Labor/Employment
Sep. 15, 2016
Arbitration agreement ruling puts Uber in the driver's seat
Last week, the 9th Circuit ruled that two of Uber's arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable, reversing the Northern District of California's order denying Uber's motion to compel arbitration. By Cary D. Sullivan and Chris Waidelich
Cary D. Sullivan
Partner
Jones Day
Phone: (949) 553-7513
Univ of San Diego School of Law
Cary is a partner in the firm's Business & Tort Litigation practice.
Last week, in Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2016 DJDAR 9314 (Sept. 7, 2016), the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that two of Uber's arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable, reversing the Northern District of California's order denying Uber's motion to compel arbitration. This undoubtedly will impact other class actions presently pending against Uber, including O'Connor v...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In