Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05200/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05200-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED, et al.

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

RONALD GILLETTE, et al.

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-14-5200 EMC

No. C-14-5241 EMC

ORDER REGARDING ORAL

ARGUMENT

The parties shall be prepared to discuss at oral argument on May 14, 2015, the California

Supreme Court’s opinion in Gentry v. Superior Court, 42 Cal App. 443 (2007), and specifically the

Supreme Court’s discussion of procedural unconscionability at Section II.B (“The Opt-out Provision

and Procedural Unconscionability”). The parties shall also be prepared to address the discussions

regarding the enforceability of delegation clauses under the “clear and unmistakable” test as

discussed by:

///

///

Case 3:14-cv-05200-EMC Document 60 Filed 05/12/15 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

 (1) Parada v. Superior Court, 176 Cal. App. 4th 1554 (2009); (2) Baker v. Osborne Development

Corp., 159 Cal. App. 4th 884 (2008); and (3) Hartley v. Superior Court, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1249

(2011). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2015

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05200-EMC Document 60 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 2