Todd Johnston v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filing 126

ORDER granting 125 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Case closed. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/9/2020. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2020)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ANDREW M. SPURCHISE, Bar No. 245998 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 900 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022.3298 Telephone: 212.583.9600 Facsimile: 212.832.2719 SOPHIA BEHNIA, Bar No. 289318 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Attorneys for Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Case No. 3:16-CV-03134-EMC TODD JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY Plaintiff, DISMISSAL PER RULE 41(a)(1)(ii) v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal Per Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) CASE NO. 3:16-CV-03134-EMC 1 2 3 4 Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Todd Johnston and Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby submit this joint stipulation for dismissal of the above captioned case with prejudice. 5 WHEREAS, on June 9, 2016, Plaintiff a proposed class action against Defendant in the 6 United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 33:16-cv-03134-EMC 7 (“Complaint”) alleging claims for violation of the WARN Act; 8 WHEREAS, on April 13, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to arbitrate his 9 10 claim on an individual basis and to dismiss his class claims; 11 WHEREAS, on June 22, 2017, the Court stayed this matter because of pending appeal at the 12 Ninth Circuit regarding the validity of Defendant’s arbitration agreements (see O’Connor et al. v. 13 Uber Techs., Inc., Ninth Circuit Case No. 15-17475); 14 15 WHEREAS, on March 14, 2018, the Court administratively denied without prejudice Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because of the length of the pending of the appeals; 16 WHEREAS, on September 25, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Circuit issued its opinion in O’Connor, reversing this Court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration; WHEREAS, on July 11, 2019, Defendant refiled a motion to compel arbitration and the Court granted that motion on September 9, 2019; WHEREAS, the proposed classes are not certified in this matter and no motion for certification has been made or is pending; 24 25 26 27 WHEREAS, the Parties have settled their dispute on an individual basis; and WHEREAS, after conferences between the Parties, the Parties have mutually agreed to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint in this matter, with prejudice. 28 2 Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal Per Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) 1 2 3 4 THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendant, through their respective counsel, as follows: 1. 5 6 7 Plaintiff hereby dismisses the above-captioned matter and all causes of action therein with prejudice; and 2. The Parties agree to bear their own costs. IT IS SO STIPULATED. 8 DATED: September 1, 2020 SLACK DAVIS SANGER, LLP 9 10 /s/ John R. Davis 11 By: John R. Davis Counsel for Plaintiff, TODD JOHNSTON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated 12 13 14 15 DATED: September 8, 2020 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 16 /s/ Sophia Behnia 17 18 19 S UNIT ED 21 23 FILER’S ATTESTATION D TE GRAN Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1, I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories. en d M. Ch e Edwar Judg 25 DATED: September 8, 2020 E Dated: 9/9/2020 RN /s/ Sophia Behnia A H 27 LI RT 26 FO NO 24 R NIA 22 ICT C RT U O 20 ES AT T By: Sophia Behnia Counsel for Defendants, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. DISTR C OF D I S T By: Sophia Behnia R I C T for Defendants, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, Counsel INC. 28 3 Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal Per Rule 41(a)(1)(ii)

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?