Skiles v. Tesla, Inc. et al

Filing 101

ORDER granting 100 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing and for Briefing Schedule re: 99 MOTION to Dismiss. Response due by 1/3/2020. Reply due by 1/31/2020. Motion Hearing reset for 2/19/2020 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 02, 17th Floor before Judge William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 12/9/2019. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
ABBAS KAZEROUNIAN (249203)
[e-mail]
MIKE KAZEROUNI (252835)
[e-mail]
245 Fisher Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
JASON A. IBEY (284607)
[e-mail]
321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
St. George, Utah 84790
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
WAYNE SKILES

COOLEY LLP
MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127)
([e-mail])
JEFFREY M. GUTKIN (216083)
([e-mail])
KYLE C. WONG (224021)
([e-mail])
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
TESLA, INC.
Additional attorneys for Defendants are
listed on signature page
.

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15
16

WAYNE SKILES,
Plaintiff,

17
18
19
20
21

v.
TESLA, INC., EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., and SALESFORCE
VENTURES, LLC,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-05434-WHO
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING
AND FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
DEFENDANTS TESLA, INC.’S AND
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC.’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Judge:

Hon. William H. Orrick

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIP. FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:17-CV-05434-WHO

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(a) and (b), plaintiff Wayne Skiles (“Plaintiff”) and

2

Defendants Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”), by and

3

through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

4

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint against Defendants in the Northern

5

District of California on or about December 22, 2017 (Dkt. No. 61) (the “First Amended Complaint”);

6

WHEREAS, Tesla filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Plaintiff’s First Amended

7

Complaint, or, alternatively, to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on January 24, 2018

8

(Dkt. No. 64);

9

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant Tesla, Inc.’s Motion to Compel

10

Arbitration and Dismiss or Stay Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on March 7, 2018 (Dkt. No. 70)

11

(the “Original Opposition”);

12

WHEREAS, Tesla submitted its Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel Arbitration and to

13

Stay Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, or, Alternatively, to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended

14

Complaint on April 4, 2018 (Dkt. No. 73) (the “Original Reply”);

15
16
17
18

WHEREAS, the Court granted Tesla’s Motion to Compel and stayed the proceedings against
Defendants on May 16, 2018 (Dkt. No. 76);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Lift the Stay wherein it requested an opportunity for
the parties to submit new briefing on the motions to dismiss on October 7, 2019 (Dkt. No. 91);

19

WHEREAS, on November 6, 2019, the Court issued an Order (Dkt. No. 98) granting Plaintiffs’

20

Motion to Lift the Stay; requiring Experian to file a response to the First Amended Complaint within

21

twenty-one (21) days of the Order; permitting Plaintiff to file a revised opposition to Tesla’s Motion

22

to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 64) (the “Supplemental Opposition”) not to exceed ten (10) pages on the same

23

day its response to Experian’s motion is due; and permitting Tesla to file a reply in support of its

24

motion to dismiss (the “Supplemental Reply”) not to exceed ten (10) pages two weeks thereafter;

25

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Tesla understand that the Supplemental Opposition and

26

Supplemental Reply are supplemental to and will be considered in conjunction with the Original

27

Opposition (Dkt. No. 70) and Original Reply (Dkt. No.73);

28

WHEREAS, Experian filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on
1.

STIP. FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:17-CV-05434-WHO

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

November 27, 2019 and noticed a hearing for that motion for January 15, 2020 (Dkt. No. 99);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s opposition to Experian’s motion to dismiss and Supplemental
Opposition to Tesla’s motion to dismiss are currently due December 11, 2019;
WHEREAS, Experian’s reply in support of its motion to dismiss is currently due December
18, 2019;
WHEREAS Tesla’s Supplemental Reply in support of its motion to dismiss is currently due
December 26, 2019;

8

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to a briefing and hearing schedule that will allow for a

9

more complete and orderly presentation of the disputed issues and that will avoid holiday conflicts

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

created by the original schedule;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby STIPULATE and AGREE as follows, through their
undersigned counsel:
1. Plaintiff opposition to Experian’s motion to dismiss and Supplemental Opposition to
Tesla’s motion to dismiss will be due on January 3, 2020;
2. Experian’s reply in support of its motion to dismiss and Tesla’s Supplemental Reply in
support of its motion to dismiss will be due on January 31, 2020;
3. The hearing on Defendants’ motions to dismiss will be continued to February 19, 2020 or
as soon thereafter as is convenient for the Court.

19
20

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2.

STIP. FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:17-CV-05434-WHO

1
2

Dated:

December 3, 2019

KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC

3
/s/ Jason Ibey
Jason Ibey
Attorneys for Plaintiff
WAYNE SKILES

4
5
6
7

Dated:

December 3, 2019

COOLEY LLP

8
/s/ Jeffrey M. Gutkin
Jeffrey M. Gutkin
Attorneys for Defendant
TESLA, INC.

9
10
11
12

Dated:

December 3, 2019

JONES DAY

13
14
15

/s/ John A. Vogt
John A. Vogt
Attorneys for Defendant
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.

STIP. FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:17-CV-05434-WHO

ORDER

1
2

The Court, having considered the parties’ Stipulation to Continue Hearing and for Briefing

3

Schedule for Defendants Tesla, Inc.’s and Experian Information Solution, Inc.’s Motions to Dismiss

4

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, hereby extends Plaintiff’s deadline to oppose Experian’s motion

5

to dismiss and file his supplemental opposition to Tesla’s motion to dismiss to January 3, 2020;

6

extends Experian’s deadline to reply in support of its motion to dismiss and Tesla’s deadline to file a

7

supplemental reply in support of its motion to dismiss to January 31, 2020; orders that Plaintiff’s

8

supplemental opposition and Tesla’s supplemental reply be considered in conjunction with the original

9

opposition (Dkt. No. 70) and original reply (Dkt. No.73); and continues the hearing for Defendants’

10

motions to dismiss to February 19, 2020.
PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

Dated:

December 9, 2019
__________________

14
15
16

The Honorable William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4.

STIP. FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:17-CV-05434-WHO

ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING

1
2
3

In accordance with N.D. Cal. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that I have obtained the concurrence
of all other signatories in the filing of this document.

4
5

Dated: December 3, 2019

COOLEY LLP

6
7

/s/ Jeffrey M. Gutkin
Jeffrey M. Gutkin

8

Attorneys for Defendant
TESLA, INC.

9
10
11
12

155522395

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.

STIP. FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CASE NO. 3:17-CV-05434-WHO