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)
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?