Garcia v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 43

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 42 Stipulation for Leave to File Instanter Enlarged Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Extend Time for Reply. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP RACHAEL E. MENY - #178514 rmeny@kvn.com JENNIFER A. HUBER - #250143 jhuber@kvn.com MICHELLE S. YBARRA - #260697 mybarra@kvn.com 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 Attorneys for Defendant LYFT, INC. 8 9 10 11 12 CROWELL & MORING LLP J. DANIEL SHARP - #131042 dsharp@crowell.com 275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-2800 Facsimile: (415) 986-2827 13 14 Attorneys for Defendant ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC. EDELSON PC MARK EISEN - #289009 meisen@edelson.com 555 West Fifth Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 533-4100 Facsimile: (213) 947-4251 JAY EDELSON (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) jedelson@edelson.com RAFEY S. BALABANIAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) rbalabanian@edelson.com BENJAMIN S. THOMASSEN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) bthomassen@edelson.com JACK YAMIN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) jyamin@edelson.com CHANDLER R. GIVENS (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) cgivens@edelson.com 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 Attorneys for Plaintiff MIGUEL GARCIA 15 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 OAKLAND DIVISION 20 21 MIGUEL GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 22 Plaintiff, 23 24 25 v. ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., a Missouri corporation, and LYFT INC. d/b/a Zimride, a Delaware corporation, 26 Defendants. Case No. 4:14-cv-00596-SBA STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER ENLARGED OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND EXTEND TIME FOR REPLY Judge: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong Date Filed: February 7, 2014 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER ENLARGED OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND EXTEND TIME FOR REPLY Case No. 4:14-cv-00596-SBA 824992.01 1 2 WHEREAS, Plaintiff Miguel Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed his First Amended Complaint on March 28, 2014; and 3 WHEREAS, Defendants Lyft, Inc. and Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Defendants”) filed a 4 Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, supporting Memorandum, and Request for 5 Judicial Notice on April 28, 2014; and 6 7 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Request for Judicial Notice, and an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on May 12, 2014 that is 19-pages in length; 8 9 WHEREAS, on May 13, 2014, Defendants informed Plaintiff that its Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss exceeded the Court’s 15-page limitation, but indicated that they would not 10 object to the enlarged brief if Defendants were permitted an additional week to prepare and file 11 their Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss, and Reply in Support of their Request for 12 Judicial Notice; 13 14 WHEREAS, Defendants’ assent to Plaintiff’s enlarged brief is contingent upon an extension of time for Defendants’ filing of Reply briefs; 15 WHEREAS, Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss and Reply in 16 Support of their Request for Judicial Notice are presently due on May 19, 2014. 17 THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 18 STIPULATION 19 1. The parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and 20 respectfully request that Plaintiff be permitted to file instanter an enlarged brief in opposition to 21 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss of 19-pages in length, which is presently filed at Docket Number 22 40; 23 2. The parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, further stipulate and 24 respectfully request that Defendants’ time in which to file a Reply in Support of their Motion to 25 Dismiss and Reply in Support of their Request for Judicial Notice be extended by one week and 26 one day, from May 19, 2014 to May 27, 2014, to account for the Memorial Day holiday. 27 28 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER ENLARGED OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND EXTEND TIME FOR REPLY Case No. 4:14-cv-00596-SBA 824992.01 1 3. The reason for the requested change of time for the Defendants’ filing of their 2 Reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss is to give Defendants sufficient time to fully consider 3 and brief the issues raised by Plaintiff’s filed Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and 4 thereby give the Court a complete record for consideration. 5 4. Four other time modifications have been made by stipulation in this matter. On 6 February 21, 2014, Plaintiff and Enterprise stipulated that the time for Enterprise to respond to the 7 original Complaint would be extended until April 4, 2014. See Dkt. 19. On February 25, 2014, 8 Plaintiff and Lyft stipulated that the time for Lyft to respond to the original Complaint would also 9 be extended to April 4, 2014. See Dkt. 25. Following the filing of the First Amended Complaint, 10 the parties stipulated to extend the time for Defendants to respond to the First Amended 11 Complaint until April 28, 2014, and the Court so ordered on March 31, 2014. See Dkt. 30. 12 Finally, the parties stipulated to continue their Initial Discovery Deadlines until May 15, 2014 and 13 May 29, 2014 respectively, and to continue the Case Management Conference, which the Court 14 so ordered on April 7, 2014. Pursuant to the April 7, 2014 order, the Case Management 15 Conference was continued until June 18, 2014. Additionally, the Court previously ordered that 16 the initial Case Management Conference be continued from May 6, 2014 to May 7, 2014. See 17 Dkt. 23. No other time modifications have been ordered by the Court. 18 5. The effect of this requested time modification would be to extend the briefing 19 scheduling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and Request for Judicial Notice by one week. To 20 allow the Court sufficient time to fully consider the briefing submitted in support of and 21 opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the parties agree that—at the Court’s discretion— 22 the hearing date for the Motion should also be extended by 7 days, i.e., from June 10, 2014 to 23 June 17, 2014. 24 6. All parties agree to the stipulation as indicated by their signatures below. The 25 parties respectfully request that the Court approve the stipulation, pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2 and 26 enter an Order thereupon. A form of Proposed Order is filed herewith. 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER ENLARGED OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND EXTEND TIME FOR REPLY Case No. 4:14-cv-00596-SBA 824992.01 1 EDELSON PC Dated: May 13, 2014 2 By: 3 4 /s/ Benjamin S. Thomassen BENJAMIN S. THOMASSEN Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 6 Dated: May 13, 2014 KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 7 8 By: /s/ Michelle S. Ybarra MICHELLE S. YBARRA 9 Attorneys for Defendant LYFT, INC. 10 11 Dated: May 13, 2014 CROWELL & MORING LLP 12 13 By: 14 /s/ J. Daniel Sharp J. DANIEL SHARP Attorneys for Defendant ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC. 15 16 17 ATTESTATION 18 19 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories. 20 21 Dated: May 13, 2014 /s/ Benjamin S. Thomassen_________ BENJAMIN S. THOMASSEN 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER ENLARGED OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND EXTEND TIME FOR REPLY Case No. 4:14-cv-00596-SBA 824992.01 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 The Court having considered the above joint request, and good standing appearing 3 therefore, HEREBY ORDERS that: (1) Plaintiff may file a 19-page brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 4 5 The brief filed at Docket Number 40 is hereby deemed filed; and (2) Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion to Dismiss, and Reply in Support of 6 7 Request for Judicial Notice shall be filed by May 27, 2014. Further, the June 10, 2014 hearing at 1:00 p.m. on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. 8 9 33), is vacated and reset for June 17, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 12 DATED: 14 May __, 2014 13 14 By: __________________________________ Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Court Northern District of California 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE INSTANTER ENLARGED OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND EXTEND TIME FOR REPLY Case No. 4:14-cv-00596-SBA 824992.01

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?