Case: Crawford v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

3:17-cv-02664 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: May 9, 2017

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 9, 2017, two individuals from Jackson, Mississippi who use electric wheelchairs to travel filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Uber Technologies, Inc and its subsidiary, Rasier LLC (Collectively, “Uber”). The case was assigned to District Judge Richard Seeborg. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs alleged that Uber violated its legal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA), and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by failing to provide wheelchair-accessible rides through the Uber app. A group of plaintiffs from New Orleans filed a separate, functionally identical complaint (Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc.) on October 26, 2017, which the court related to this case on November 14, 2017.

Under Title III of the ADA, a private entity primarily engaged in the business of transporting people may not discriminate from use of its services on the basis of disability. Specifically, under section 12184(b)(2)(A), covered entities must provide reasonable modifications to their services that would enable persons with disabilities to enjoy those services. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Uber could provide access to wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) through its app—a service Uber provides in other cities comparable to Jackson—and its failure to do so constitutes a violation of the ADA. The plaintiffs also alleged that Uber violated the CDPA under a similar theory, along with a claim that Uber’s failure to provide WAV service violates California’s UCL. The plaintiffs argued that companies who violate laws like the ADA and CDPA violate the UCL by obtaining an unfair advantage compared to companies like taxi service providers who comply with the law.

The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to require Uber to bring their service into compliance with the ADA and CDPA by offering WAV service in Jackson as well as damages, restitution, and attorney fees.

Uber moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of Mississippi on August 17, 2017, which Judge Seeborg denied on October 11 because Uber is headquartered in the Northern District’s jurisdiction.

Uber moved for judgment on the pleadings on December 22, 2017. Uber argued that the plaintiffs couldn’t show they had been injured because they hadn’t actually downloaded the Uber app and so lacked standing under Title III of the ADA. Uber also argued that they were not a transportation company under the definition of Title III because they don’t own or lease vehicles and merely facilitate a transaction between two private parties. Finally, Uber argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the California law elements of their complaint because the alleged harm did not occur in the state. The plaintiffs contended they were injured in California because the decision not to offer WAVs in Mississippi was made in California.

Judge Seeborg ruled on Uber’s motion on March 1, 2018, denying the ADA elements but granting with respect to California law. According to Judge Seeborg, the ADA does not require parties to engage in “futile gestures” where they know they can’t use a service because of their disability. The plaintiffs’ allegation that they had notice that Uber did not operate WAVs in Jackson was sufficient to survive judgment on the pleadings. Judge Seeborg also ruled that Uber’s status as a transportation company was a mixed question of law and fact and wasn’t suitable for resolution in a judgment on the pleadings. With respect to the plaintiffs’ California claims, Judge Seeborg ruled that the plaintiffs’ alleged injury happened in Jackson, and the fact that it could be traced back to California was not legally significant. The plaintiffs’ complaint was essentially that the Uber app in Jackson was deficient compared with the app in other cities, and so the harm alleged occurred in Jackson. 2018 WL 1116725.

On July 17, 2018 the parties of this case and the New Orleans case agreed to consolidate fact discovery, but each group of plaintiffs continued to file motions separately and remained docketed separately.

Uber had filed an interlocutory appeal in the Namisnak case on May 16, 2018. While the appeal was in progress, the plaintiffs and Uber jointly agreed to stay the district court proceedings for a total of 18 months, which took effect on November 5, 2018.

On May 21, 2020 the Crawford plaintiffs’ stay ended. They amended their complaint on May 21, 2020, incorporating Judge Seeborg’s previous rulings from the Namisnak case. Consolidated fact discovery began the same day.

One of the plaintiffs in the Crawford case dismissed their claims and exited the case on December 10, 2020.

For the remainder of the case, the Crawford and Namisnak plaintiffs generally filed identical motions but the cases remained docketed separately. Uber in turn filed separate, identical motions in each case. The court’s orders addressed both sets of plaintiffs together but appeared in both dockets.

(Continued from Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc.)

