United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
WILLIAM L. FAMBROUGH, Plaintiff,
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE
KAYS, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
lawsuit arises from Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s
(“Uber”) decision to deactivate pro se
Plaintiff William L. Fambrough's driving account, a
decision which meant Plaintiff could no longer drive for
before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency
Injunctive Relief (Doc. 3) which the Court construes as a
motion for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff asks the
Court to order Uber to reactivate his driver account
carefully reviewing the motion and the existing record, the
Court holds Plaintiff has not met his burden of proof for the
Court to issue a temporary restraining order.
liberally, the Complaint (Doc. 1-1) alleges Uber terminated
Plaintiff's driver account solely as the result of using
a facial recognition application that has difficulty
recognizing black skin such as Plaintiff has. This software
wrongly reported that Plaintiff was using someone else's
photo for verification, which led to Uber deactivating
Plaintiff's driving account. Thus, Plaintiff claims the
deactivation was based on the color of his skin, and not on
just cause as required by the parties'
for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
determining whether to grant a temporary restraining order
the Court considers: (1) the threat of irreparable harm to
the movant; (2) the balance between this harm and any injury
that granting the injunction will inflict on the non-moving
party; (3) the likelihood that the moving party will prevail
on the merits; and (4) the public interest. Phelps-Roper
v. Nixon, 509 F.3d 480, 484 (8th Cir. 2007). No. single
factor is determinative; they must be “balanced to
determine whether they tilt towards or away” from
granting the injunction. Noodles Development, LP. v.
Ninth Street Partners, LLP, 507 F.Supp.2d 1030, 1034
(E.D. Mo. 2007). A temporary restraining order “is an
‘extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not
be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the
burden of persuasion.'” North Dakota v. U.S.
Army Corps of Eng'rs, 264 F.Supp.2d 871, 878 (N.D.
2003) (quoting Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968,
Plaintiff has not demonstrated a threat of irreparable
demonstrate a sufficient threat of irreparable harm, the
moving party must show that there is no adequate remedy at
law; that is, that an award of damages cannot compensate the
movant for the harm. See Noodles Development, 507
F.Supp.2d at 1036-37. In this case, it appears an award of
damages could fully compensate Plaintiff for any loss he has
suffered. Although Plaintiff cannot drive for Uber in the
interim without the injunctive relief he seeks, an award of
monetary damages could compensate him for this harm. Thus,
there is no threat of irreparable harm.
Plaintiff has shown that the balance of harms favors issuing
argue that without injunctive relief, he will suffer
substantial harm because he is virtually broke and needs the
income he earns from driving for Uber to pay his bills.
Plaintiff claims Uber will not suffer any harm if the
injunction is granted; in fact, it will benefit, because it