Opinion
24cv5839 (EP) (JRA)
09-30-2024
BRADLEY TALMADGE LIVINGSTON, Plaintiff, v. UBER & LYFT, Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM ORDER
EVELYN PADIN, U.S.D.J.
Pro se Plaintiff Bradley Livingston brings this action against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) and Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) alleging wage theft, fraud, and discrimination. D.E. 1 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”). The Clerk entered default as to Lyft on June 12, 2024. Lyft moves to vacate, D.E. 48 (“Default Motion”), and to compel arbitration. D.E. 59 (“Lyft Motion”). Uber also moves to compel arbitration. D.E. 39 (“Uber Motion”). Plaintiff opposes and crossmoves for recusal. D.E. 44 (“Uber Opp'n” or “Cross-Motion for Recusal”). Plaintiff now consents to arbitration. D.E. 63. The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and decides the motions without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the reasons below, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Recusal, GRANT the Lyft Motion and the Uber Motion on consent, and STAY this action pending disposition of arbitration. The Court will also DENY without prejudice Lyft's Default Motion as MOOT.
Although the parties do not dispute this Court's subject matter jurisdiction, the Court has an independent duty to examine it. See N.J. Carpenters and the Trustees Thereof v. Trishman Const. Corp, of N.J.. 760 F.3d 297, 302 (3d Cir. 2014). The Court is satisfied that is has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Plaintiff is a resident of Maryland; Uber and Lyft are both California companies; and Plaintiff seeks more than $75,000 in damages. See Compl.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff appears to accuse Uber and Lyft of wage theft, fraud, and racial discrimination from September 2017 through September 2019. Compl. at 3-4. After Lyft failed to timely respond to the Complaint, Plaintiff requested a Clerk's Entry of Default against Lyft on June 8, 2024, D.E. 26, which the Clerk of Court entered on June 12, 2024. Plaintiff moved for default judgment as to Lyft, D.E. 27, which the Court denied. D.E. 35. Counsel for Lyft subsequently entered an appearance in this matter on July 3, 2024. D.E. 36.
Uber now moves to compel arbitration. Uber Motion. Plaintiff opposes and cross-moves for recusal. UberOpp'n. Lyft also moves to vacate the Clerk's Entry of Default. Default Motion. Lyft also moves to compel arbitration. Lyft Motion. Plaintiff opposes. D.E. 60. However, on September 23, 2024, Plaintiff appeared to consent to arbitration. D.E. 61. The Court issued a text order seeking Plaintiffs clarification that he, in fact, meant to consent to arbitration. D.E. 62. Plaintiff filed a letter on September 25, 2024 confirming his consent. D.E. 63.
II. ANALYSIS
A. The Court Will Deny Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Recusal
The extent of Plaintiff s Cross-Motion for Recusal is one sentence stating “I the plaintiff. . . cross-move for recusal[.]” Uber Opp'n. “A motion that ‘contains no legal argument and is [ ] unaccompanied by a separate brief or statement that no brief necessary . . . violates [Local Civil Rule] 7.1(d) and may be denied [on] that basis alone.'” Discovery Bank v. Greenwood House Home for the Jewish Aged, No. 18-16020, 2020 WL 2839462, at *4 (D.N.J. May 29, 2020) (quoting Roy v. Ramsey Moving Sys., No. 15-3330, 2016 WL 1163932, at *4 n.2 (D.N.J. Mar. 23, 2016)). Plaintiff provides no basis or legal authority in support of his cross-motion and the Court is unaware of any. The Court will accordingly DENY the Cross-Motion for Recusal.
B. The Court Will Stay this Action Pending Disposition of Arbitration
Plaintiff consents to arbitration. D.E. 63. Accordingly, the Court will GRANT the Lyft Motion and Uber Motion on consent and STAY this action pending disposition of arbitration. Defendants shall initiate arbitration proceedings as set forth in their respective arbitration agreements. Accordingly, the Court will DENY without prejudice the Default Motion as MOOT.
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons above, it is
ORDERED that the Cross-Motion for Recusal, D.E. 44, is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Uber Motion, D.E. 39, and the Lyft Motion, D.E. 59, are GRANTED on consent, D.E. 63; and it is further
ORDERED that the Default Motion, D.E. 48, is DENIED without prejudice as MOOT; and it is further
ORDERED that the moving Defendants shall initiate arbitration proceedings as set forth in their respective arbitration agreements; and it is further
ORDERED that this matter is STAYED pending disposition of arbitration; and it is finally
ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status update every 120 days from the entry of this Order.