Gregory Ingalls et al v. Spotify USA Inc.

Filing 28

REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT'S REPLYSupplemental Response due by 9/14/2016. Reply due by 9/21/2016. Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/8/16. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

GREGORY INGALLS and TONY HONG,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

12
13
14
15

No. C 16-03533 WHA

Plaintiffs,
v.
SPOTIFY USA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, DOES 1–10, inclusive,

REQUEST FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
AND EXTENDING DEADLINE
FOR DEFENDANT’S REPLY

Defendants.

16

/

17
Defendant Spotify USA, Inc., has moved to compel arbitration. In its motion, Spotify

18
19

contends, inter alia, that the parties delegated the issue of arbitrability to arbitration. Yesterday,

20

our court of appeals decided Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 15-16178 (9th Cir. Sept.

21

7, 2016), which reversed the district court’s decision that a delegation clause was unenforceable.

22

Our plaintiffs cited the district court decision in Mohamed v. Uber extensively in their

23

opposition. By SEPTEMBER 14, AT NOON, plaintiffs shall supplement their opposition brief to

24

address the decision by our court of appeals. Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief shall NOT EXCEED

25
26
27

FIVE PAGES.
NOON.

The deadline for Spotify’s reply brief shall be extended to SEPTEMBER 21, AT

The hearing scheduled for SEPTEMBER 29 remains in place.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

28
Dated: September 8, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE