Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 124

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 123 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re Mediation filed by Abdul Kadir Mohamed. Modified. 12/10/15 CMC vacated. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/25/15. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Laura L. Ho (SBN 173179)
[e-mail]
Andrew P. Lee (SBN 245903)
[e-mail]
William C. Jhaveri-Weeks (SBN 289984)
[e-mail]
GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Meredith Desautels (SBN 259725)
[e-mail]
Dana Isaac Quinn (SBN278848)
[e-mail]
LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
131 Steuart Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Tina Wolfson (SBN 174806)
[e-mail]
Robert Ahdoot (SBN 172098)
[e-mail]
Theodore W. Maya (SBN 223242)
[e-mail]
Bradley K. King (SBN 274399)
[e-mail]
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
1016 Palm Avenue
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
13
Additional counsel listed on following page
14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
Case No.: 14-cv-05200-EMC
18
IN RE UBER FCRA LITIGATION
19

STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING
MEDIATION

20

Before: Hon. Edward M. Chen

21

Trial Date:

None Set

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

597248.2

SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT - CASE NO. 14-CV-05200-EMC

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

John C. Fish, Jr. (SBN 160620)
[e-mail]
Rod M. Fliegel (SBN 168289)
[e-mail]
Andrew M. Spurchise (SBN 245998)
[e-mail]
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
650 California Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108.2693
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
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]
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Joshua S. Lipshut (SBN 242557)
[e-mail]
Kevin Ring-Dowell (SBN 278289)
[e-mail]
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND RASIER, LLC

21
22
23
24

Pamela Devata (pro hac pending)
[e-mail]
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

25
26
27
28

597248.2

Timothy L. Hix (CSB 184372)
[e-mail]
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT - CASE NO. 14-CV-05200-EMC

1
2
3
4

Nicholas R. Clements (CSB 267314)
[e-mail]
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

5
Attorneys for Defendant HIREASE, LLC
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

597248.2

SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT - CASE NO. 14-CV-05200-EMC

1

The parties, pursuant to the Court’s oral order of November 4, 2015 (Civil Minutes at ECF No.

2

117), hereby stipulate and agree to the following schedule in anticipation of their selected alternative

3

dispute resolution option, private mediation.

4

The parties met and conferred and after extensive discussions, selected Mark Rudy as a

5

mutually-agreeable mediator for this matter. The parties inquired into Mr. Rudy’s availability

6

(including if any Saturday dates were available) and the first date Mr. Rudy is available for the

7

mediation is March 30, 2016. The parties immediately reserved the March 30, 2016 date with Mr.

8

Rudy’s office to ensure the earliest practicable mediation with a mutually-agreeable qualified

9

mediator. As such, they propose the following schedule:

10



Mediation Completion Date: March 31, 2016

11



Deadline for Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC to file responsive

12

pleading to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint: If mediation is unsuccessful in reaching

13

resolution, 15 days after the Mediation Completion Date.


14

Deadline for Defendant Hirease, LLC to file responsive pleading to Plaintiffs’

15

Consolidated Complaint: If mediation is unsuccessful in reaching resolution, 15 days

16

after the Ninth Circuit resolves the pending appeal of this Court’s denial of Defendants’

17

motion to compel arbitration.1


18

Deadline for opposition to any motions filed as responsive pleadings to Plaintiffs’
Consolidated Complaint: 30 days after the filing of the motions.

19


20

Deadline to file replies in further support of any motions filed as responsive pleadings

21

to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint: 14 days after the filing of the oppositions to such

22

motions.


23
24

Deadline to file motions under Rule 23 related to class certification: If mediation is
180

unsuccessful in reaching resolution, 225 days after the Mediation Completion Deadline,

25
26
27
28

597248.2

1

Hirease is a defendant in only one count of the Consolidated Complaint, the Eleventh Cause of
Action, which is brought only by Named Plaintiff Mohamed, whose claims are stayed with the
exception of his individual claims. Therefore the parties have agreed to a different deadline for
Hirease to respond to the Consolidated Complaint.
1
SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT - CASE NO. 14-CV-05200-EMC

180

1

or 225 days after the Court’s resolution of any dispositive motion filed in response to

2

Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint, whichever is later.


3

Deadline to file opposition to motions under Rule 23 related to class certification: 60

4

days after the filing of the underlying motions (Plaintiffs’ proposal) or 75 days after the

5

filing of the underlying motions (Defendants’ proposal).2


6
7

Deadline to file replies in further support of motions under Rule 23 related to class
certification: 30 days after the filing of the underlying motions.



8
9

Class certification hearing: Next hearing date that is at least 21 days after filing of reply
to motion.



10
11

All other deadlines: TBD after decision on motions under Rule 23 related to class
certification.

12

The parties agree that nothing contained herein waives any party’s rights, objections, or

13

defenses of any kind, including but not limited to Defendants’ standing objections to this Court’s

14

jurisdiction and Defendants’ assertions that certain named plaintiffs and putative class members are

15

bound to assert their claims, if at all, in individual arbitration.

16

In light of the parties’ agreements stated herein, the parties respectfully request that the

17

deadline to submit a further case management conference statement on December 3, 2015 and the case

18

management conference scheduled for December 10, 2015 be vacated. The deadlines stated above

19

would have formed the only relevant modifications to the parties’ previously submitted case

20

management conference statements in a December 3rd filing.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED as STIPULATED this _______ day of _______________, 2015:
S
UNIT
ED

HONORABLE EDWARD M. CHEN

27
28

597248.2

ER

FO

A

H

26

. Chen

ward M

Judge Ed

LI

RT

24
25

ED
ORDER
IT IS SO DIFIED
AS MO

NO

23

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

22

December

R NIA

25th

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

2

The parties disagree on the relevant timing for just this deadline and have agreed to request that the
Court simply circle the deadline which it accepts and delete the date it rejects. Defendants note that
the Court ordered a deadline for filing opposition to class certification in the O’Connor case that was
at least 75 days after the filing of that class certification motion. Plaintiffs believe that deadline was
specific to O’Connor and should not apply here. Rather, Plaintiffs believe that the opposition and
reply schedule should continue to be the one Defendants previously agreed to in the parties’ joint case
management conference statements of May 7, 2015 and July 31, 2015. See Gillette ECF Nos. 34, 76.
2
SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT - CASE NO. 14-CV-05200-EMC

1

Dated: November 24, 2015

2

Respectfully submitted,
GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO

3

/s/ Andrew P. Lee
Laura L. Ho
Andrew P. Lee
300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

4
5
6
7
8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

9

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

10

/s/ Rod M. Fliegel
John C. Fish, Jr.
Rod M. Fliegel
Andrew M. Spurchise
650 California Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108.2693
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND RASIER, LLC

11
12
13
14
15
16

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

17
/s/ Timothy Hix
Timothy Hix
333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ATTESTATION OF FILER
I, Andrew P. Lee, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from
each of the other Signatories, which shall serve in lieu of their signatures on the document. Signed this
24th day of November, 2015.

26

/s/ Andrew P. Lee
Andrew P. Lee

27
28
3
597248.2

SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT - CASE NO. 14-CV-05200-EMC