On April 19, 2021 the Crawford and Namisnak plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Uber is a transportation company and the modifications the plaintiffs sought were reasonable. This motion appears only in the Crawford docket. On April 20, 2021, Uber filed its own motion for summary judgment, arguing again that the plaintiffs lacked Title III standing because they did not download the Uber app, that Uber is not a transportation company, that the ADA does not require WAV service as a matter of law, and that the plaintiffs’ requested modifications cannot be proven reasonable at trial. On the same day, Uber filed motions in limine to exclude proposed testimony offered by two of the plaintiffs’ experts, in essence arguing that the opinions offered by both experts were improper legal conclusions. On May 19, 2021, the plaintiffs moved to strike proposed testimony from one of Uber’s lay witnesses as containing expert opinion.

Judge Seeborg ruled on the cross motions for summary judgment and the pretrial motions on August 26, 2021. He denied both motions in limine because they did not dispute expert qualifications or methods but rather the admissibility of particular testimony. He denied the motion to strike because it was improper to raise it in motions rather than at trial according to the court’s local rules.

Both motions for summary judgment were denied in part and granted in part. Both motions were denied with respect to the reasonableness of the modifications sought, as those are factual questions for trial. Judge Seeborg denied Uber’s motion challenging the plaintiffs’ standing based on the “futile gesture” doctrine and Uber’s failure to show the plaintiffs didn’t actually intend to use Uber if it provided WAV service. He granted the plaintiffs’ motion that Uber was a covered entity under Title III of the ADA because the plaintiffs introduced facts in which Uber called itself a transportation company and exerts control over its drivers and Uber did not create a dispute about whether these facts are true. Finally, the plaintiffs had introduced a new theory in the motions for summary judgment—that Uber’s policies screened drivers from offering WAV service—and Judge Seeborg granted Uber’s motion for summary judgment that this argument was improperly raised for the first time in the pleadings rather than the complaint.

The plaintiffs subsequently moved for leave to file an amended complaint (to incorporate the “screening” theory) on September 7, 2021, which the court granted on October 18, 2021 over Uber's objection that it was a prejudicial undue delay. Judge Seeborg held that the plaintiffs' new claim rested on the same underlying ADA violation theory and so Uber was alreadyon notice of the facts and underlying theory of the new claim. 2021 WL 4846893.

The plaintiffs filed their final amended complaints on October 20, 2021. Uber filed a partial motion for summary judgment on December 23, 2021, arguing that the screening claim was not supported by any evidence in the record and that the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue the claim because the cause was too remote from the injury. The Court ordered an expedited briefing schedule the same day in order to resolve the issue before the forthcoming trial. Judge Seeborg denied Uber’s motion on January 7, 2022, holding that that preventing WAVs from operating on the general platform (UberX) was not too remote an injury to give plaintiffs standing under the ADA. He also held that the plaintiffs’ argument that Uber’s written policies governing the types of cars that can operate on the platform effectively prohibit WAVs was enough to introduce a dispute of fact. 2022 WL 74161.

Shortly thereafter, the Court commenced a bench trial, jointly trying both the Crawford and Namisnak cases, which lasted three days—January 19, 21, and 24, 2022. The parties presented evidence on the reasonableness of Uber providing WAV service in New Orleans and Jackson, covering cost, methods of implementing WAV service, and Uber’s implementation of WAVs in other cities. Over the following two months, the parties filed motions to strike testimony and trial briefs before making their closing arguments in a separate hearing on April 25, 2022.

Judge Seeborg issued his opinion and order on July 25, 2022, finding that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of establishing that their requested modification—that Uber offer WAV service in their cities—was reasonable. The plaintiffs therefore did not prevail on their claim that Uber violated Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(2)(A)) for failure to make a reasonable modification. He also held that, even though Uber’s policies did screen WAVs from their platform, the nature of UberX meant that even if WAVs were permitted, there was no guarantee that a person who required a WAV would be matched with one. Since the policy that functionally disallowed WAVs to operate on the UberX platform did not itself screen out people with disabilities, the plaintiffs failed in their screening claim (42 U.S.C. §12184(b)(1)) as well. 616 F.Supp.3d 1001.

On August 22, 2022 both the Crawford plaintiff and the Namisnak plaintiffs filed a notice of Appeal to the the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As of November 2022, the case is ongoing.

show full summary

Summary Authors

Terry Howard (10/12/2022)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6196702/parties/scott-crawford-v-uber-technologies-inc/

Attorney for Plaintiff

Bizer, Andrew David (California)

Coco, Jennifer M (California)

DeReus, Garret S (California)

Florman, Marc P. (California)

Most, William Brock (California)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Bizer, Andrew David (California)

Coco, Jennifer M (California)

DeReus, Garret S (California)

Florman, Marc P. (California)

Most, William Brock (California)

Attorney Contact Information via CourtListener

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

	Document
1 3:17-cv-02664	Complaint and Jury Demand	May 9, 2017	May 9, 2017 Complaint
1 3:17-cv-06124	Complaint and Jury Demand	Oct. 26, 2017	Oct. 26, 2017 Complaint
80 3:17-cv-02664	Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings	March 1, 2018	March 1, 2018 Order/Opinion 2018 WL 2018
49 3:17-cv-06124	Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Compel Arbitration Namisnak v. Uber Technologies	April 13, 2018	April 13, 2018 Order/Opinion 315 F.Supp.3d 315
84 3:17-cv-06124	Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Uber's Motion to Dismiss Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc.	Oct. 3, 2018	Oct. 3, 2018 Order/Opinion 2018 WL 2018
102 3:17-cv-06124	Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Namisnak v. Uber Technologies	March 13, 2020	March 13, 2020 Order/Opinion 444 F.Supp.3d 444
18-15860	Opinion U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Aug. 24, 2020	Aug. 24, 2020 Order/Opinion
197 3:17-cv-02664	Order on Motion for Summary Judgment and Order on Motion in Limine and Order on Motion to Strike and Order on Motion in Limine AND Order on Motion for Summary Judgment	Aug. 26, 2021	Aug. 26, 2021 Order/Opinion 2021 WL 2021
217 3:17-cv-02664	Order Granting Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint	Oct. 18, 2021	Oct. 18, 2021 Order/Opinion 2021 WL 2021
218 3:17-cv-02664	Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint	Oct. 20, 2021	Oct. 20, 2021 Complaint

show / hide documents

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6196702/scott-crawford-v-uber-technologies-inc/

Last updated April 2, 2024, 3:12 a.m.

