containing an “abundant use of inflammatory language 

[that] suggests misconduct far more egregious than conduct falling into a „grey area‟ of 

permissibility” is hyperbolic. Docket No. 836 at 7. The corrective notice simply states that Class 

Counsel‟s solicitation e-mail was “misleading,” which correctly describes the Court‟s ruling. See 

Docket No. 825 at 10-11. 

Third, any conceivable harm to Counsel is outweighed by the harm to Class Members. 

The Court found the Class was misled; the misleading information must be corrected promptly in 

order to prevent any further reliance on such information.

Fourth, Class Counsel has not shown that the public interest weighs in favor of a stay. The 

Court‟s order does not impose any prior restraint on any party‟s speech. It simply corrects 

misleading speech.

Accordingly, a stay is not warranted. Nor is an extension. The Court‟s order was entered 

on September 6. Counsel has had over a week to request a stay. The Court already granted a oneweek extension for that purpose. Counsel still has six days to do so at the Ninth Circuit if it so 

chooses.

This order disposes of Docket No. 836. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2017

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 837 Filed 09/14/17 Page 2 of 2