Nokchan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 21

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 20 Stipulation filed by Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser LLC. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/14/15. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ROD M. FLIEGEL, Bar No. 168289 rfliegel@littler.com ANDREW M. SPURCHISE, Bar No. 245998 aspurchise@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 650 California Street 20th Floor San Francisco, California 94108.2693 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Attorneys for Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 MICHAEL NOKCHAN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-CV-03009-EMC SECOND STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al., Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 650 California Street 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108.2693 415.433.1940 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6-1, the parties, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC may have until August 21, 2015 to file their answer, motion or other response to the Complaint of Plaintiff Michael Nokchan in the captioned matter. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 29, 2015. On July 24th, the parties stipulated for an extension of time to respond to the Complaint until August 13, 2015. The parties are now stipulating to an additional brief extension of time so that they may continue their efforts to meet and confer in good faith regarding the most efficient way to proceed in light of this Court’s previous rulings in the related cases of Gillette v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14-cv05241 and Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14-cv-5200. No objections, STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION 1. Case No. 15-CV-03009-EMC 1 arguments, or defenses are waived by either party by virtue of this stipulation. This stipulation will 2 not require the alteration of any deadline already set by Court Order. Indeed, the Court’s August 3, 3 2015 Order (ECF No. 19) set the initial case management conference for this matter for November 4 12, 2015. 5 6 7 8 In compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), Plaintiff’s counsel, Shaun Setarah, has concurred in this filing and use of his electronic signature below. Dated: August 13, 2015 9 /s/ Rod M. Fliegel ROD M. FLIEGEL LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND RASIER, LLC 10 11 12 13 14 /s/ Shaun Setareh________________________ SHAUN SETAREH, ESQUIRE TUVIA KOROBKIN, ESQUIRE SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 shaun@setarehlaw.com tuvia@setarehlaw.com 15 16 25 ER R NIA FO dwa Judge E H 24 RT 23 hen rd M. C NO 22 LI 21 IT IS SO ________________________ Edward M. Chen DERED SO OR U. S. DistrictIT IS Judge A 20 RT U O 19 S DISTRICT TE C TA ORDERED: S 18 UNIT ED 17 N F D IS T IC T O R C 26 27 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 650 California Street 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108.2693 415.433.1940 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION 2. Case No. 15-CV-03009-EMC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 2 I, Rod M. Fliegel, hereby certify that on this date I caused a true and correct copy of the 3 foregoing Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading to be filed with the Court 4 and served upon the following: Via CM/ECF: 5 Shaun Setareh, Esquire 6 Tuvia Korobkin, Esquire 7 Setareh Law Group 8 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 9 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 shaun@setarehlaw.com 10 tuvia@setarehlaw.com 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 13 /s/ Rod M. Fliegel Rod M. Fliegel 14 15 Dated: August 13, 2015 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 650 California Street 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108.2693 415.433.1940 STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION 3. Case No. 15-CV-03009-EMC

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?