Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc, Requires Ex-Uber Drivers to Arbitrate Claims Individually

January 4, 2017 by Clifton R. Gruhn

The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc of its September order holding that the district court erred in deciding whether two drivers who sued Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) on behalf of themselves and a putative class over the use of background checks must arbitrate their claims individually. The consolidated cases concerned both 2013 and 2014 versions of agreements Uber drivers were required to sign. The agreements included mandatory arbitration clauses, and class action, collective action, and Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claim waivers. In addition, the agreements contained delegation clauses providing that disputes regarding arbitrability, would be resolved by an arbitrator. Importantly, the 2013 agreements, unlike the 2014 agreements, required the district court, not the arbitrator, to consider certain challenges to the arbitration provision, including challenges to the enforceability of the PAGA waivers.

The plaintiffs, Gillette and Mohamed, entered agreements in 2013 and 2014, respectively, and began driving for Uber. Uber subsequently terminated both plaintiffs’ access to the Uber application due to negative information on their consumer credit reports. The plaintiffs filed separate suits in California, alleging, among other claims, violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and bringing PAGA claims. Uber moved to compel arbitration in both suits, and the district court denied both motions, concluding that, although the agreements contained arbitration clauses and collective action waivers, the issue of arbitrability was not “clear and unmistakable.” Further, the district court reasoned that, even if the arbitration clauses were “clear and unmistakable,” they were unenforceable because they were unconscionable. Regarding both plaintiffs’ PAGA claims, the district court concluded that the PAGA waivers were substantively unconscionable and that plaintiffs were permitted to proceed in litigating those claims.

In September, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s holdings on the majority of the arbitration issues. The Ninth Circuit held that neither the 2013 nor the 2014 agreements’ delegations of arbitrability were unconscionable. Regarding whether the delegation clauses were “clear and unmistakable,” the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court and held that the agreements clearly delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. As to unconscionability, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the opt out option was not illusory because there were some drivers who did opt out and whose opt-outs Uber recognized. Regarding the PAGA claims, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding on the PAGA waivers contained in the 2013 agreements signed by Gillette. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court as to the unconscionability, but held the 2013 PAGA waivers were severable from the arbitration clauses because they explicitly stated that PAGA claims were subject to litigation in court.  Thus, in December, the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc, allowing Uber to avoid class actions in favor of individual arbitration, with the exception that Gillette’s PAGA claim could be litigated in court.

Mohamed v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 15-16178 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2016).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

The Future of Standing in Data Breach Class Actions

Next Article »

State Law Prohibiting Class Actions Does Not Preclude Court From Maintaining Certification and Approving Settlement Agreement
Clifton R. Gruhn

About Clifton R. Gruhn

Clifton Gruhn is a Shareholder at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.