Del Rio v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 53

STIPULATION AND ORDER 52 regarding Defendants' Rule 12 Motion Briefing filed by Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC Motion Hearing set for 3/24/2016 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Edward M. Chen. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/15/16. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ROBERT G. HULTENG, Bar No. 071293 rhulteng@littler.com JOHN C. FISH, Jr., Bar No. 160620 jfish@littler.com ANDREW M. SPURCHISE, Bar No. 245998 aspurchise@littler.com MEL M.C. COLE, Bar No. 293265 mmcole@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 650 California Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, California 94108.2693 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 SOPHIA BEHNIA, Bar No. 289318 sbehnia@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619.232.0441 Facsimile: 619.232.4302 13 Attorneys for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RASIER-CA, LLC 14 [Additional Counsel Listed On Following Page] 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 19 20 RICARDO DEL RIO, an individual California resident and TONY MEHRDAD SAGHEBIAN, an individual California resident, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 21 22 23 24 25 26 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 JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(B) MOTION BRIEFING; [PROPOSED] ORDER Complaint Filed: August 11, 2015 FAC Filed: September 21, 2015 Trial Date: None set Defendants. 27 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 650 California Street 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108.2693 415.433.1940 Case No. 3:15-cv-03667-EMC JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(B) MOTION BRIEFING; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CHRISTOPHER J. HAMNER, ESQ. (SBN 197117) chamner@hamnerlaw.com AMY T. WOOTTON, ESQ. (SBN 188856) awootton@hamnerlaw.com EVELINA SERAFINI, ESQ. – Of Counsel (SBN 187137) eserafini@hamnerlaw.com HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC 555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone: (213) 533-4160 Facsimile: (213) 533-4167 Attorneys for Plaintiffs RICARDO DEL RIO and TONY MEHRDAD SAGHEBIAN 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 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 Case No. 3:15-cv-03667-EMC JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(B) MOTION BRIEFING; [PROPOSED] ORDER 1. 1 Pursuant to Rule 6-1(b) of the Local Rules of the United States District for the Northern 2 District of California, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiffs RICARDO DEL 3 RIO 4 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RASIER-CA, LLC (“Defendants”) (collectively, “the Parties”), by and 5 through their attorneys of record: 6 7 and TONY MEHRDAD SAGHEBIAN (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants UBER WHEREAS, on December 3, 2015, the Parties filed a Joint Case Management Conference Statement setting forth a briefing schedule on Defendants’ Rule 12(b) motion (Dkt. 33); 8 WHEREAS, the Joint Case Management Conference Statement set the deadline for 9 Defendants’ Rule 12(b) motion for January 15, 2016, the opposition deadline for February 12, 2016, 10 and the reply deadline for February 26, 2016; 11 WHEREAS, the Court did not issue an order confirming the aforementioned deadlines; 12 WHEREAS, no hearing date has been set for Defendants’ Rule 12(b) motion; 13 WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to memorialize the briefing deadlines and have agreed 14 to continue the deadlines by one week; 15 16 WHEREAS, there has been no previous request to extend the timing for the deadlines associated with Defendants’ Rule 12(b) motion; and 17 WHEREAS, this stipulation will not require the alteration of any dates set by Court. 18 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 19 1. 20 That Defendants’ deadline to file a Rule 12(b) motion be continued to January 22, 2015; 21 2. 22 22, 2016; 23 24 3. That Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to Defendants’ motion be continued to February That Defendants’ deadline to file a reply in support of their motion be continued to March 4, 2016. 25 26 27 28 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 650 California Street 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108.2693 415.433.1940 Case No. 3:15-cv-03667-EMC JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(B) MOTION BRIEFING; [PROPOSED] ORDER 2. 1 Dated: January 13, 2016 2 3 /s/ Sophia Behnia ANDREW M. SPURCHISE SOPHIA BEHNIA LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RASIER-CA, LLC 4 5 6 7 8 Dated: January 13, 2016 9 /s/ Amy T. Wootton CHRISTOPHER J. HAMNER AMY T. WOOTTON EVELINA SERAFINI HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC Attorneys for Plaintiff RICARDO DEL RIO 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Attestation Pursuant to Northern District L.R. 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 18 19 /s/ Sophia Behnia SOPHIA BEHNIA LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RASIER-CA, LLC 20 21 22 23 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Hearing on Rule 12(b) Motion to be held on 3/24/16 at 1:30 p.m. 24 ST 1/15/16 Date: ________________________________ RT . Chen dward M Judge E A LI Case No. 3:15-cv-03667-EMC 3. E C R N 12(B) MOTION BRIEFING; [PROPOSED] ORDER JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ RULE F D IS T IC T O R H LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 650 California Street 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108.2693 415.433.1940 Firmwide:138019257.1 073208.1083 NO 28 R NIA 27 D RDERE IS SO O FIED IT DI AS MO FO UNIT ED 26 S DI RICT ______________________________________ TE C TA HONORABLE EDWARD M. CHEN U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE RT U O S 25

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?