Judge walks out as Uber and Lyft lawyers seek answer

Attorneys for Uber and Lyft pressed a San Francisco judge about whether the preliminary injunction he issued against them was mandatory or prohibitory, prompting him Thursday to instruct them to pursue the question in a court of appeal.

Judge Ethan P. Schulman left the telephonic hearing while Rohit K. Singla, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP and Lyft's counsel, continued to ask questions.

"I have ruled on that issue," Schulman said before terminating the hearing. "I am confident the Court of Appeal is capable of acting very quickly where it is necessary for them to do so."

Minutes earlier, Schulman had denied the companies' ex parte application to delay his preliminary injunction order, stating, "I am not inclined at this point to revisit any of the issues that you raised in the application, nor to revisit the length of the stay that I granted."

The order, issued Monday, requires Uber and Lyft to classify their drivers as employees in accordance with Assembly Bill 5 by Aug. 20.

Lyft plans to file a motion by the end of the week to stay the order in the Court of Appeal, a spokesperson for the company said in an email Thursday.

Uber did not respond by press time to requests for comment.

Singla and Heather L. Richardson, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP who represents Uber, both asked Schulman during the hearing to clarify whether the injunction was mandatory or prohibitory.

In opposition briefs filed in response to state entities' motion for a preliminary injunction, the companies characterized the requested injunction as mandatory since it would require them to take affirmative action by reclassifying thousands of drivers. The briefs added mandatory injunctions are rarely issued and "almost always improper."

Schulman's order on Monday stated, "The court rejects defendants' premise. An injunction that restrains a defendant's continued violation of state law is prohibitory in nature. Any aspects of such an injunction that 'require defendants to engage in affirmative conduct are merely incidental to the injunction's objective to prohibit defendants from further violating California's ... laws.'"

"It is not clearly identified in the court's order whether the injunction is considered mandatory or prohibitory by this court," Singla said in Thursday's hearing, noting a federal court classified a similar preliminary injunction request filed by Lyft drivers as mandatory.

"We think we are entitled to a clear ruling," he said.