Reardon et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filing 26

ORDER NOTING CONTINUANCE OF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE AS TO PLAINTIFFS MCKINNEY AND PAL re 23 Ex Parte Application for Leave to Clarify and/or Continue Defendant's Responsive Pleading as to Plaintiffs Julie McKinn ey and Sandeep Pal filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.; 24 Opposition/Response to Motion, filed by Jennifer Reilly, Justin Bartolet, Jonathan Grindell, Sandeep Pal, James Lathrop, Kerry Reardon, Julie McKinney. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 3, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
KERRY REARDON, et al.,

7

Case No. 14-cv-05678-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

10

Defendant.

Re: ECF Nos. 23, 24

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER NOTING CONTINUANCE OF
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSIVE
PLEADING DEADLINE AS TO
PLAINTIFFS MCKINNEY AND PAL

Defendant has filed an Ex Parte Application for Leave to Clarify and/or Continue

12
13

Defendant’s Responsive Pleading Deadline as to Plaintiffs Julie McKinney and Sandeep Pal. ECF

14

No. 23. In the application, Defendant explains that it will file a motion to dismiss as to five of the

15

named plaintiffs in this case, but will not file a motion to dismiss as to two plaintiffs—McKinney

16

and Pal.1 Defendant further explains that it understands Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4),

17

in circumstances like these, to extend the deadline for filing its responsive pleading as to all

18

plaintiffs—including those who are not subject to the motion to dismiss—until fourteen days after

19

notice of the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. Defendant contends that it discussed this

20

matter with Plaintiffs and sought to reach an agreement, but that Plaintiffs did not agree.

21

Plaintiffs have filed a response to Defendant’s ex parte application. ECF No. 24.

22

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant actually requested not only a continuation of Defendant’s

23

deadline to file a responsive pleading, but also a stay of all discovery during the pendency of the

24

motion to dismiss. While Plaintiffs did and will not agree to stay discovery, they do not oppose an

25

extension of the deadline to file a responsive pleading, and will agree to extend the deadline as

26

Defendant requested.

27
1

28

Defendant has since filed a motion to dismiss as to five named plaintiffs, but not as to McKinney
and Pal. See ECF No. 25.

1

Because the parties agree that the deadline for Defendant to file a responsive pleading as to

2

Plaintiffs McKinney and Pal may be continued until fourteen days after the Court’s ruling on

3

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, that deadline is effectively extended to that date. See Civil Local

4

Rule 6-1 (permitting parties to stipulate in writing, without court order, to extend the time within

5

which to answer or otherwise respond to a complaint, so long as the stipulation will not alter the

6

date of any event or deadline the Court has already fixed).

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 3, 2015

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2