signature. But that would not have given him any more time to read the document, and indeed would have conferred no real benefit on him at all. 17 . Bekele also challenges the unilateral-modification provision in the TOS. However, that provision is not contained in the agreement’s arbitration provision; rather, it appears near the beginning of the TOS. (See Still Decl. Ex. 3 at 2). Accordingly, the unilateral-modification provision is not part of the Court's substantive-unconscionability analysis. 18 . At least some courts have denied ride-sharing companies’ motions for summary judgment on similar issues, holding that whether drivers are employees or independent contractors is a factual question for a jury. See, e.g., Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 60 F.Supp.3d 1067, 1081-82 (N.D.Cal.2015) (<HOLDING>); O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 82 F.Supp.3d
holding that whether lyft drivers are employees or independent contractors is for a jury to decide under california law holding that it is not the courts role to decide whether an experts opinion is correct holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law holding that jury should decide whether plaintiffs testimony proved reasonable and necessary medical expenses holding where reasonable difference of opinion as to whether the defendants act was the or a proximate cause of the injury the matter is for the jury to decide