Ali Razak v. Uber Technologies Inc, No. 18-1944 (3d Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 3, 2020.
Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 18-1944 ______________ ALI RAZAK; KENAN SABANI; KHALDOUN CHERDOUD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; GEGEN, LLC ______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2-16-cv-00573) District Judge: Hon. Michael M. Baylson ______________ Argued January 15, 2019 ______________ Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, GREENAWAY, JR., and PORTER, Circuit Judges. ORDER AMENDING PRECEDENTIAL OPINION . The panel hereby ORDERS that the Opinion filed March 3, 2020 be amended to include the language appearing in angle brackets below. The sentence at page 16 reading, “But, if a court finds that there are any issues of fact that remain in dispute, it must resolve those disputes prior to granting summary judgment” shall be amended to read: “But, if a court finds that there are any issues of <material> fact that remain in <genuine> dispute, it must resolve those disputes prior to granting summary judgment.” The sentence at page 17 reading, “DialAmerica teaches that where there are questions of fact that need resolution, these questions must go to a fact-finder” shall be amended to read: “DialAmerica teaches that where there are <genuine> questions of <material> fact that need resolution, these questions must go to a fact-finder.” BY THE COURT, s/ Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. Circuit Judge Dated: November 5, 2020 Tmm/cc: All Counsel of Record
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