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT and Jury Demand against Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. Filed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan. (Filing Fee of $400.00 Paid, Receipt # 0971-11376480) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Summons for Uber Technologies, Inc., # 6 Summons for Rasier, LLC) (Most, William) (Filed on 5/9/2017) Modified on 5/9/2017 (bwS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/16/2017 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2017) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER 2 Exhibit A View on PACER 3 Exhibit B View on PACER 4 Exhibit C View on PACER 5 Summons for Uber Technologies, Inc. View on PACER 6 Summons for Rasier, LLC View on PACER	May 9, 2017	May 9, 2017 Clearinghouse
2	Case assigned to Hon. Richard Seeborg. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2017) (Entered: 05/09/2017)	May 9, 2017	May 9, 2017 PACER
3	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-11382394.) filed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(DeReus, Garret) (Filed on 5/10/2017) (Entered: 05/10/2017)	May 10, 2017	May 10, 2017 PACER
4	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 3 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Garret Scott DeReus. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2017) (Entered: 05/10/2017)	May 10, 2017	May 10, 2017 PACER
5	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice Andrew Bizer ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-11386350.) filed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Bizer, Andrew) (Filed on 5/11/2017) (Entered: 05/11/2017)	May 11, 2017	May 11, 2017 PACER
6	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 5 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Andrew D. Bizer. Andrew D. Bizer representing Scott Crawford and Jarvis Jernigan, Jr.(afmS, COURT STAFF)(filed on 5/11/2017). (Entered: 05/11/2017)	May 11, 2017	May 11, 2017 PACER
7	Initial Case Management Scheduling Order for Cases Asserting Denial of Right of Access under Americans with Disabilities Act. This case is assigned to a judge who participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording) (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2017) (Entered: 05/16/2017)	May 16, 2017	May 16, 2017 PACER
8	Summons Issued as to Rasier, LLC. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2017) (Entered: 05/16/2017)	May 16, 2017	May 16, 2017 PACER
9	Summons Issued as to Uber Technologies, Inc.. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2017) (Entered: 05/16/2017)	May 16, 2017	May 16, 2017 PACER
10	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-11411782.) filed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Hammack, Jacqueline) (Filed on 5/22/2017) (Entered: 05/22/2017)	May 22, 2017	May 22, 2017 PACER
11	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 10 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Jacqueline Kaye Hammack. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2017) (Entered: 05/23/2017)	May 23, 2017	May 23, 2017 PACER
12	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr (Bizer, Andrew) (Filed on 5/25/2017) (Entered: 05/25/2017)	May 25, 2017	May 25, 2017 PACER
13	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. Rasier, LLC served on 5/19/2017, answer due 6/9/2017. (Bizer, Andrew) (Filed on 5/26/2017) (Entered: 05/26/2017)	May 26, 2017	May 26, 2017 PACER
14	JOINT STIPULATION extending time to answer or otherwise respond to 1 Complaint, filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Grumer, Janet) (Filed on 6/7/2017) Modified on 6/8/2017 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/07/2017)	June 7, 2017	June 7, 2017 PACER
15	STIPULATION re 1 Complaint, filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Nunez-Bellamy, Consuelo) (Filed on 6/22/2017) (Entered: 06/22/2017)	June 22, 2017	June 22, 2017 PACER
16	Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC ANSWER to Complaint byRasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Grumer, Janet) (Filed on 6/30/2017) (Entered: 06/30/2017)	June 30, 2017	June 30, 2017 PACER
17	Certificate of Interested Entities by Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent Uber Technologies, Inc. for Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. Disclosure Statement and Certification of Interested Entities or Persons (Grumer, Janet) (Filed on 6/30/2017) (Entered: 06/30/2017)	June 30, 2017	June 30, 2017 PACER
18	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER for Order Changing Time filed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration In Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Most, William) (Filed on 7/19/2017) (Entered: 07/19/2017)	July 19, 2017	July 19, 2017 PACER
19	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 18 Stipulated request for order changing time per L.R. 6-2. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2017) (Entered: 07/19/2017)	July 19, 2017	July 19, 2017 PACER
20	NOTICE of Appearance by Jacob W. Daniels (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Daniels, Jacob) (Filed on 7/20/2017) (Entered: 07/20/2017)	July 20, 2017	July 20, 2017 PACER
