Uber hearing this afternoon. Hallway outside courtroom is a CRUSHpic.twitter.com/RXGDQfQgVW
Vous pouvez ajouter des informations de localisation à vos Tweets, comme votre ville ou votre localisation précise, depuis le Web et via des applications tierces. Vous avez toujours la possibilité de supprimer l'historique de localisation de vos Tweets. En savoir plus
Chen: Okay, well, NOW you're a Warriors fan.
Liss-Riordan and Boutrous are addressing the claims that the settlement is collusion between them.
Boutrous: This is litigation has been the opposite of collusive. Chen agrees. Chen: Everything was extremely… uh… contested.
But Chen also loops around and asks if it's collusive to include claims not in the O'Connor case in the settlement.
Chen: Who's there to protect those interests?
Earlier, Liss-Riordan said that if the court does not approve the settlement, "if we need to go to the 9th circuit, I will do that."
"If we have to go to trial, I will do that.
In a previous phase, Boutrous was fighting certification of the class saying it was too broad and it was unfair to loop people in.
Now he's saying it's fair to approve this settlement for the class, because, "This is an opt-out class-action."
"This isn’t a democracy, it’s either you decide to throw your lot in with the class… or you can opt-out."
The settlement does include claims that were not in Liss-Riordan's O'Connor litigation.
So it waives claims that were never made by SLR.
According to SLR, it's because she wrote "focused complaints," and that these other claims are from pile-on cases that came after her.
The other claims are "worthless"—unlikely to succeed, low dollar value.
Mark J. Geragos for the objectors is now saying that a document shows extrinsic evidence of collusion.
"She [Liss-Riordan] was going to give global peace to Uber… by hijacking another case in *this* courtroom."
Geragos: If these are worthless, why were they in mediation?
On settling out someone's case: Chen: What case says you can’t do that? Geragos: ... I'd say it's just fairness. Due process.
aka I have no caselaw
Chen says Geragos brings up an interesting question.
Chen: Whose rights are being violated by expanding out the scope of this case? Class members, or counsel?
Another objector speaking and Chen says to keep it short because there are "30 other issues." SLR will also get her chance at rebuttal.
Other objector (please chime in with name) is bringing in actual caselaw.
Liss-Riordan: Mr. Shkolnik wanted on the eve of trial to transfer this case to Texas.
Boutrous: Ms. Liss-Riordan is the only one in the room who represents all the drivers in California.
This is so fucking uncanny after the last time I saw these two in court.
Chen says that it seems that SLR's named plaintiffs have no experience with some of the new claims (worker's comp).
SLR says that the worker's comp's claim is "novel" and there is no precedent for it.
So weird to see Boutrous in court without being in 200% "I Will Destroy You" mode. He's in "What the fuck am I even doing here" mode
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.