Ex Parte
Ex Parte
Ex Parte
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25
26 2
Although the Court also cited “harm to misclassified workers who lose significant workplace
protections” and “unfairness to employers who must compete with companies that misclassify” as
27 harms to Plaintiff absent an injunction (Order at p. 28), there is no evidence in the record that any
worker’s rights have been violated or that any employer has been harmed. As Uber has explained, the
28 vast majority of drivers have rejected Plaintiff’s demand that they be treated as “employees”—they
value their independence and the ability to control their own work that Uber’s app provides.
Gibson, Dunn & 12
Crutcher LLP
UBER'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL – CASE NO.
CGC-20-584402
1 IV. CONCLUSION
2 The Court should clarify that the injunction is mandatory and therefore automatically stayed
3 pending Uber’s appeal. Even if the Court deems the injunction prohibitory, it should issue a stay to
4 avoid the severe and irreparable harm that would result. At the very least, the Court should issue an
5 interim stay so that Uber can petition the Court of Appeal for a writ of supersedeas.
6
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28