21	MOTION to Transfer Case to Southern District of Mississippi filed by Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 9/21/2017 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 8/31/2017. Replies due by 9/7/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jacob W. Daniels In Support of Motion to Transfer Venue, # 2 Proposed Order)(Daniels, Jacob) (Filed on 8/17/2017) (Entered: 08/17/2017)	Aug. 17, 2017	Aug. 17, 2017 PACER
22	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Changing Hearing Date Per L.R. 6-2 filed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration)(DeReus, Garret) (Filed on 8/25/2017) (Entered: 08/25/2017)	Aug. 25, 2017	Aug. 25, 2017 PACER
	Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings	Aug. 25, 2017	Aug. 25, 2017 PACER
23	STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 22 Changing Hearing Date Per L.R. 6-2. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/25/17. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2017) (Entered: 08/25/2017)	Aug. 25, 2017	Aug. 25, 2017 RECAP
	Set/Reset as to 21 MOTION to Transfer Case to Southern District of Mississippi. Motion Hearing previously set for 9/21/2017 continued to 10/12/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2017)	Aug. 25, 2017	Aug. 25, 2017 PACER
24	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 21 MOTION to Transfer Case to Southern District of Mississippi ) filed byScott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-1, # 2 Exhibit A-2, # 3 Exhibit B-1, # 4 Exhibit B-2, # 5 Exhibit C)(Most, William) (Filed on 9/7/2017) (Entered: 09/07/2017)	Sept. 7, 2017	Sept. 7, 2017 PACER
25	NOTICE of Appearance by Julie Marie Capell (Capell, Julie) (Filed on 9/8/2017) (Entered: 09/08/2017)	Sept. 8, 2017	Sept. 8, 2017 PACER
26	REPLY (re 21 MOTION to Transfer Case to Southern District of Mississippi ) filed byRasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Capell, Julie) (Filed on 9/14/2017) (Entered: 09/14/2017)	Sept. 14, 2017	Sept. 14, 2017 PACER
27	MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply In Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Transfer filed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A)(Most, William) (Filed on 9/18/2017) (Entered: 09/18/2017)	Sept. 18, 2017	Sept. 18, 2017 PACER
28	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-11726570.) filed by Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Estevez, Anne-Marie) (Filed on 9/18/2017) (Entered: 09/18/2017)	Sept. 18, 2017	Sept. 18, 2017 PACER
29	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-11726649.) filed by Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Schuster, Stephanie) (Filed on 9/18/2017) (Entered: 09/18/2017)	Sept. 18, 2017	Sept. 18, 2017 PACER
30	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 28 Motion for Pro Hac Vice Anne Marie Estevez. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 PACER
31	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 29 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Stephanie Schuster. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 PACER
32	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER RE REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME PER L.R. 6-2 filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order Regarding Stipulated Request For Order Changing Time Per L.R. 6-2)(Nunez-Bellamy, Consuelo) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 PACER
33	Declaration of JULIE CAPELL in Support of 32 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER RE REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME PER L.R. 6-2 filed byUber Technologies, Inc.. (Related document(s) 32 ) (Nunez-Bellamy, Consuelo) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 PACER
34	NOTICE by Uber Technologies, Inc. re 26 Reply to Opposition/Response of Errata Regarding Defendant's Reply In Support of Motion to Transfer Venue (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Nunez-Bellamy, Consuelo) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 PACER
35	REPLY (re 21 MOTION to Transfer Case to Southern District of Mississippi ) CORRECTION OF DOCKET #26 filed byUber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Capell, Julie) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 PACER
36	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 27 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply In Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Transfer ) filed byUber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Capell, Julie) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 PACER
37	NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Jacob W. Daniels (Daniels, Jacob) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 PACER
38	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 32 Stipulated request for order changing time per L.R. 6-2. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)	Sept. 19, 2017	Sept. 19, 2017 PACER
39	Notice of Need for Mediation by William Brock Most (Most, William) (Filed on 9/26/2017) (Entered: 09/26/2017)	Sept. 26, 2017	Sept. 26, 2017 PACER
40	AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint byRasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Estevez, Anne-Marie) (Filed on 9/26/2017) (Entered: 09/26/2017)	Sept. 26, 2017	Sept. 26, 2017 PACER
	Case Referred to Mediation	Sept. 26, 2017	Sept. 26, 2017 PACER
