Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00262/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00262-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of 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

HAKAN YUCESOY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

___________________________________/

No. C15-0262 EMC

ORAL ARGUMENT PREPARATION

ORDER 

On August 6, 2015, this Court will hear oral argument on Uber’s pending motion to compel

arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims in this matter. Docket No. 62. In its motion and supporting papers,

Uber contends that Plaintiff Hakan Yucesoy assented to be bound to an agreement containing the

arbitration clause at issue. Yucesoy claims in declarations and supporting documents that he did

not so assent, was out of the United States at the time that Uber claims he agreed to be bound, and

that another individual apparently drove “under [his] account without authorization.” See, e.g.,

Docket No. 88. Thus, it appears that there may be a material factual dispute regarding contract

formation. 

At the hearing on August 6, 2015, the parties are directed to be prepared to discuss their

respective positions as to whether there is a material factual dispute regarding contract formation,

and, if so, 

///

///

///

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 89 Filed 07/29/15 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

2

what the appropriate course of action should be. See generally 9 U.S.C. § 4 (“If the making of the

arbitration agreement . . . be in issue, the court shall proceed summarily to the trial thereof.”);

Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., 748 F.3d 975 (10th Cir. 2014); Nebraska Machinery Co. v.

Cargotec Solutions, LLC, 762 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2014). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2015

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 89 Filed 07/29/15 Page 2 of 2