Philliben et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 124

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 123 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL DEADLINES BY ONE WEEK filed by Rasier, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. Motion Hearing set for 7/6/2017 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on May 24, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Andra Barmash Greene (CSB# 123931)
[e-mail]
A. Matthew Ashley (CSB# 198235)
[e-mail]
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
Newport Beach, California 92660
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants, Uber Technologies Inc., et al.

12

Tina Wolfson (CSB# 174806)
[e-mail]
Robert Ahdoot (CSB# 172098)
[e-mail]
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
1016 Palm Avenue
West Hollywood, California 90069
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Byron McKnight, et al.

8
9
10
11

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18
19

BYRON MCKNIGHT, JULIAN MENA, TODD
SCHREIBER, NATE COOLIDGE, and
ERNESTO MEJIA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

20
21
22
23
24

Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 3:14-cv-05615-JST
HON. JON S. TIGAR
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL DEADLINES BY ONE WEEK

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and RASIER, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company,
Defendants.

25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL DEADLINES BY
ONE WEEK (CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05615-JST)

1
2

TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiffs Julian Mena, Todd Schreiber, Nate Coolidge, Ernesto

3

Mejia, and Byron McKnight (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and

4

Rasier, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) (collectively with Plaintiffs, the “Parties”) respectfully request

5

that this Court extend the deadlines set forth in the April 25, 2017 Scheduling Order by one week to

6

allow the Parties to complete their updates and revisions to the settlement documents.

7

The Parties have agreed to a new class definition, a new method of allocating the settlement

8

between class members, and a new process for class members to receive their share of the settlement,

9

each of which requires careful revision to the settlement documents. In addition, the Parties have

10

reached a new agreement with a settlement administrator that will reduce administrative and distribution

11

costs to the class by several hundred thousand dollars, but need to update the settlement documents to

12

reflect that new process. Plaintiffs also need additional time to map the damages analysis in their

13

preliminary approval motion to the new class size and the revised calculations based on the settlement

14

structure and administrative cost changes. The Parties thus seek one additional week to ensure that they

15

can fully implement the agreed upon changes in the settlement documents.

16
17

By and through their respective counsel of record, the Parties hereby stipulate and request that
the Court enter an Order as follows:

18

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs commenced this action on January 6, 2015 [Dkt. 1];

19

WHEREAS, on February 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Action Settlement (herein the “Motion”) [Dkt. 75-4];
WHEREAS, on August 30, 2016, the Court issued its Order Denying Motion For Preliminary
Approval Of Class Action Settlement (herein the “Denial Order”) [Dkt. 98];
WHEREAS, since the date of the Denial Order, the Parties have engaged in multiple mediation
and settlement sessions;
WHEREAS, the Parties attended a settlement conference before the Honorable Chief Magistrate
Judge Joseph C. Spero on March 7, 2017;
WHEREAS, the Court entered a Scheduling Order on April 25, 2017 that set a May 25, 2017
deadline for Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of settlement, a June 8, 2017 deadline for
–1–
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL DEADLINES BY
ONE WEEK (CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05615-JST)

1

Defendants’ memorandum in support of preliminary approval, and a June 29, 2017 date for the

2

preliminary approval hearing [Dkt. 121];

3

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to, inter alia, a new class definition and a new method of

4

allocating settlement payments among class members, both of which change the structure of the

5

settlement and require extensive revisions to the settlement documents;

6

WHEREAS, the Parties have negotiated a new process for class members to receive their share

7

of the settlement, and have reached an agreement with a settlement administrator that will reduce

8

administrative and distribution costs to the class by several hundred thousand dollars, but need to update

9

the settlement documents to reflect that new process;

10

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs need additional time to map the damages analysis in their preliminary

11

approval motion to the new class size and the revised calculations based on the settlement structure and

12

administrative cost changes;

13
14

WHEREAS, the Parties would greatly benefit from an additional week to fully implement the
above revisions in the settlement documents; and

15

WHEREAS, no trial date has been set for this case;

16

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Parties, by and through their

17

undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate, agree subject to Court approval, and request that the Court enter

18

an Order extending the deadlines in the April 25, 2017 Scheduling Order by one week, as set forth in the

19

accompanying Proposed Order.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–2–
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL DEADLINES BY
ONE WEEK (CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05615-JST)

1
2

IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: May 23, 2017

AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC

3
By:

4

/s/ Robert Ahdoot
Robert Ahdoot

5

Counsel for Plaintiffs Julian Mena, Todd Schreiber, Nate
Coolidge, Ernesto Mejia and Byron McKnight

6
7
8

Dated: May 23, 2017

IRELL & MANELLA LLP

9
10
11
12

By:

/s/ A. Matthew Ashley
A. Matthew Ashley

Counsel for Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier,
LLC

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–3–
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL DEADLINES BY
ONE WEEK (CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05615-JST)

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

Pursuant to the Parties’ May 23, 2017 Stipulation, the Court hereby sets the following case

3

deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16:

4

Event

Deadline

5

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of settlement due

6

Defendants’ memorandum in support of preliminary approval due June 15, 2017

7

Preliminary approval hearing

June 1, 2017

July 6, 2017

8

The Court will set a further case management conference if preliminary approval is denied to set the

9

remaining deadlines in the case.

10

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

11
12
13

May 24, 2017
DATED: __________________

_____________________________________
Honorable Jon S. Tigar
United States District Court Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–4–
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL DEADLINES BY
ONE WEEK (CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05615-JST)