N.D. California· 6/9/2015

Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Citations

109 F. Supp. 3d 1185
2015 WL 3749716

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

predicting that California Supreme Court would hold that unilateral modification provision substantively' unconscionable
rejecting plaintiffs argument that he could not legally assent to the contract because he did not sufficiently understand English, and explaining that a “party who agrees to terms in writing without understanding or investigating those terms does so at his own peril”
rejecting plaintiffs argument that he could not legally assent to the contract because he did not sufficiently understand English, and explaining that a “party who agrees to terms in writing without understanding or investigating those terms does so at his own peril”
before reaching the enforceability of the arbitration provision, discussing whether the delegation clause was clear and unmistakable or unconscionable
“[T]he question of whether delegation language is clear and unmistakable should be determined in context of the contractual lan guage as a whole—not by artificially restricting the Court’s review solely to the provisions of the arbitration clause.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Chen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

64 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.