Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03826/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03826-58/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL 

on 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., WAGE 

AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES 

LITIGATION MDL No. 2686

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in one action in the Eastern District of New York *

(Ogunmokun) move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of

California or, alternatively, the Western District of Texas. This litigation currentlyconsists of seven 1

actions pending in seven districts, as listed on Schedule A. This litigation arises from the allegation 2

that defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and its subsidiary Rasier, LLC (collectively, Uber),

misclassify Uber transportation providers as independent contractors instead of employees, fail to

provide reimbursement of necessary business expenses, and withhold gratuities.

Plaintiffs in seven actions, including two potentially related actions, share counsel with

movants and support the motion. They are joined by plaintiff in one other potentially related action

in the Middle District of Florida (Rimel). Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California action on

the motion (O’Connor) oppose centralization and, alternatively, request exclusion of O’Connor or

centralization in their district. Additionally, plaintiffs in five potentially related actions oppose

centralization or request exclusion of their actions. The Uber defendants oppose centralization and, 3

alternatively, request exclusion of O’Connor and centralization in a geographically central district. 

And Hirease, Inc., a defendant in two actions involving Uber’s background check practices, requests

exclusion of those actions.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization

will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct

of the litigation. Although these actions share certain factual issues regarding Uber’s classification

of drivers as independent contractors and its business practices concerning payment of gratuities and

business expenses to drivers, the standards for determining whether independent contractors are

 Judge Charles R. Breyer took no part in the decision of this matter. *

Movants originally requested centralization in the Western District of Texas in the first 1

instance, but subsequently changed their position in light of developments in the litigation.

Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been notified of ten potentially related actions. 2

 Some of those plaintiffs alternatively request the Northern District of California. 3

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 473 Filed 02/04/16 Page 1 of 4 Case MDL No. 2686 Document 73 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 4
-2-

employees vary substantially from state to state and involve a broad range of factors which require

consideration of distinct aspects of the alleged employer’s relationship with plaintiffs. The record 4

before the Panel indicates that, consequently, the determination of whether a plaintiff is an employee

or independent contractor will rest on state-specific legal and factual inquiries that are not suitable

for centralized pretrial proceedings. Moreover, the seven actions on the motion involve nonoverlapping certified and putative state-specific classes, which also are distinct from nearly all of the

putative classes in the related actions before the Panel. Denying centralization will keep the actions

pending in the states where plaintiffs and the putative class members worked and where relevant

witnesses and documents are likely to be found.

The circumstances of this litigation indicate that voluntary coordination is preferable to

centralization. Plaintiffs in six of the seven actions on the motion and two related actions are

represented by the same counsel, and all of those actions are in their infancy. The defendants are the

same in all actions, and they have represented that, to the extent pretrial proceedings overlap, they

are amenable to informal coordination. Given the limited number of involved counsel, informal

coordination of discovery and pretrial motions should be practicable. Moreover, the sole action on 5

the motion involving a different plaintiffs’ counsel (O’Connor) is nearing the end of pretrial

proceedings and thus, there is little, if any, discovery left to coordinate in that action. 

6

See In re: DIRECTV, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wage and Hour Litig.,

4

84 F. Supp. 3d 1373, 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2015) (“The issue of whether an individual is an employee or

independent contractor involves multiple factors, which require individualized inquiry.”). 

See In re: SFPP, L.P., Railroad Property Rights Litig., — F. Supp. 3d —, 2015 WL 5

4879677, at *1 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 10, 2015) (denying centralization of litigation involving a total of

fifteen actions where informal coordination was practicable “[g]iven the few involved counsel and

limited number of actions”).

In O’Connor, class discovery is complete, a statewide class has been certified, merits

6

discovery closes within the next three months, and trial is scheduled for June 2016. This substantial

procedural disparity further weighs against centralization. See In re: CVS Caremark Corp., Wage

and Hour Employment Practices Litig., 684 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2010).

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 473 Filed 02/04/16 Page 2 of 4 Case MDL No. 2686 Document 73 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 4
-3-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of the actions listed on

Schedule A is denied.

 PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

 

 Sarah S. Vance

 Chair

Marjorie O. Rendell Lewis A. Kaplan

Ellen Segal Huvelle R. David Proctor

Catherine D. Perry

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 473 Filed 02/04/16 Page 3 of 4 Case MDL No. 2686 Document 73 Filed 02/03/16 Page 3 of 4
IN RE: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., WAGE 

AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES 

LITIGATION MDL No. 2686

SCHEDULE A

District of Arizona

SENA v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:15-02418

Northern District of California

O'CONNOR, ET AL. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:13-03826

District of Maryland

VARON v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-03650

Eastern District of New York

OGUNMOKUN, ET AL. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-06143

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

DINOFA v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:15-06121

Western District of Texas

MICHELETTI v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:15-01001

Western District of Washington

FISHER v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:15-01787

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 473 Filed 02/04/16 Page 4 of 4 Case MDL No. 2686 Document 73 Filed 02/03/16 Page 4 of 4