Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03826/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03826-96/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

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 DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

CONSIDER WHETHER CASES 

SHOULD BE RELATED

Docket No. 950

The Court previously denied without Plaintiff’s administrative motion to consider whether 

Mendel v. Chao, No. 19-cv-3244 (N.D. Cal. filed June 7, 2019), currently assigned to Judge 

White, should be related to O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 13-cv-3826 (N.D. Cal. filed 

Aug. 16, 2013), before this Court. Docket No. 949. The Court explained that Plaintiff had not yet 

served the Defendants in Mendel with summons and copies of the complaint in accordance with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c). Nor had Plaintiff served Defendants with copies of the 

motion to relate in accordance with Local Rule 3-12(b) to allow them an opportunity to respond. 

Plaintiff has now filed an amended motion to relate Mendel to O’Connor. Docket No. 950. 

However, it still appears that Plaintiff has not served all Mendel Defendants with the instant 

motion. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-12(b) (“[A] copy of the motion [to relate], together with proof 

of service pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-5, must be served on all known parties to each apparently 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 955 Filed 07/29/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

related action.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amended motion to relate is DENIED without 

prejudice. Plaintiff may refile the motion and serve the Mendel Defendants in compliance with 

Local Rule 3-12(b). 

This order disposes of Docket No. 950.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 955 Filed 07/29/19 Page 2 of 2