Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Plaintiff: Jane Doe
Defendant: Uber Technologies, Inc.
Case Number: 0:2017cv01861
Filed: June 2, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Office: DMN Office
County: Ramsey
Presiding Judge: Steven E. Rau
Presiding Judge: Richard H. Kyle
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 31, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER. Uber's motion to transfer venue to the District of Minnesota is GRANTED. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/31/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2017)[Transferred from California Northern on 6/2/2017.]
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jane Doe
Represented By: Marlene J Goldenberg
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Uber Technologies, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?