Todd Johnston v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filing 65

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 64 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re: Briefing Schedule in Johnston v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (Case No. 3:16-cv-3134-EMC) filed by Todd Johnston. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/3/17. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 Michael L. Slack (Texas Bar No. 18476800) mslack@slackdavis.com Admitted Pro Hac Vice John R. Davis (Cal. Bar No. 308412) jdavis@slackdavis.com Admitted Pro Hac Vice SLACK & DAVIS, LLP 2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78746 10 Thomas J. Brandi (Cal. Bar No. 53208) tjb@brandilaw.com Brian J. Malloy (Cal. Bar No. 234882) bjm@brandilaw.com THE BRANDI LAW FIRM 354 Pine Street, Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415-989-1800 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff Todd Johnston 7 8 9 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION TODD JOHNSTON, individually and on ) Case No. 3:16-cv-3134-EMC behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, ) [Related to Case No. 3:13-cv-3826-EMC] ) Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ) ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING vs. ) SCHEDULE ) UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware ) Corporation, ) Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen ) Courtroom: 5 Defendant. ) ) Related to: ) O’Connor et al. v. Uber Tech., Inc., No. 3:13- ) cv-3826-EMC ) ) ) 27 28 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE - Case No.: 3:16-cv-3134-EMC STIPULATION 1 2 On March 22, 2017, the Court entered the following order in this case: “The Court lifted the stay in 3 the Johnston case for the limited purpose of entertaining Uber’s motion to compel arbitration since 4 Plaintiffs’ argument under the WARN Act may be distinct. Counsel in the Johnston case shall meet and 5 confer and to submit a proposed stipulated briefing schedule for defendant's motion to compel arbitration.” 6 7 8 9 (Dkt. 803 at p. 2.) Pursuant to that order, the parties have met and conferred and have agreed upon the following schedule: 10 April 13, 2017- Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration shall be filed; 11 May 15, 2017- Plaintiff’s opposition shall be filed; 12 13 14 June 1, 2017- Defendant’s reply brief shall be filed; and June 15, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.- hearing on Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration 15 16 17 Dated: March 29, 2017 /s/ Sophia Behnia CARLOS JIMENEZ EMILY E. O’CONNOR SOPHIA BEHNIA LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 18 19 20 21 22 Dated: March 29, 2017 23 24 25 26 27 /s/ Brian J. Malloy THOMAS J. BRANDI BRIAN J. MALLOY THE BRANDI LAW FIRM Attorneys for Plaintiff TODD JOHNSTON 28 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE - Case No.: 3:16-cv-3134-EMC 1 2 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. The following schedule is set: 3 4 April 13, 2017- Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration shall be filed; 5 May 15, 2017- Plaintiff’s opposition shall be filed; 6 June 1, 2017- Defendant’s reply brief shall be filed; and 7 June 15, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.- hearing on Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration 8 16 S R NIA en ER FO dwar Judge E H 15 RT 14 E d M. Ch NO 13 O ORD IT IS S LI 12 Hon. Edward M. Chen United StatesRED Judge District A 11 S DISTRICT TE C TA ___________________________________ RT U O 10 4/3/2017 Dated:_________ UNIT ED 9 N F D IS T IC T O R C 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE - Case No.: 3:16-cv-3134-EMC 1 2 3 FILER’S ATTESTATION Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), I, Brian J. Malloy, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained. 4 5 6 /s/ Brian J. Malloy BRIAN J. MALLOY 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE - Case No.: 3:16-cv-3134-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?