	CASE REFERRED to Mediation 29 . The deadline to complete the mediation is December 26, 2017. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2017)	Sept. 26, 2017	Sept. 26, 2017 PACER
	*PLEASE DISREGARD. DOCEKTED IN ERROR.*CASE REFERRED to Mediation 39 . The deadline to complete the mediation is December 26, 2017. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2017) Modified on 9/26/2017 (af, COURT STAFF).	Sept. 26, 2017	Sept. 26, 2017 PACER
41	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg denying 27 Motion for Leave to File Surreply Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2017) (Entered: 10/03/2017)	Oct. 3, 2017	Oct. 3, 2017 PACER
42	CLERK'S NOTICE THE MOTION [#21] SCHEDULED FOR HEARING ON OCTOBER 12, 2017 SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 7-1(b). ACCORDINGLY, THE MOTION HEARING IS VACATED. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2017) (Entered: 10/05/2017)	Oct. 5, 2017	Oct. 5, 2017 PACER
43	ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER by Judge Richard Seeborg denying 21 Motion to Transfer Case.(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2017) (Entered: 10/11/2017)	Oct. 11, 2017	Oct. 11, 2017 PACER
44	CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/21/2017 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Case Management Statement due by 12/14/2017. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2017) (Entered: 10/12/2017)	Oct. 12, 2017	Oct. 12, 2017 PACER
45	ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Relief from General Order 56 Stay of Discovery filed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. Responses due by 10/17/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I)(Most, William) (Filed on 10/13/2017) (Entered: 10/13/2017)	Oct. 13, 2017	Oct. 13, 2017 PACER
46	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Stipulation To Continue Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc.s And Raiser, LLCs Deadline To Oppose Plaintiffs Motion For Administrative Relief From General Order 56 Stay Of Discovery filed by Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Anne Marie Estevez In Support Of Joint Stipulation To Continue Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc.'s and Raiser, LLC's Deadline To Oppose Plaintiffs Motion For Administrative Relief From General Order 56 Stay Of Discovery, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Joint Stipulation To Continue Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc.'s and Raiser, LLC's Deadline To Oppose Plaintiffs Motion For Administrative Relief From General Order 56 Stay Of Discovery)(Estevez, Anne-Marie) (Filed on 10/16/2017) (Entered: 10/16/2017)	Oct. 16, 2017	Oct. 16, 2017 PACER
47	NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Kathy Hua Gao Notice Of Withdrawal And Substitution Of Counsel For Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. And Raiser, LLC (Gao, Kathy) (Filed on 10/16/2017) (Entered: 10/16/2017)	Oct. 16, 2017	Oct. 16, 2017 PACER
48	STIPULATION AND ORDER Re 46 To Continue Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc.s And Raiser, LLCs Deadline To Oppose Plaintiffs Motion For Administrative Relief From General Order 56 Stay Of Discovery. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/17/17. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2017) (Entered: 10/17/2017)	Oct. 17, 2017	Oct. 17, 2017 RECAP
49	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-11812712.) filed by Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Kollm, Clara) (Filed on 10/19/2017) (Entered: 10/19/2017)	Oct. 19, 2017	Oct. 19, 2017 PACER
50	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 49 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Clara Kollm. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2017) (Entered: 10/20/2017)	Oct. 20, 2017	Oct. 20, 2017 PACER
51	ADR Clerk's Notice Appointing Howard A. Herman as Mediator. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2017) (Entered: 10/26/2017)	Oct. 26, 2017	Oct. 26, 2017 PACER
52	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 45 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Relief from General Order 56 Stay of Discovery ) filed byRasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Proposed Order)(Schuster, Stephanie) (Filed on 10/27/2017) (Entered: 10/27/2017)	Oct. 27, 2017	Oct. 27, 2017 PACER
53	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg GRANTING 45 MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56 STAY OF DISCOVERY. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2017) (Entered: 10/30/2017)	Oct. 30, 2017	Oct. 30, 2017 PACER
54	Pre MED phone conference scheduled on Tuesday, November 14, 2017, at 10:00 AM Pacific time. Mediator provided call-in information to Parties. Parties should contact Mediator's office as soon as possible if that date and time does not work and provide some alternatives. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2017) (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 11/06/2017)	Nov. 6, 2017	Nov. 6, 2017 PACER
55	ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Consider Whether This Case is Related to N.D. Cal. 17-cv-06124 filed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. Responses due by 11/13/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Namisnak Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B - Dec. of William Most, # 3 Exhibit C - Email Regarding Stipulation, # 4 Proposed Order)(Most, William) (Filed on 11/6/2017) (Entered: 11/06/2017)	Nov. 6, 2017	Nov. 6, 2017 PACER
