Metter v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filing 21

STIPULATION AND ORDER to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint and Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/9/17. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WILLIAM L. STERN (BAR NO. 96105) WStern@mofo.com TIFFANY CHEUNG (BAR NO. 211497) TCheung@mofo.com CLAUDIA M. VETESI (BAR NO. 233485) CVetesi@mofo.com LUCIA X. ROIBAL (BAR NO. 306721) LRoibal@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 Attorneys for Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 JULIAN METTER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. Case No. 3:16-cv-06652-RS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE 16 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Judge: Richard Seeborg 17 Defendant. Action Filed: November 16, 2016 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE Case No. 3:16-cv-06652-RS sf-3729309 1 STIPULATION 2 Pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rule 6-1 and 6-2, Plaintiff Julian Metter 3 (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), by and through their undersigned 4 counsel, stipulate as follows: 5 6 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on November 16, 2016, and served Uber with the Complaint on or about November 17, 2016; 7 WHEREAS, the parties previously stipulated to extend the deadline for Defendant to 8 respond to the Complaint, resulting in an extension up to and including January 9, 2017, and set 9 the following briefing schedule (ECF No. 9): 10 Plaintiff’s opposition to Uber’s responsive motion is due on or before February 1, 11 2017; and 12 Uber’s reply in support of its motion is due on or before February 15, 2017; 13 WHEREAS, Defendant filed an unopposed motion to relate in Cordas v. Uber 14 Technologies, Inc., No. 4:16-cv-04065-RS (N.D. Cal. filed July 20, 2016) (“Cordas”), which was 15 granted on December 16, 2016. Because the cases were related, Defendant intended to file a 16 motion to stay this case pending resolution of Cordas in response to the Complaint, on January 9, 17 2017; 18 WHEREAS, on January 5, 2017, this Court heard Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to 19 Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or Stay Litigation in Cordas. Later that day, this Court granted 20 Uber’s motion, and stayed the case pending completion of the arbitration; 21 22 23 WHEREAS, now that the Court has granted Uber’s motion to compel arbitration in Cordas, Defendant’s intended motion to stay pending resolution of Cordas is moot; WHEREAS, Uber now plans to file a motion to compel arbitration in this case. Without 24 an extension of time to file the motion to compel arbitration, there is insufficient time to prepare a 25 motion to compel arbitration in the time remaining before Uber’s response is due; 26 27 WHEREAS, Plaintiff has agreed to extend Defendant’s deadline to respond to the Complaint up to and including January 17, 2017; 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE Case No. 3:16-cv-06652-RS sf-3729309 1 1 WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to the following briefing schedule: 2 Plaintiff’s opposition to Uber’s responsive motion is due on or before February 14, 3 2017; 4 Uber’s reply in support of its motion is due on or before February 28, 2017. 5 THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AND STIPULATED that Uber’s deadline to answer or 6 otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is extended up to and including January 16, 2017; 7 Plaintiff’s opposition to any responsive motion filed by Uber is extended up to and including 8 February 14, 2017, and Uber’s reply in support of its motion is extended up to and including 9 February 28, 2017. 10 11 Dated: January 6, 2017 12 13 WILLIAM L. STERN TIFFANY CHEUNG CLAUDIA M. VETESI LUCIA X. ROIBAL MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP By: 14 15 /s/ William L. Stern WILLIAM L. STERN Attorneys for Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 16 18 LEE A. CIRSCH ROBERT K. FRIEDL TRISHA K. MONESI FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 19 By: 17 Dated: January 6, 2017 20 /s/ Lee A. Cirsch LEE A. CIRSCH Attorneys for Plaintiff JULIAN METTER 21 22 23 24 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Date: __________________ 1/9/17 _________________________ Hon. Richard Seeborg 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE Case No. 3:16-cv-06652-RS sf-3729309 2

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?