O'Connor et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 483

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 482 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Continue Deadline to File Opposition and Reply Briefs Regarding Uber's Motion for Summary Adjudication Or, In the Alternative, Decertification [Dkt 479] filed by Thomas Colopy, Elie Gurfinkel, Matthew Manahan, Douglas O'Connor. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/12/16. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR., SBN 132099
[e-mail]
DEBRA WONG YANG, SBN 123289
[e-mail]
MARCELLUS A. MCRAE, SBN 140308
[e-mail]
THEANE D. EVANGELIS, SBN 243570
[e-mail]
DHANANJAY S. MANTHRIPRAGADA,
SBN 254433
[e-mail]
BRANDON J. STOKER, SBN 277325
[e-mail]
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone:
213.229.7000
Facsimile:
213.229.7520

SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN, pro hac vice
ADELAIDE PAGANO, pro hac vice
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

JOSHUA S. LIPSHUTZ, SBN 242557
[e-mail]
KEVIN J. RING-DOWELL, SBN 278289
[e-mail]
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
Telephone:
415.393.8200
Facsimile:
415.393.8306

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DOUGLAS O’CONNOR, THOMAS COLOPY,
MATTHEW MANAHAN, and ELIE
GURFINKEL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

MATTHEW CARLSON, SBN 273242
CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Defendant
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. 3:13-cv-3826-EMC
DOUGLAS O’CONNOR, THOMAS
COLOPY, MATTHEW MANAHAN, and
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
ELIE GURFINKEL, individually and on
TO CONTINUE DEADLINE TO FILE
behalf of all others similarly situated,
OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS
REGARDING UBER’S MOTION FOR
Plaintiffs,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, DECERTIFICATION
v.
[DKT. 479]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Date: March 24, 2016
Defendants.
Time: 1:30 pm
Place: Courtroom 5
Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen

28
STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS
REGARDING UBER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
DECERTIFICATION [DKT. 479]

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, the undersigned counsel of record for Plaintiffs Douglas

2

O’Connor, Thomas Colopy, Matthew Manahan, and Elie Gurfinkel (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Uber

3

Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) stipulate and agree as follows:

4

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to

5

Plaintiffs’ Gratuities Law Claim Or, in the Alternative, Motion to Decertify Plaintiffs’ Gratuities Law

6

Class, is currently due on February 25, 2016;

7
8

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs’ counsel is taking the California bar exam on February 23 through 25,
2016 and will be unavailable that week;

9

WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and agreed to a brief extension of six days for

10

Plaintiffs to file their Opposition on March 2, 2016 and a corresponding extension for Defendant to

11

file their Reply brief;

12
13
14
15

WHEREAS, the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to is currently set for March 24, 2016 and
this revised schedule will allow briefing to be complete well in advance of the hearing date;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the Court’s approval, that:
(1)

16

Plaintiffs’ Gratuities Law Claim Or, in the Alternative, Motion to Decertify

17
18
19
20

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication as to

Plaintiffs’ Gratuities Law Class, will be due on March 2, 2016;
(2)

Defendant’s Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication
as to Plaintiffs’ Gratuities Law Claim Or, in the Alternative, Motion to Decertify
10
Plaintiffs’ Gratuities Law Class, will be due on March 14, 2016.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS
REGARDING UBER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
DECERTIFICATION [DKT. 479]

1
2

Dated: February 12, 2016

3

SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN
ADELAIDE PAGANO
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

4
MATTHEW CARLSON
CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES

5
6

By:

7

/s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DOUGLAS O’CONNOR, THOMAS COLOPY,
MATTHEW MANAHAN, and ELIE GURFINKEL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,

8
9
10
11
12

Dated: February 12, 2016

17

THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR.
DEBRA WONG YANG
MARCELLUS A. MCRAE
THEANE D. EVANGELIS
JOSHUA S. LIPSHUTZ
DHANANJAY S. MANTHRIPRAGADA
BRANDON J. STOKER
KEVIN J. RING-DOWELL
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

18

By: /s/ Kevin J. Ring-Dowell

19

Attorneys for Defendant
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

13
14
15
16

20
21

PURSUANT TO THIS STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. (as modified above)

23

3

RT

28

en

d M. Ch

NO

27

D
RDERE
S SO O IED
IT I
DIF
AS MO
dwar
Judge E

H

E

R NIA

26

Hon. Edward M. Chen

FO

25

LI

UNIT
ED

S

2/12/16
Date: ____________________

RT
U
O

24

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

A

22

C
RN
STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS
OF
REGARDING UBER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONIOR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
D S T ICT
R
DECERTIFICATION [DKT. 479]

1
2

In accordance with Local Rule 5-1, the filer of this document hereby attests that the
concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories hereto.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS
REGARDING UBER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
DECERTIFICATION [DKT. 479]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28