The district court made a clear error as a matter of law in holding that an Uber driver was not a worker engaged in interstate commerce and thus exempt from the FAA.  Though interstate transportion of people as well as goods may constitute interstate commerce for FAA purposes, the focus under the FAA is on the employer’s business and whether the class of employees to which the plaintiff belongs is as a whole engaged in interstate commerce.  In Rittmann v., Inc. (9th Cir. 2020) 2020 DAR 8982, the employer, Amazon, was engaged in the interstate transportion of goods, and the local Amazon driver just completed those interstate deliveries.  By contrast, here Uber is generally engaged in local transportation of persons, even though some are transported to or from airports as part of interstate trips.  In any event, there was no clear Circuit precedent on whether Uber drivers are engaged in interstate commerce, so Grice could not show that the district court made a clear error of law as required to obtain issuance of a writ of mandate.