Peterson v. Lyft, Inc.

Filing 29

STIPULATION AND ORDER Staying District Court Proceedings in this Action Pending Resolution of Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, Case No. 16-330 in the U.S. Supreme Court filed by Lyft, Inc. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 04/28/2017. (tmiS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2017)

1 JONATHAN H. BLAVIN (State Bar No. 230269)
[e-mail]
2 ANKUR MANDHANIA (State Bar No. 302373)
[e-mail]
3 MOLLY K. PRIEDEMAN (State Bar No. 302096)
[e-mail]
4 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street
5 Twenty-Seventh Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-2907
6 Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
7
Attorneys for LYFT, INC.
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
13 PETE PETERSON, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated,
14
Plaintiff,
15
vs.
16
LYFT, INC.,
17
Defendant.
18

Case No. 3:16-cv-07343
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER STAYING DISTRICT COURT
PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION
PENDING RESOLUTION OF MORRIS V.
ERNST & YOUNG, LLP, Case No. 16-330
IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3:16-cv-07343-LB
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THIS
ACTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF MORRIS V. ERNST & YOUNG, LLP,
CASE NO. 16-330 IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

1

Plaintiff PETE PETERSON, and Defendant LYFT, INC., through their respective

2 counsel of record, and without admission of any kind, or waiver of any defense, objection or other
3 response, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
4

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this action on December 27, 2016;

5

WHEREAS, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and To Dismiss the

6 Complaint on March 13, 2017;
7

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on April 3, 2017;

8

WHEREAS, the Court found Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and To

9 Dismiss the Complaint moot on April 17, 2017;
10

WHEREAS, Defendant filed Motion to Compel Arbitration and To Dismiss the

11 First Amended Complaint on April 17, 2017;
12

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has indicated in correspondence with Defendant that it

13 intends to rely on Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. granted,
14 137 S. Ct. 809 (2017) (“Morris”), in opposing Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration;
15

WHEREAS, Defendant disagrees that Morris applies to Plaintiff’s claim in this

16 action;
17

WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Morris,

18 Case No. 16-300, on January 13, 2017;
19

WHEREAS, the parties agree that it would be more efficient for the Court and the

20 parties to stay all district court proceedings pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s resolution of
21 Morris;
22

WHEREAS, by entering into this stipulation, Defendant in no way waives, and

23 reserves all rights with respect to, the argument that Morris does not apply to Plaintiff’s claim in
24 the First Amended Complaint;
25

WHEREAS, by entering into this stipulation, Plaintiff in no way waives, and

26 reserves all rights with respect to any and all additional arguments in opposition to Defendant’s
27 Motion to Compel Arbitration;
28

3:16-cv-07343-LB
-1JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THIS
ACTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF MORRIS V. ERNST & YOUNG, LLP,
CASE NO. 16-330 IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

1

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties through their respective

2 counsel that, subject to this court’s approval:
3

1.

All district court proceedings in this case are hereby stayed.

4

2.

The stay shall be lifted upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s issuance of a decision in

5
6

Morris.
3.

The Parties shall meet and confer within fourteen (14) days of the U.S. Supreme

7

Court’s issuance of a decision in Morris, and shall file a joint status report

8

thereafter.

9
10 DATED: April 27, 2017
11

REESE LLP
MICHAEL R. REESE
HALUNEN LAW
MELISSA WOLCHANSKY

12
13

FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
JAMES A. FRANCIS
JOHN SOUMILAS

14
15

By:

/s/ Michael R. Reese
Michael R. Reese
Attorneys for Plaintiff Pete Peterson

16
17
18
19
20
21

DATED: April 27, 2017

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
JONATHAN H. BLAVIN
ANKUR MANDHANIA
MOLLY K. PRIEDEMAN

22
23
24
25

By:

/s/ Jonathan H. Blavin
JONATHAN H. BLAVIN
Attorneys for Defendant LYFT, INC.

26
27
28

3:16-cv-07343-LB
-2JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THIS
ACTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF MORRIS V. ERNST & YOUNG, LLP,
CASE NO. 16-330 IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

1
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
April 28, 2017
4 ______________________
Date
5
6

___________________________
Hon. Laurel Beeler
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3:16-cv-07343-LB
-3JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THIS
ACTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF MORRIS V. ERNST & YOUNG, LLP,
CASE NO. 16-330 IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT