Gill et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 26

ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White Granting 25 STIPULATION REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE. Motion to Remand set for 1/20/2023 at 09:00 AM in Oakland, Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor before Judge Jeffrey S. White. (dts, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2022)

1
2
3
4
5

Rachel W. Dempsey (SBN 310424)
[e-mail]
David H. Seligman (pro hac vice forthcoming)
[e-mail]
TOWARDS JUSTICE
2840 Fairfax Street, Suite 220
Denver, CO 80207
Tel: [phone]

10

Rafey Balabanian (SBN 315962)
[e-mail]
Yaman Salahi (SBN 288752)
[e-mail]
P. Solange Hilfinger-Pardo (SBN 320055)
[e-mail]
EDELSON PC
150 California St., 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]

11

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

12

Rohit K. Singla (SBN 213057)
[e-mail]
Justin P. Raphael (SBN 292380)
[e-mail]
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]

6
7
8
9

13
14
15
16
17

Karen L. Dunn (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
William A. Isaacson (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Kyle N. Smith (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Erica Spevack (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Joshua Hill Jr. (SBN 250842)
[e-mail]
R. Rosie Vail (SBN 317977)
[e-mail]
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
535 Mission Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Attorneys for Defendant
LYFT, INC.

18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20
21
22

TAJE GILL, ESTERPHANIE ST. JUSTE,
and BENJAMIN VALDEZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,

23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiffs,
v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and LYFT, INC., a Delaware
corporation,

Case No. 4:22-cv-04379-JSW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING CASE
SCHEDULE
Judge:
Hon. Jeffrey S. White
Courtroom: 5 – 2nd Floor

Defendants.

28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE
Case No. 4:22-cv-04379-JSW

1

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and among Plaintiff Taje Gill, Plaintiff Esterphanie St.

2

Juste, and Plaintiff Benjamin Valdez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.

3

(“Uber”), and Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) (Plaintiffs and Defendants are collectively referred to

4

herein as the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, that:
WHEREAS, Uber removed this action to this Court from the Superior Court of the State of

5
6

California, San Francisco County, on July 28, 2022;

7

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation, the Court entered a briefing schedule for

8

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, ordered the Parties to “confer and jointly propose a possible hearing

9

date for Plaintiffs’ forthcoming motion to remand” to the Court, and ordered an adjournment of

10

Defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint until 45 days after the Court

11

rules on the Motion to Remand, Dkt. 20 (“August 5 Order”);

12

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed the aforementioned Motion to Remand (the “Motion”) pursuant

13

to 28 U.S.C. § 1447, on August 29, 2022, and noticed a hearing on November 4, 2022, a date

14

intended to be used as a placeholder until such time as the Parties could meet and confer on a joint

15

proposed hearing date, as directed by the August 5 Order;
WHEREAS, counsel for Uber is unavailable for a hearing on November 4, 2022, due to a

16
17

trial conflict from October 31, 2022 through December 2, 2022;

18

WHEREAS, the Parties have now met and conferred and propose January 20, 2023, for

19

hearing on the Motion, a date on which the Parties are informed the Court is available for hearing; 1

20

WHEREAS, the Court set an Initial Case Management Conference for November 4, 2022,

21

and a deadline for the Parties to file the Joint Case Management Statement for October 28, 2022;

22

WHEREAS, Civil Local Rule 6-1(b) provides that “[a] Court order is required for any

23

enlargement or shortening of time that alters an event or deadline already fixed by Court order,”

24

and a “request for a Court order enlarging or shortening time may be made by written stipulation

25

pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2”;
WHEREAS, other than the Parties’ stipulated request for an extension of the briefing

26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs have indicated additional availability on December 2, 2022, January 6, 2023, and
January 13, 2023. Counsel for Uber is not available on those dates.
1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE
Case No. 4:22-cv-04379-JSW

1

schedule for the Motion, Dkt. 15, which the Court granted in the August 5 Order, there have been

2

no other requests for time modification in this case; and there are only two scheduled court dates

3

currently on calendar other than dates associated with the Motion briefing schedule and hearing:

4

(1) the Joint Case Management Statement is due by October 28, 2022, and (2) the Initial Case

5

Management Conference is set for November 4, 2022;

6

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that given Uber counsel’s schedule and the Parties’

7

agreement to meet and confer and jointly propose a hearing date for the Motion, good cause exists

8

for the parties to propose January 20, 2023 for the hearing on the Motion; and

9

WHEREAS, the Parties agree there is good cause to adjourn the Initial Case Management

10

Conference and the deadline to file the Joint Case Management Statement until after the Motion

11

has been resolved and the Court has made a determination regarding its jurisdiction over this matter

12

in order to avoid the unnecessary use of the Court’s and the Parties’ time and resources.

13

ACCORDINGLY, pursuant to the Court’s August 5 Order, the Parties, by and through their

14

respective counsel, hereby jointly propose that the hearing on the Motion will be set for January

15

20, 2023; and

16

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, and 7-12, and the Court’s Civil Standing Orders

17

3 and 5, the Parties, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to request

18

that the Court adjourn the Initial Case Management Conference and deadline to file the Joint Case

19

Management Statement until after the Motion is resolved and set a date for the Initial Case

20

Management Conference on a date and time convenient for the Court following its decision on the

21

Motion. 2

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

This stipulation has no effect on, and does not waive, Defendants’ right to object on the basis of
lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient process, insufficient service of process, or proceeding
outside arbitration. Plaintiffs agree that they will not assert in federal or state court that there has
been any waiver of any defense based on an assertion of lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient
process, insufficient service of process, or proceeding outside arbitration, because of the Parties’
agreement to the terms and scheduling proposal set out in this Stipulation.
2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE
Case No. 4:22-cv-04379-JSW

1

Dated: September 23, 2022

TOWARDS JUSTICE

2
By: /s/ Rachel W. Dempsey
Rachel W. Dempsey (SBN 310424)
[e-mail]
David H. Seligman (pro hac vice forthcoming)
[e-mail]
2840 Fairfax Street, Suite 220
Denver, CO 80207
Tel: [phone]

3
4
5
6
7

Rafey Balabanian (SBN 315962)
[e-mail]
Yaman Salahi (SBN 288752)
[e-mail]
P. Solange Hilfinger-Pardo (SBN 320055)
[e-mail]
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: [phone]

8
9
10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

14
15

Dated: September 23, 2022

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

By: /s/ Justin P. Raphael
Rohit K. Singla (SBN 213057)
[e-mail]
Justin P. Raphael (SBN 292380)
[e-mail]
560 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
LYFT, INC.

23
24
25
26
27
28
3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE
Case No. 4:22-cv-04379-JSW

1

Dated: September 23, 2022

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

By: /s/ Karen L. Dunn
Karen L. Dunn (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
William A. Isaacson (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Kyle N. Smith (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Erica Spevack (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Joshua Hill Jr. (SBN 250842)
[e-mail]
R. Rosie Vail (SBN 317977)
[e-mail]
535 Mission Street, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE
Case No. 4:22-cv-04379-JSW

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED: (1) the hearing on Plaintiffs’

3

Motion to Remand will be set for January 20, 2023; and (2) the Initial Case Management

4

Conference and the deadline for the Parties to file a Joint Case Management Statement shall be

5

adjourned and reset following the Court’s decision on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

DATED:

September 26, 2022

By:

9

HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14

Submitted by:

15

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP

16

By:

17

/s/ Karen L. Dunn
Attorney for Uber Technologies, Inc.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE
Case No. 4:22-cv-04379-JSW