Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03826/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03826-21/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DOUGLAS O’CONNOR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-13-3826 EMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO CERTIFY ORDER FOR

INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW

(Docket No. 138)

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to have this Court certify its order

granting Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(b). The Court finds this motion suitable for disposition without oral argument and

VACATES the hearing currently set for October 9, 2014. 

In attempting to establish that there is a “substantial ground for differences of opinion” as to

this Court’s extraterritoriality ruling, Plaintiffs rely primarily on Taylor v. Eastern Connection

Operating, Inc., 988 N.E. 2d 408 (Mass. 2013). Plaintiffs are correct that Taylor held that because

the Massachusetts law in question did not contain an express geographical limitation, a choice of

law provision could apply that law extraterritorially to conduct occurring outside Massachusetts. 

See Taylor, 988 N.E.2d at 413. Taylor cites with approval Gravquick A/S v. Trimble Navigation

Int’l Ltd., 323 F.3d 1219, 1223 (9th Cir. 2003). Taylor, 988 N.E.2d at 414. However, Taylor differs

from the present case in one critical respect: there is no implicit presumption against the

extraterritorial application of Massachusetts law. Taylor made this point explicit. See Taylor, 988

N.E.2d at 413 n.9 (“[W]e conclude that there is no corresponding presumption against the

application of Massachusetts statutes to conduct occurring outside Massachusetts but within the

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 160 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Plaintiffs’ reliance on Harlow v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, 574 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (D. Kan.

2008), is similarly misplaced. Harlow relied on Gravquick and did not address whether there was an

implicit presumption against extraterritorial application under Kansas law which would dictate a

different result.

2

United States.”).1 California, by contrast, has a strong, nearly century old presumption against the

extraterritorial application of its laws. See Ehret v. Uber Technologies, Inc., — F. Supp. 3d — ,

2014 WL 4640170, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014). As a result, Taylor does not address the

effectiveness of a choice of law provision where there is a presumption against extraterritorial

application of a state’s laws. Nothing in Taylor or any other case cited by Plaintiffs suggests this

Court erred when it concluded that when such a presumption exists, the parties’ choice of law to the

contrary must be disregarded. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that there is a

“substantial ground for difference of opinion” on this Court’s extraterritoriality ruling. Plaintiffs

have failed to articulate a logical reason why a choice-of-law provision should yield to an express

geographical limitation in a statute and yet be able to overcome the strong presumption against

extraterritorial application of California law that the state has adopted. Further, Plaintiffs have cited

no authority that would support such a distinction. Plaintiffs’ motion for § 1292(b) certification is

therefore DENIED. See Couch v. Telescope, 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding that the

statutory requirements of § 1292(b) are jurisdictional and an interlocutory appeal cannot proceed if

those requirements are not met).

This order disposes of Docket Number 138.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2014

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 160 Filed 10/06/14 Page 2 of 2