Capriole v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 991 F.3d 339

Uber operates a ride‑hailing app; drivers accept the Technology Services Agreement (TSA) containing an individual‑only arbitration provision with a 30‑day opt‑out. Capriole signed up and did not opt out.
Capriole filed a CAFA class action in D. Mass., alleging Uber misclassified drivers as independent contractors in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act and later added an earned sick leave claim.
He moved for a preliminary injunction in Massachusetts to require reclassification of drivers as employees; the district court denied that first motion for lack of irreparable harm and held the requested relief was not a public injunction.
The case was transferred to the N.D. Cal. under the TSA forum clause; the California court compelled arbitration, denied a second preliminary injunction, dismissed the case, and entered final judgment.
Capriole appealed the Massachusetts denial to the First Circuit. The First Circuit considered whether it had jurisdiction to decide the appeal in light of the California final judgment and dismissed the appeal as moot because the denial merged into the final judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction / Mootness of appeal from denial of first preliminary injunction	Transfer did not divest First Circuit; appeal retained validity	Final judgment in California mooted the appeal; denial merged into final judgment	Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — denial merged into the California final judgment
Enforceability of arbitration provision and class‑action waiver	Arbitration unenforceable because drivers are exempt from the FAA and state law (Feeney) bars class waivers where FAA doesn't apply	TSA arbitration and waiver are enforceable; claims must be arbitrated	First Circuit did not reach merits; N.D. Cal. compelled arbitration and dismissed the case
Power to grant preliminary injunctive relief before arbitration	District court can issue preliminary injunction to protect plaintiff pending arbitration	Court should not enjoin while arbitration governs the dispute	First Circuit did not decide; N.D. Cal. held district court lacked power to grant such relief prior to arbitration
Availability of "public" injunctive relief	Capriole sought public injunctive relief; urged courts to follow McGill on unenforceability of waivers for public relief	Massachusetts law does not authorize private public injunctive relief; the relief sought is primarily individual	Massachusetts district court denied public injunctive relief; First Circuit did not reach the issue

Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37 (1920) (denial of preliminary injunction merges into final decree, mooting separate appeal)
Smith v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co., 270 U.S. 587 (1926) (same merger principle)
Chaparro‑Febus v. Int'l Longshoremen Ass'n, Loc. 1575, 983 F.2d 325 (1st Cir. 1992) (denial of preliminary injunction merged in final judgment)
Matrix Group Ltd. v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., 378 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2004) (transfer does not automatically divest appellate court of jurisdiction; distinguishable here)
Feeney v. Dell Inc., 908 N.E.2d 753 (Mass. 2009) (Massachusetts rule on unenforceability of arbitration clauses with class waivers)
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (Federal Arbitration Act can preempt state rules that invalidate arbitration agreements)
McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017) (refusal to enforce arbitration clauses that bar public injunctive relief under certain statutes)
Acevedo‑Garci v. Monroig, 351 F.3d 547 (1st Cir. 2003) (definition and limits of severance of claims)