Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 59

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ORDER. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 5/11/2015. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED, et al.

9

Plaintiff,

No. C-14-5241 EMC

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-14-5200 EMC

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

12

Defendants.
___________________________________/

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ORDER
13
14

RONALD GILLETTE, et al.

15

Plaintiff,

16

v.

17

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, et al.,

18

Defendants.
___________________________________/

19
20
21

In its consolidated reply brief, Uber argues that litigation of PAGA claims is as “time

22

consuming, costly and procedurally complex” as litigating class actions. See Reply Br. at II.B.2.

23

Plaintiffs are hereby directed to file a response to Uber’s arguments contained in Section II.B.2.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
28

1

Such response shall be filed no later than noon on Wednesday, May 13, 2015. The response shall

2

not exceed five (5) pages of text.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
Dated: May 11, 2015
7
8

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2