Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03826/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03826-95/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

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 WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

CONSIDER WHETHER CASES 

SHOULD BE RELATED

Docket No. 946

Plaintiff S. Patrick Mendel filed an administrative motion to consider whether Mendel v. 

Chao, No. 19-cv-3244 (N.D. Cal. filed June 7, 2019), currently assigned to Judge White, should 

be related to O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 13-cv-3826 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 16, 

2013), before this Court. Docket No. 946. However, Plaintiff has not yet served the Defendants 

in Mendel with summons and copies of the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(c). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (“A summons must be served with a copy of the 

complaint. The plaintiff is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the 

time allowed by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes 

service.”). Nor has Plaintiff served Defendants in Mendel with copies of the instant motion in 

accordance with Local Rule 3-12(b) to allow them an opportunity to respond. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 

3-12(b) (“[A] copy of the motion [to relate], together with proof of service pursuant to Civil L.R. 

5-5, must be served on all known parties to each apparently related action.”).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to relate is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may 

refile the motion once the Mendel Defendants have been served in compliance with Rule 4(c) and 

Local Rule 3-12(b). If he does so, Plaintiff should ensure that the motion does not exceed 5 pages. 

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 949 Filed 06/21/19 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

Northern District of California

See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-11(a) (“A motion for an order concerning a miscellaneous

administrative matter may not exceed 5 pages (not counting declarations and exhibits) . . . .”).

This order disposes of Docket No. 946.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 949 Filed 06/21/19 Page 2 of 2