McKnight v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Tab Group

Merits Stage

Outcome

September 15, 2022

The district court refused to grant class objectors indicative ruling about whether Rule 23(e)(5)(B) would require court approval of payments made to objectors in exchange for withdrawing objections to plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees requests. At the court’s invitation, the U.S. Chamber filed an amicus brief supporting this outcome.

U.S. Chamber explains that district court approval is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(5) for payments to objectors in exchange for forgoing their objections to attorney’s fee awards or dismissing their appeals from such objections

April 29, 2022

Click here to view the amicus brief filed jointly by the U.S. Chamber and Lawyers for Civil Justice. Ethan P. Davis, Ashley C. Parrish, and Paige Tenkhoff of King & Spalding LLP and the U.S. Chamber’s Litigation Center served as co-counsel for the U.S. Chamber.

Case Documents

U.S. Chamber Coalition Amicus Brief -- McKnight v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal.).pdf

Order on Rule 23(e)(5) -- McKnight v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D. Cal.).pdf