Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Varon v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Maryland

July 20, 2016

ELIZABETH VARON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RAISER, LLC Defendants

          MEMORANDUM RE: RECONSIDERATION

          Marvin J. Garbis United States District Judge

         The Court has before it Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 25] and the materials submitted relating thereto. The Court has reviewed the exhibits and considered the materials submitted by the parties. The Court finds a hearing unnecessary.

         I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[1]

         Plaintiff Elizabeth Varon (“Varon”) sued Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) and a subsidiary, Rasier, LLC[2](“Rasier”). On May 3, 2016, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, and issued its Judgment Order [ECF No. 24]. On May 17, 2016, Plaintiff timely filed the instant motion seeking reconsideration.

         II. LEGAL SETTING

         The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit “ha[s] recognized that there are three grounds for amending an earlier judgment” under Rule 59(e):

(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law;
(2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or
(3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.

Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998); see also Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., 771 F.Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991).

         A motion for reconsideration “cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before [the determination on which reconsideration is sought was] issued.” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986). Stated differently, “‘[a] motion to reconsider is not a license to reargue the merits or present new evidence.’” Gray- Hopkins v. Prince George’s Cnty., Md., 201 F.Supp.2d 523, 524 (D. Md. 2002) (citation omitted).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Varon contends that California law, rather than Maryland law, applies to the instant case. Varon argues that if California law were applied, the Court would have found the Arbitration Provision and Delegation Clause in their contract unenforceable. The Court does not agree.

         Even if the Court were to analyze the validity of the Arbitration Provision under California law, it would not find it unconscionable. Under California law, unconscionability consists of two elements: procedural and substantive unconscionability. Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., 24 Cal.4th 83, 114 (2000). Both elements must “be present in order for a court to exercise its discretion to refuse to enforce a contract or clause under the doctrine of unconscionability.” Carlson v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc., 239 Cal.App.4th 619, 630 (2015) (citation omitted). “[T]he more substantively oppressive the contract term, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.