Yucesoy v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 29

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 28 Stipulation filed by Uber Technologies, Inc., Ryan Graves, Travis Kalanick. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/3/15. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2015)

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

ROBERT JON HENDRICKS, State Bar No. 179751
SACHA M. STEENHOEK, State Bar No. 253743
CAITLIN V. MAY State Bar No. 293141
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market Street, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, California 94105-1126
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
TRAVIS KALANICK and RYAN GRAVES
SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN, pro hac vice pending
ADELAIDE PAGANO, pro hac vice
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
HAKAN YUCESOY

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18
19

HAKAN YUCESOY, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,

20

Plaintiff,

21
22
23

Case No. 3:15-cv-00262-EMC
JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE
DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND
TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

v.
PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-1
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., TRAVIS
KALANICK, and RYAN GRAVES,

Complaint Filed:

June 26, 2014

Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28

STIP. TO CONTINUE DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
(CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00262-EMC)
DB2/ 25766527.1

1

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1, Plaintiff Hakan Yucesoy (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Uber

2

Technologies, Inc., Travis Kalanick, and Ryan Graves (“Defendants”) (collectively, the

3

“Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as

4

follows:

5

WHEREAS, on October 21, 2014, Defendants removed this case from the Superior Court

6

of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County to the United States District Court for

7

the District of Massachusetts;

8

WHEREAS, on October 28, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or In The

9

Alternative, Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Northern District of

10

California to be a related case to O’Connor v. Uber, Case No. C-13-3826-EMC, currently

11

pending before Judge Chen;

12

WHEREAS, on January 16, 2015, Judge F. Dennis Saylor of the United States District

13

Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered this case transferred to the United States District

14

Court for the Northern District of California;

15
16

WHEREAS, Defendants’ initial deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint following
transfer was January 30, 2015;

17
18

WHEREAS, on January 27, 2015, the parties entered into and filed a joint stipulation
extending Defendants’ deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint until March 2, 2015.

19
20

WHEREAS, on February 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, adding a
second plaintiff and four causes of action.1

21

WHEREAS, on February 26, 2015, Defendants’ counsel notified Plaintiff’s counsel that

22

the filing of this Amended Complaint was improper under Federal Rule 15, and Plaintiff’s

23

1

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s counsel erroneously believed the Amended Complaint could be filed as a matter of
right because an Answer has not yet been filed, neglecting to note that Rule 15 was amended
in 2009 to require amendments as a matter of right to be filed within 21 days of service of a
Rule 12(b) motion. As soon as Defendants’ counsel pointed this out (shortly after the filing),
Plaintiff’s counsel immediately agreed to withdraw the Amended Complaint and replace it
with a Motion to Amend, if Defendants are going to oppose the filing of the Amended
Complaint, or if Defendants are not going to oppose the filing of the Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff’s counsel suggested that the Amended Complaint could simply remain on file.
Plaintiff’s counsel apologizes for this harmless error and has agreed to enter into this
stipulation with Defendants in order to preserve all parties’ rights.
1

DB2/ 25766527.1

STIP. TO CONTINUE DEFS’ DEADLINE
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
(CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00262-EMC)

1

counsel agreed that either stipulation of the parties or leave of the Court is required for Plaintiff to

2

file an Amended Complaint.

3
4

WHEREAS, lead counsel for Defendants is currently out of the country, and will not
return to the United States until March 1, 2015.

5

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that, upon lead counsel’s return to the United States,

6

the parties will meet and confer regarding whether Defendants will stipulate to permit Plaintiff to

7

file an Amended Complaint.

8

WHEREAS, to allow the parties time to meet and confer regarding the filing of an

9

amended complaint, the parties have agreed to extend Defendants’ deadline to respond to

10

Plaintiff’s initial Complaint to March 17, 2015.

11

WHEREAS, if the parties agree to stipulate to Plaintiff’s filing of an Amended Complaint,

12

by no later than March 17, 2015, Plaintiff will withdraw the Amended Complaint filed on

13

February 26, 2015 and re-file the Amended Complaint concurrently with the parties’ stipulation.

14

Plaintiff agrees that the filing of the Amended Complaint on February 26, 2015 will not constitute

15

filing or service of a pleading on that date. Defendants’ time to respond to any amended

16

complaint will be governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

17

WHEREAS, if Defendants do not agree to permit Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint,

18

by no later than March 17, 2015, Plaintiff will withdraw the Amended Complaint and move this

19

Court for leave to file an amended complaint. Only after obtaining leave from the Court, Plaintiff

20

will file an Amended Complaint as ordered. Plaintiff agrees that the filing of the Amended

21

Complaint on February 26, 2015 will not constitute filing or service of pleading on that date.

22

Defendants’ time to respond to any amended complaint will be governed by Federal Rule of Civil

23

Procedure 15.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

DB2/ 25766527.1

2

STIP. TO CONTINUE DEFS’ DEADLINE
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
(CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00262-EMC)

1

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1,

2

the deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint be continued until March 17,

3

2015.

4

Dated: February 27, 2015

LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

5
By:

6
7
8

Dated: February 27, 2015

/s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan
Shannon Liss-Riordan
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

9
By: /s/ Sacha M. Steenhoek
Robert Jon Hendricks
Sacha M. Steenhoek
Attorneys for Defendants

10
11
12
13
14

ECF ATTESTATION
I, Sacha M. Steenhoek, am the ECF User whose ID and Password are being used to file

15

this STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO

16

COMPLAINT. In compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Shannon Liss-

17

Riordan has concurred in this filing.
Dated: February 27, 2015

RT

26

ER

27

n

M. Che

H

25

dward
Judge E

NO

24

ED

ORDER

LI

23

IT IS SO ORDERED: SO
IT IS
___________________
Edward M. Chen
U.S. District Judge

By /s/ Sacha M. Steenhoek
Robert Jon Hendricks
Sacha M. Steenhoek
Attorneys for Defendants
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., TRAVIS
KALANICK, and RYAN GRAVES

R NIA

S
22

UNIT
ED

21

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

20

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

FO

19

A

18

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

28

DB2/ 25766527.1

3

STIP. TO CONTINUE DEFS’ DEADLINE
TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT
(CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00262-EMC)