56	Pre MED phone conference has been rescheduled to November 16, 2017, at 11:00 AM. The call-in information remains the same. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2017) (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 11/07/2017)	Nov. 7, 2017	Nov. 7, 2017 PACER
57	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 55 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Consider Whether This Case is Related to N.D. Cal. 17-cv-06124 ) filed byRasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Estevez, Anne-Marie) (Filed on 11/13/2017) (Entered: 11/13/2017)	Nov. 13, 2017	Nov. 13, 2017 PACER
58	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 55 Administrative Motion to relate cases 17-02664 RS and 17-06124 MMC. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2017) (Entered: 11/14/2017)	Nov. 14, 2017	Nov. 14, 2017 PACER
59	Pre MED phone conference scheduled on December 14, 2017, at 11:00 AM. Mediator provided call-in information to parties. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2017) (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 11/22/2017)	Nov. 22, 2017	Nov. 22, 2017 PACER
60	Joint ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Extend Mediation Deadline & Continue Initial Case Management Conference filed by Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. Responses due by 12/18/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Estevez, Anne-Marie) (Filed on 12/14/2017) (Entered: 12/14/2017)	Dec. 14, 2017	Dec. 14, 2017 PACER
61	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and Proposed Order filed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. (DeReus, Garret) (Filed on 12/14/2017) (Entered: 12/14/2017)	Dec. 14, 2017	Dec. 14, 2017 RECAP
62	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 60 Administrative Motion motion to extend mediation deadline and continue case management conference. Case Management Statement due by 2/1/2018. Initial Case Management Conference previously set for 12/21/2017 continued to 2/8/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2017) (Entered: 12/15/2017)	Dec. 15, 2017	Dec. 15, 2017 PACER
63	MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 2/1/2018 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Judge Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 1/5/2018. Replies due by 1/12/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Estevez, Anne-Marie) (Filed on 12/22/2017) (Entered: 12/22/2017)	Dec. 22, 2017	Dec. 22, 2017 PACER
64	MOTION Extend Mediation Deadline filed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. Responses due by 1/8/2018. Replies due by 1/16/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Most, William) (Filed on 12/24/2017) (Entered: 12/24/2017)	Dec. 24, 2017	Dec. 24, 2017 PACER
65	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 64 MOTION Extend Mediation Deadline ) filed byRasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Gao, Kathy) (Filed on 12/26/2017) (Entered: 12/26/2017)	Dec. 26, 2017	Dec. 26, 2017 PACER
66	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 63 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Most, William) (Filed on 12/28/2017) (Entered: 12/28/2017)	Dec. 28, 2017	Dec. 28, 2017 PACER
	Set/Reset Hearings	Dec. 28, 2017	Dec. 28, 2017 PACER
	Set/Reset Hearing Mediation Hearing set for 1/23/2018 09:00 AM., at the U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2017)	Dec. 28, 2017	Dec. 28, 2017 PACER
67	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 64 Motion to Extend Mediation Date. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2017) (Entered: 12/29/2017)	Dec. 29, 2017	Dec. 29, 2017 PACER
68	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 66 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/29/2017) (Entered: 12/29/2017)	Dec. 29, 2017	Dec. 29, 2017 PACER
69	Certificate of Interested Entities by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr (DeReus, Garret) (Filed on 1/19/2018) (Entered: 01/19/2018)	Jan. 19, 2018	Jan. 19, 2018 PACER
70	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 63 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings ) filed byScott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Most, William) (Filed on 1/19/2018) (Entered: 01/19/2018)	Jan. 19, 2018	Jan. 19, 2018 PACER
71	MOTION for Protective Order filed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. Motion Hearing set for 2/8/2018 01:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 2/2/2018. Replies due by 2/9/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Stipulated Protective Order in Nat. Fed of the Blind v. Uber)(DeReus, Garret) (Filed on 1/19/2018) (Entered: 01/19/2018)	Jan. 19, 2018	Jan. 19, 2018 PACER
72	ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for Discovery purposes. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/22/18. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2018) (Entered: 01/22/2018)	Jan. 22, 2018	Jan. 22, 2018 PACER
	CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James for Discovery (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2018)	Jan. 23, 2018	Jan. 23, 2018 PACER
	Case Referred to Magistrate Judge for Discovery	Jan. 23, 2018	Jan. 23, 2018 PACER
