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
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?