Keather Taylor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al

Filing 16

STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FALSE ADVERTISING CLAIM UNDER THE LANHAM ACT AND TO REMAND REMOVED ACTION; AND ORDER by Judge George H. Wu, re Stipulation to Remand Case to State Court 14 . Case is remanded to Los Angeles County of Superior Court, Case number BC627067. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

JEFFREY A. SWEDO (SBN: 78361)
[e-mail]
STEPHANIE P. ALEXANDER (SBN: 205701)
[e-mail]
NATASHA M. WU (SBN: 286163)
[e-mail]
GORDON & REES LLP
2211 Michelson Drive Suite 400
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

REMAND/JS-6

Attorneys for Defendant
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Gordon & Rees LLP
2211 Michelson Drive Suite 400
Irvine, CA 92612

11
12

KEATHER TAYLOR

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

vs.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC, and
DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CV 17-318-GW(AGRx)
Removed from the Superior Court
Of California, Los Angeles County,
Case No. BC627067
STIPULATION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S FALSE
ADVERTISING CLAIM
UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
AND TO REMAND REMOVED
ACTION; AND ORDER
Judge: Hon. George H. Wu
Magistrate Judge: Hon. Alicia G.
Rosenberg
Action Filed: July 21, 2016
First Amended Complaint served:
December 16, 2016
Date removed: January 13, 2017

24
25

///

26

///

27

///

28

-1STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FALSE ADVERTISING CLAIM UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
AND TO REMAND REMOVED ACTION
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00318 GW (AGRx)

1

Plaintiff Keather Taylor (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.

2

(“Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as

3

follows:
RECITALS

4
5

A.

On July 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant in the

6

Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Keather Taylor v. Uber

7

Technologies, Inc., Case No. BC627067 (the “State Court Action”). Plaintiff did

8

not effect service of her initial Complaint on Defendant at that time.

9
10

B.

On December 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in

the State Court Action.

Gordon & Rees LLP
2211 Michelson Drive Suite 400
Irvine, CA 92612

11

C.

On December 16, 2016, Plaintiff served her First Amended Complaint

12

on Defendant.

13

D.

On January 13, 2017, Defendant noticed the removal of this action

14

from the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County to the United States

15

District Court, Central District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and

16

1446, based on federal question jurisdiction. Specifically, in her First Amended

17

Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim for damages against Defendant arising out of

18

an alleged violation of Section 43(A) of The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125.

19
20
21

E.

On February 3, 2017, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause

regarding federal subject matter jurisdiction.
F.

On February 8, 2017, Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant met and

22

conferred regarding the Court's Order to Show Cause. Counsel for Plaintiff

23

discussed with counsel for Defendant that Plaintiff was willing to dismiss that

24

portion of her Fourth Claim for Relief for False Advertising alleged to arise out of

25

a violation of Section 43(A) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125.

26
27
28

G.

On February 13, 2017, Counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendant

further met and conferred regarding federal court jurisdiction in light of Plaintiff’s
-2STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FALSE ADVERTISING CLAIM UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
AND TO REMAND REMOVED ACTION
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00318 GW (AGRx)

1

proposal to voluntary dismiss her False Advertising claim under Section 43(A) of

2

The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125.

3

H.

Counsel for the Parties agree that following a dismissal of that portion

4

of Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for Relief for False Advertising alleged to arise out of a

5

violation of Section 43(A) of The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, the United States

6

District Court for the Central District of California will no longer have subject

7

matter jurisdiction over this action.
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES

8
9

1.

The Parties respectfully request that the Court dismiss, without

prejudice, all portions of Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for Relief for False Advertising

11
Gordon & Rees LLP
2211 Michelson Drive Suite 400
Irvine, CA 92612

10

alleged to arise out of a violation of Section 43(A) of The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.

12

§ 1125.

13
14
15
16

2.

The Parties agree that upon dismissal of the Lanham Act claim, this

Court will no longer have federal subject matter jurisdiction.
3.

The Parties request this Court remand the action to the Superior Court

of California, County of Los Angeles, where this action was originally filed.

17
18

Dated: February ____, 2017

GARY A. DORDICK, A LAW
CORPORATION

19

By:

20
21

Gary A. Dordick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KEATHER TAYLOR

22
23

Dated: February 17, 2017

24
25
26
27
28

By:

Jeffrey A. Swedo
Stephanie P. Alexander
Natasha M. Wu
Attorneys for Defendant
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

-3STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FALSE ADVERTISING CLAIM UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
AND TO REMAND REMOVED ACTION
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00318 GW (AGRx)

ORDER

1
2
3

PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Parties shall comply with the above stipulation’s provisions.

4
5
6

Dated: February 21, 2017
GEORGE H. WU, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10

Gordon & Rees LLP
2211 Michelson Drive Suite 400
Irvine, CA 92612

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1112750/31656675v.1

-4STIPULATION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FALSE ADVERTISING CLAIM UNDER THE LANHAM ACT
AND TO REMAND REMOVED ACTION
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00318 GW (AGRx)