Ehret v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filing 39

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 38 on the Filing of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and Briefing on Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Caren Ehret. Motion due 6/11/14. Responses due by 7/9/2014. Replies due by 7/23/2014. Motion Hearing set for 8/14/2014 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Edward M. Chen.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/24/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Myron M. Cherry (California State Bar No. 50278)
[e-mail]
MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC
30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
Stephen A. Swedlow (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant

11
12

[Additional counsel on signature page]

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14
15
16
17

CAREN EHRET, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons,

18
19

Plaintiff,
v.

20
21
22

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.

23

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

Case No. 3:14-cv-113-EMC
JOINT STIPULATION ON THE FILING OF
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
BRIEFING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT

24
25

Plaintiff Caren Ehret (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”

26

or “Uber”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their attorneys of record, STIPULATE

27

AS FOLLOWS:

28
1

1

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on January 8, 2014 alleging a single count against

2

Defendant under California’s Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions

3

Code § 17200, et seq. (“UCL”);

4

WHEREAS, on March 20, 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant that they

5

intended to file an amended complaint, which, among other things, would add a claim for

6

damages under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. (“CLRA”);

7
8

WHEREAS, on March 24, 2014, Plaintiff served Defendant by certified mail a CLRA
violation notice and demand pursuant to Cal. Civil Code § 1782(a);

9

WHEREAS, Cal. Civil Code § 1782(a) does not permit the commencement of an action

10

for damages under the CLRA until thirty (30) days after service of a CLRA violation notice and

11

demand on the defendant;

12
13
14
15

WHEREAS, on April 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint on April 30, 2014 (Doc. 28) and also filed a proposed amended complaint (Doc. 29);
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and allowed her April
2, 2014 filing of the proposed amended to complaint to stand as the amended complaint;

16

WHEREAS, the Court’s April 9, 2014 order “deem[ing] the amended complaint filed as

17

of April 2, 2014,” results in the commencement of a CLRA damage claim prior to the expiration

18

of the thirty (30) day period required under Cal. Civil Code § 1782(a);

19

WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred and in the interest of avoiding delay and

20

further unnecessary briefing and/or motion practice agree to that the proposed amended

21

complaint filed on April 2, 2014 (Doc. 29) shall be treated as a “proposed” filing and that

22

Plaintiff shall be allowed to file her amended complaint on or before April 30, 2014;

23

WHEREAS, Plaintiff intends to make two small additions to Paragraphs 2 and 11 of her

24

amended complaint that were not included in her proposed amended complaint filed on April 2,

25

2014, which additions Defendant has agreed can be included in Plaintiff’s amended complaint

26

and are as follows (in underline):

27
28
2

1
2

2.
More specifically, Uber advertises and represents on its website
and other marketing materials that gratuity will be automatically added at a set
percentage of the metered fare and that that “gratuity” is automatically added “for
the driver.”

3
4
5
6

11.
On its website and on its app Uber represents its “Hassle-free
Payments” as follows: “We automatically charge your credit card the metered
fare + 20% gratuity.” (italics added). Uber further represents that the “20%
gratuity is automatically added for the driver.”

7

WHEREAS, the Parties have further agreed to the following briefing schedule, subject to

8

the Court’s approval, for Defendant’s anticipated motion to dismiss the amended complaint: (i)

9

Defendant shall file its motion to dismiss on June 11, 2014, (ii) Plaintiff’s response in opposition

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

shall be filed on July 9, 2014, and (iii) Defendant’s reply thereto shall be filed on July 23, 2014.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED BY AND
BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT:
(1) Plaintiff’s filing on April 2, 2014 (Doc. 29) shall be treated as a “proposed” amended
complaint;
(2) Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file her actual amended complaint, including the
additions referenced above, on or before April 30, 2014; and

17

(3) Defendant shall file its motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 11, 2014,

18

Plaintiff’s response in opposition shall be filed on July 9, 2014, and Defendant’s reply

19

thereto shall be filed on July 23, 2014.

20

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

By: _____/s/ Myron M. Cherry_______
Myron M. Cherry
Attorney for Plaintiff

By: _____/s/ Stephen A. Swedlow_______
Stephen A. Swedlow
Attorney for Defendant

30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

28
3

Hall Adams (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
LAW OFFICES OF HALL ADAMS, LLC
33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 2350
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Arthur Miles Roberts (SBN 275272)
QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant

10

Michael Ram (SBN 104805)
RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO
& KOPCZYNSKI LLP
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

11

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

12
13

RT

dwar
Judge E

ER

H

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

en

d M. Ch

NO

21

IT I
IFIED
S MOD
A

R NIA

20

________________________________
RED
HON. SO ORDEM. CHEN
S EDWARD

FO

19

UNIT
ED

18

4/24/14
DATED:_______________________

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

17

S

16

LI

15

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED . Motion hearing is set
for 8/14/14 at 1:30 p.m.

A

14

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C