Reardon et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filing 195

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 194 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 177 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Jennifer Reilly, Justin Bartolet, Jonathan Grindell, Sandeep Pal, James Lathrop. The plaintiff shall file the Third Amended Complaint within 3 days of this Order. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 22, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2016)

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

Hassan A. Zavareei (SBN 181547)
[e-mail]
Andrea R. Gold (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Andrew J. Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Kristen Law Sagafi (SBN 222249)
[e-mail]
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs James Lathrop, Jonathan
Grindell, Sandeep Pal, Jennifer Reilly, and Justin
Bartolet
Sarah J. Crooks (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
PERKINS COIE LLP
1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor
Portland, OR 97209
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Debra R. Bernard (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
PERKINS COIE LLP
131 South Dearborn, Suite 1700
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Tel.: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JAMES LATHROP, JONATHAN
GRINDELL, SANDEEP PAL, JENNIFER
REILLY, and JUSTIN BARTOLET on
behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-05678-JST
Honorable Jon S. Tigar
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

-1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Plaintiffs James Lathrop, Jonathan Grindell, Sandeep Pal, Jennifer Reilly, and Justin

2

Bartolet (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”), by and

3

through their respective attorneys of record, stipulate and agree as follows:

4
5

WHEREAS, on June 7, 2016, Plaintiffs sought leave of the Court to file a Third Amended
Complaint (Dkt. No. 177);

6

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

7

Subject to Court approval, the Third Amended Complaint 1 shall be deemed filed, pursuant

8

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), on the date that the Court enters its Order pursuant to this

9

Stipulation;

The plaintiff shall file the Third Amended Complaint within 3 days of this Order;

10

Defendant may file its responsive pleading within 30 days of the filing of the Third

11

Amended Complaint. If Defendant chooses to answer the Third Amended Complaint, Defendant

12

need only respond to the new allegations, with Defendant’s current Answer [Dkt. No. 56]

13

answering the previously-pled allegations;

14

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Defer Court’s Consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Summary

15

Judgment Until After The Order on Class Certification (Dkt. No. 172) and Defendant’s Motion

16

for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 146) shall not be mooted, delayed, or otherwise impacted by

17

the filing of the Third Amended Complaint, but the parties may file corrected versions of these

18

two motions with references to the Third Amended Complaint within 7 days of the Court’s Order

19

pursuant to this Stipulation;

20
21

Neither party will rely on the filing of the Third Amended Complaint as a basis to request
modification of any of the deadlines in the current Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 153); and

22

Should it so choose, Defendant may seek to reopen the depositions of Plaintiffs Lathrop,

23

Grindell, Reilly, and Bartolet. However, any new examination must be limited only to the issues

24

raised by the amendments to the Second Amended Complaint. Should they occur, said

25
26
1

27
28

Corrected versions—both in redline and final—of the Third Amended Complaint stipulated to
by the Parties are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively. The previously filed Third
Amended Complaint (Dkt Nos. 177-3 and 177-4) contains an unintentional deletion of paragraphs
75-87, which has been remedied in the attached exhibits.
-2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

depositions must be conducted either via teleconference or videoconference, or in person in the

2

town in which each aforementioned Plaintiff resides at the time of the deposition.

3
4

DATED: June 21, 2016

5

TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI, LLP

6

By: /s/ Hassan A. Zavareei
Hassan A. Zavareei, Bar No. 181547
[e-mail]

7

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

8

DATED: June 21, 2016

PERKINS COIE LLP

9
10
11
12

By: /s/ Sarah Crooks
Sarah Crooks (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4
5
6

DATED:

June 22, 2016
The Honorable Jon S. Tigar
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
FILER’S ATTESTATION

2
3
4

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X, Subparagraph B, the undersigned
attests that all parties have concurred in the filing of this Stipulation.

5
6

DATED: June 21, 2016

TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP

7
8

By: /s/ Hassan A. Zavareei
Hassan A. Zavareei, Bar No. 181547
[e-mail]

9
Attorney for Plaintiffs
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5FILER’S ATTESTATION