73	ORDER re 72 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/23/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2018) (Entered: 01/23/2018)	Jan. 23, 2018	Jan. 23, 2018 PACER
74	MOTION to Appear by Telephone in the Initial Case Management Conference filed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(DeReus, Garret) (Filed on 1/24/2018) (Entered: 01/24/2018)	Jan. 24, 2018	Jan. 24, 2018 PACER
75	CLERK'S NOTICE. The Case Management Conference set for 2/8/2018 will be held at 11:00 AM. All parties shall appear telephonically and must contact Court Call at (866) 582-6878 at least one week prior to the Conference to arrange their participation. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2018) (Entered: 01/24/2018)	Jan. 24, 2018	Jan. 24, 2018 PACER
76	CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The Case Management Conference previously set for 2/8/2018 is continued to 3/22/2018 at 11:00 AM. All parties shall appear telephonically and must contact Court Call at (866) 582-6878 at least one week prior to the Conference to arrange their participation. Case Management Statement due by 3/15/2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (rslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2018) (Entered: 01/31/2018)	Jan. 31, 2018	Jan. 31, 2018 PACER
77	REPLY (re 63 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings ) filed byRasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Estevez, Anne-Marie) (Filed on 2/2/2018) (Entered: 02/02/2018)	Feb. 2, 2018	Feb. 2, 2018 PACER
78	Corporate Disclosure Statement by Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. identifying Other Affiliate SB Cayman 2 Limited, Other Affiliate Softbank Group Corporation for Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. re 17 Certificate of Interested Entities, (Estevez, Anne-Marie) (Filed on 2/27/2018) (Entered: 02/27/2018)	Feb. 27, 2018	Feb. 27, 2018 PACER
79	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice Jennifer M. Coco ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-12150168.) filed by Scott Crawford, Howard A. Herman, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Coco, Jennifer) (Filed on 3/1/2018) (Entered: 03/01/2018)	March 1, 2018	March 1, 2018 PACER
80	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting in part and denying in part 63 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2018) (Entered: 03/01/2018)	March 1, 2018	March 1, 2018 Clearinghouse
81	ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg granting 79 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Jennifer M. Coco. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2018) (Entered: 03/05/2018)	March 5, 2018	March 5, 2018 PACER
82	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT by defendants and filed by Scott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. (DeReus, Garret) (Filed on 3/15/2018) (Entered: 03/15/2018)	March 15, 2018	March 15, 2018 PACER
83	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard Seeborg: Initial Case Management Conference held telephonically on 3/22/2018.Parties shall submit a proposed schedule by 3/29/2018.Total Time in Court: 10 minutes. Not Reported or Recorded. Plaintiff Attorney: Garrett DeReus, William Most - Telephonic. Defendant Attorney: Anne-Marie Estevez, Stephanie Schuster - Telephonic. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/22/2018) (Entered: 03/22/2018)	March 22, 2018	March 22, 2018 PACER
	Case Referred to Magistrate Judge for Settlement	March 23, 2018	March 23, 2018 PACER
	CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore for Settlement (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2018)	March 23, 2018	March 23, 2018 PACER
84	ORDER OF RECUSAL. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 3/26/2018. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2018) (Entered: 03/26/2018)	March 26, 2018	March 26, 2018 PACER
85	MOTION for Reconsideration re 80 Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Estevez, Anne-Marie) (Filed on 3/28/2018) (Entered: 03/28/2018)	March 28, 2018	March 28, 2018 RECAP
86	MOTION for Certificate of Appealability re: ECF No. 80 filed by Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Estevez, Anne-Marie) (Filed on 3/28/2018) (Entered: 03/28/2018)	March 28, 2018	March 28, 2018 PACER
87	Joint ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Entry of Scheduling Order filed by Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. Responses due by 4/2/2018. (Estevez, Anne-Marie) (Filed on 3/29/2018) (Entered: 03/29/2018)	March 29, 2018	March 29, 2018 PACER
88	CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER. Bench Trial set for 1/21/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge Richard Seeborg. Further Case Management Conference set for 2/28/2019 at 10:00 AM. Pretrial Conference set for 12/11/2019 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/29/18. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2018) (Entered: 03/29/2018)	March 29, 2018	March 29, 2018 PACER
89	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 85 MOTION for Reconsideration re 80 Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ) filed byScott Crawford, Jarvis Jernigan, Jr. (DeReus, Garret) (Filed on 4/4/2018) (Entered: 04/04/2018)	April 4, 2018	April 4, 2018 PACER