Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03826/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03826-88/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 REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' 

EMERGENCY MOTION AND UBER'S 

REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES 

AND COSTS

Docket No. 840, 846, 847, 848

Plaintiffs have withdrawn their Emergency Motion for Authorization to Communicate with 

Class Members. See Docket Nos. 840, 846. It is therefore moot. In its opposition to the motion, 

Uber separately requests that the Court “amend its sanctions order to grant monetary sanctions in 

an amount sufficient to compensate Uber for the fees it has incurred defending against these 

numerous filings.” Docket No. 847 at 3. Uber’s request for sanctions appears to be based on 

conduct following the Court’s sanction’s order, namely, Plaintiffs’ emergency motions for relief 

from that order. See Docket Nos. 830, 836, 840. Subsequent conduct is not a basis for the Court 

to amend its earlier sanctions order. To the extent Uber seeks sanctions for that later conduct, it 

must file a separate, properly-noticed motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 849 Filed 09/22/17 Page 1 of 1