Del Rio v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
Filing
102
STIPULATION AND ORDER. Case Management Statement due by 7/14/2016. Further Case Management Conference reset for 7/21/2016 10:30 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/24/16. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
ROBERT G. HULTENG, Bar No. 071293
rhulteng@littler.com
ANDREW M. SPURCHISE, Bar No. 245998
aspurchise@littler.com
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone:
415.433.1940
Facsimile:
415.399.8490
RACHAEL LAVI, Bar No. 294443
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
Telephone:
310.553.0308
Fax No.:
310.553.5583
Attorneys for Defendants
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
RASIER-CA, LLC
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
RICARDO DEL RIO, a California
resident, on behalf of himself, the proposed
class and collective class; JOSE
VALDIVIA, a California resident, on
behalf of himself, the proposed class and
collective class; JOSE PEREIRA, a
California resident, on behalf of himself,
the proposed class and collective class,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, RASIER-CA, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:15-cv-03667-EMC
[Related to 3:13-cv-03826-EMC]
JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
FROM JUNE 30, 2016 TO JULY 21, 2016
AND TO CONTINUE RELATED
DEADLINES; [PROPOSED] ORDER (modified)
Complaint Filed: August 11, 2015
FAC Filed: September 21, 2015
SAC Filed: April 27, 2016
Trial Date: None set
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street
34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.433.1940
Case No. 3:15-cv-03667-EMC
JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RELATED DEADLINES
1
2
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND REQUESTED by and between the parties who have
3
to date appeared in this action, through their counsel of record, Chris Hamner and Amy Wootton of
4
the Hamner Law Offices, APC, attorneys for Plaintiffs Ricardo Del Rio, Jose Valdivia and Jose
5
Pereira (“Plaintiffs”); and Robert G. Hulteng, Andrew M. Spurchise, and Rachael Lavi of Littler
6
Mendelson, P.C., attorneys for Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier-CA, LLC
7
(“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”), based upon the following recitals:
1.
8
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2016, at the hearing on Defendants’ motion to
9
dismiss, the Court stayed Plaintiff’s state claims pending the Price v. Uber Technologies, Inc. action
10
proceeding in Los Angeles Superior Court and set a further case management conference for June
11
30, 2016;
2.
12
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2016, the Court granted a temporary stay, staying this
13
matter in its entirety. The parties were ordered to meet and confer regarding the status of the case
14
and the effect of the proposed settlement in O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Northern District
15
Case No. 13-cv-3826-EMC following the Court’s order regarding preliminary approval of the
16
proposed settlement, also before this Court, and submit a joint letter to the Court 10 days after the
17
order is issued to provide the parties’ position with respect to its impact on the case and whether the
18
stay should continue or be lifted;
19
3.
20
WHEREAS, as of filing of this stipulation, the Court has not submitted an
order regarding the motion for preliminary approval in the O’Connor matter;
4.
21
WHEREAS, a short continuance of the further case management conference
22
would serve judicial economy as the Parties await the Court’s order in regards to the motion for
23
preliminary approval in the O’Connor matter.
24
STIPULATION
25
Parties hereby stipulate, agree and respectfully request that the case management conference
26
currently scheduled for June 30 at 10:30 a.m. be continued to July 21, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. and that the
27
current June 23, 2016 deadline to file a case management conference statement also be continued to
28
July 14, 2016.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street
34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.433.1940
1.
Case No. 3:15-cv-03667-EMC
JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RELATED DEADLINES
1
2
3
Dated: June 23, 2016.
4
/s/ Rachael Lavi
ROBERT G. HULTENG
ANDREW M. SPURCHISE
RACHAEL LAVI
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND
RASIER-CA, LLC
5
6
7
8
9
Dated: June 23, 2016.
10
/s/Amy T. Wootton
CHRIS HAMNER
AMY T. WOOTTON
HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RICARDO DEL RIO, JOSE VALDIVIA AND
JOSE PEREIRA
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this
document has been obtained from the signatories on this e-filed document.
18
19
Dated: June 23, 2016.
20
21
22
23
24
/s/ Rachael Lavi
RACHAEL LAVI
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND
RASIER-CA, LLC
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street
34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.433.1940
Case No. 3:15-cv-03667-EMC
JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RELATED DEADLINES
1
6/24/16
9
10
RT
12
14
O ORD D
IT IS S
DIFIE
AS MO
ard M.
Firmwide:141174792.3 073208.1083
dw
Judge E
ER
H
13
HONORABLE EDWARD M. CHEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ERED
NO
11
RT
U
O
8
Dated:
R NIA
7
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
Chen
FO
6
seven (7) days in advance of the continued case management conference.
LI
5
A
4
The case management conference currently scheduled for June 30 at 10:30 a.m. is continued to July
10:30 a.m.
21, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., and the case management conference statement shall be due on July 14, 2016,
S
3
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
UNIT
ED
2
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street
34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.433.1940
Case No. 3:15-cv-03667-EMC
JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND RELATED DEADLINES
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?