Gillette v. Uber Technologies,Inc.

Filing 90

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 89 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 86 Amended Complaint (Stipulation extending time to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond) filed by Uber Technologies,Inc., Rasier, LLC. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/28/15. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

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, California 94108.2693
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.399.8490

JOSHUA S. LIPSHUTZ, 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
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.393.8306

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

16
17
18

Attorneys for Defendants UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RASIER, LLC

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21
22
23
24

RONALD GILLETTE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-05241 EMC
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT

Defendants.

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

STIP. FOR EXT. OF TIME TO RESPOND TO SAC– CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05241 EMC

1

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6-1, the parties, through their undersigned counsel,

2

hereby stipulate and agree that Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) and Rasier, LLC

3

(“Rasier”) (collectively “Defendants”) may have until fourteen (14) days after the Court's ruling on

4

the motion to consolidate filed in the captioned matter (ECF No. 84) or the filing of a Consolidated

5

Complaint that includes the captioned matter, whichever is later, to file their answer, motion or other

6

response to the then-operative Complaint in this matter. Based on the parties’ meet and confer

7

efforts, they agree the most efficient course is to await the final outcome of the motion to consolidate

8

before Defendants are required to respond to the Complaint in this matter and Plaintiffs are required

9

to take further action. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on August 25, 2015. No other

10

extensions have been granted for the time for Defendants to respond to the Second Amended

11

Complaint. No objections, arguments, or defenses are waived by any party by virtue of this

12

stipulation. Defendants reserve all rights, including the right to seek via stipulation or Court order

13

additional time to respond to any consolidated complaint that may be filed in this action. This

14

stipulation will not require the alteration of any deadline already set by Court Order.

15

Dated: August 27, 2015

16

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

17

By: /s/ Rod M. Fliegel
ROD M. FLIEGEL

18

Attorneys for Defendants
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RASIER, LLC

19
20

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

21

By: /s/ Theodore J. Boutrous
THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR.

22
23

Attorneys for Defendants
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RASIER, LLC

24
25

GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO

26

By: /s/ Andrew P. Lee
ANDREW P. LEE

27

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

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

STIP. OF EXT. OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
SAC– CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05241 EMC

1.

1

AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.

2

By: /s/ Theodore W. Maya
THEODORE W. MAYA

3

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

4
5
6

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

7

In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this

8
9

document has been obtained from the signatories on this e-filed document.

10
11

Dated: August 27, 2015

12

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

13

By: /s/ Rod M. Fliegel
ROD M. FLIEGEL

14

Attorneys for Defendants
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RASIER, LLC

15
16
17
18

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

19
Dated:

UNIT
ED

S

21

RT

25

ER

H

26
27

N

28
STIP. OF EXT. OF TIME TO RESPOND TO
SAC– CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05241 EMC

n

M. Che

FO

dward
Judge E

NO

24

LI

23

TED

GRAN

R NIA

HONORABLE EDWARD M. CHEN

22

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

RT
U
O

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
_____________________________________

8/28/15

A

20

2.

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C