Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 86

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 85 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND DEFENDANTS' TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING filed by Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/9/15. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

JOHN C. FISH, Jr., Bar No. 160620
[e-mail]
ROD M. FLIEGEL, Bar No. 168289
[e-mail]
ANDREW M. SPURCHISE, Bar No. 245998
[e-mail]
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
650 California Street
20th Floor
San Francisco, California 94108.2693
Telephone:
415.433.1940
Facsimile:
415.399.8490
Attorneys for Defendants
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND RASIER,
LLC

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14
15
16

ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated,
Plaintiff,

17
18
19
20

v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RASIER,
LLC; HIREASE, LLC; and DOES 1-50,
Defendants.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
650 California Street
20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108.2693
415.433.1940

Case No. 3:14-cv-05200-EMC
Case No. 3:14-cv-05241-EMC
STIPULATED REQUEST AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND
DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO FILE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING
Complaint Filed: November 24, 2014
Trial Date: None set.

RONALD GILLETTE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1-20,
inclusive,
Defendants.
STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND DEFS’ TIME TO FILE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING

1.

3:14-cv-05200-EMC
3:14-cv-05241-EMC

1

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiffs RONALD GILLETTE and ABDUL KADIR

2

MOHAMED and Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER, LLC and HIREASE, LLC

3

(collectively, the “Parties”) hereby stipulate to extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to the

4

complaints until 14 days after the anticipated stipulated filing of Plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint,

5

or if the Parties are unable to agree on a stipulation for the filing of same, until 7 days after the Court

6

rules on Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a consolidated complaint. This Stipulation is based on the

7

following:

8
9
10
11

1.

The current deadline for Defendants to respond to the operative complaints in

Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. and Gillette v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. is July 9,
2015.
2.

Plaintiffs previously indicated in the Joint Case Management Conference Statement

12

(Mohamed Docket No. 56; Gillette Docket No. 34) that they would consider filing a consolidated

13

complaint if the Court were to deny Defendants’ motions to compel arbitration.

14

3.

Plaintiffs have now requested that Defendants stipulate to the filing of a consolidated

15

complaint. The Parties are currently meeting and conferring regarding whether consolidation is

16

appropriate and, if so, the terms of a stipulation regarding consolidation and the filing of a

17

consolidated complaint.

18

consolidation, if any, within 14 days.

19

4.

The Parties expect to submit to the Court a stipulation regarding

This request is not made by the Parties for purposes of unnecessary delay and no

20

party will be prejudiced by the granting of this request. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. and

21

Plaintiff Gillette previously stipulated to an extension of Defendant’s time to respond to the

22

complaint. Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC and Plaintiff Mohamed previously

23

stipulated to two extensions of Defendants’ time to respond to the complaint. Defendant Hirease,

24

LLC and Plaintiff Mohamed previously stipulated to one extension of Hirease’s time to respond to

25

the complaint.

26

5.

Nothing stated in or implied by this Stipulation and Proposed Order is intended to or

27

shall affect Plaintiffs’ right, if any, to amend their complaints in accordance with Federal Rule of

28

Civil Procedure 15.

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
650 California Street
20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108.2693
415.433.1940

STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND DEFS’ TIME TO FILE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING

2.

3:14-cv-05200-EMC
3:14-cv-05241-EMC

1

6.

Nothing stated in or implied by this Stipulation and Proposed Order is intended to or

2

shall affect any of the Parties’ rights, arguments or positions with regard to the Parties’ dispute

3

concerning arbitration or any other rights of the Parties.

4

THEREFORE, the parties to this Stipulation hereby stipulate and respectfully request as

5

follows: that the Court extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to the complaints until 14 days

6

after the anticipated stipulated filing of Plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint, or if the Parties are unable

7

to agree on a stipulation for the filing of same, until 7 days after the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ motion

8

for leave to file a consolidated complaint.

9
10

Dated: July 8, 2015

11

/s/ Andrew M. Spurchise
Andrew M. Spurchise
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants Uber Technologies,
Inc. and Rasier, LLC

12
13
14
15
16

Dated: July 8, 2015

17

/s/Theodore Maya
Theodore Maya
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
Attorneys for Plaintiff Abdul Kadir Mohamed

18
19
20

Dated: July 8, 2015

21
22

/s/Andrew P. Lee
Andrew P. Lee
GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN &
HO
Attorneys for Plaintiff Ronald Gillette

23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
650 California Street
20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108.2693
415.433.1940

STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND DEFS’ TIME TO FILE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING

3.

3:14-cv-05200-EMC
3:14-cv-05241-EMC

1

Dated: July 8, 2015

2
/s/Mitchell J. Freedman
Paul K. Schrieffer
Mitchell J. Freedman
P.K. SCHRIEFFER LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Hirease, LLC

3
4
5
6
7

Dated: July 8, 2015
/s/Sarah K. Hamilton____________________
Sarah K. Hamilton
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Hirease, LLC

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this
document has been obtained from the signatories on this e-filed document.

15
16
17

/s/ Andrew M. Spurchise
ANDREW M. SPURCHISE

Dated: July 8, 2015

18
19
20

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

21
7/9

Dated: ______________, 2015

S
UNIT
ED

H

ER

STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO EXTEND DEFS’ TIME TO FILE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING

4.

n

M. Che

FO

RT

Firmwide:134541216.4 073208.1047

28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
650 California Street
20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108.2693
415.433.1940

dward
Judge E

NO

26

LI

25

R NIA

___________________________________
DERED
SO OR M. CHEN
T IS
IHON. EDWARD

24

27

RT
U
O

23

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

A

22

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

3:14-cv-05200-EMC
3:14-cv-05241-EMC