In O’Connor v. Uber, the 9th Circuit issued its opinion in an appeal consolidating four related actions pending before the same district court. In what can only be described as a total victory for the company, the appellate court reversed the district court’s orders denying Uber’s motions to compel arbitration, orders granting class certification, and orders controlling class communications. Two Uber drivers filed the original putative class action complaint on August 16, 2013. A week thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a motion under FRCP 23(d) requesting the district our declare Uber’s arbitration agreement unconscionable or requiring Uber to provide enhanced notice and opt out provisions. The district court granted this motion. In a later proceeding, the district court held the arbitration agreement unconscionable. In April, 2015, plaintiffs moved for class certification. The district court granted class certification in part on September 1, 2015 and certified an additional subclass on December 9, 2015. In the same order, the district court certified the original class and the new subclass to pursue recovery of expense reimbursement in addition to the tips and damages for misclassification as independent contractors. The Ninth Circuit had already reversed the district court’s orders denying Uber’s motion to compel arbitration in Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc. The court rejected plaintiffs’ new argument that the lead plaintiffs had opted out of the arbitration agreements on behalf of the class. Plaintiffs’ argument relied on a Georgia case arising under state law. The Ninth Circuit applied the Federal Arbitration Act and noted “an arbitration-specific rule . . . would be preempted. The court also rejected the argument that the arbitration agreements are unenforceable because the class action waivers violate the National Labor Relations Act. That issue, however, was disposed of by the Supreme Court in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. The reversal of the class certification orders follows directly from the reversal of the motions to compel arbitration. The Ninth Circuit points out that the question of arbitrability is designated to the arbitrator, not the district court. Plaintiffs essentially conceded this point but argued the orders should be left in place and the action remanded to the district court for consideration of some other class that could be certified. The appellate court remanded the case for such consideration but held that leaving the existing class certification orders in place was inappropriate. Finally, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Rule 23(d) orders pursuant to which the District Court purported to control how Uber communicated with drivers. Again, this was a “no-brainer” once the class certification orders were reversed. Most of the heavy lifting in this case occurred in the Mohamed case. The additional two years of litigation did not really result in any new law. This latest case is mostly a procedural exercise in dotting eyes and crossing tees. According to one article: “A lawyer for drivers suing Uber said that since the ability to sue en masse has been removed, her firm is prepared to bring thousands of drivers into individual arbitration with Uber.”