Ninth Circuit on Uber Arbitration
This post has been viewed 3,048 times.
From this morning’s National Law Journal article (available here) reporting on the 9th circuit’s consideration of the appeal from a N.D.CA court’s finding that Uber’s arbitration clause was unenforceable for reasons of unconscionability:
According to Uber, Chen’s rulings refused to follow the Ninth Circuit’s 2013 en banc decision in Kilgore v. KeyBank, which held that an arbitration agreement cannot be deemed procedurally unconscionable if it provides meaningful opportunity to opt out.
Laura Ho of Oakland-based Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho argued for Uber drivers who contend that the company violated state and federal laws in conducting background checks, including by not notifying them upon finding adverse information. Ho has reached a settlement with Uber in that suit, but the proposed settlement value would increase from $7.5 million to $9 million if she won the appeal.
Read original articleRuling last year in Mohamed v. Uber, Chen rejected Uber’s arbitration agreements with its drivers as unfair and one-sided. Chen’s order examined Uber’s 2013 arbitration agreement, as well as a subsequent version introduced in 2014, finding both to be procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Among other concerns, he took issue with provisions that waived a driver’s right to pursue claims under the state’s Private Attorney General Act, or PAGA.
Tags:
