STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING DATE OF INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ASSOCIATED DEADLINES

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Miguel Garcia ("Plaintiff") filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants Lyft, Inc. ("Lyft") and Enterprise Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Zimride ("Enterprise") (collectively, "Defendants") on February 7, 2014; and

WHEREAS Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 28, 2014; and

WHEREAS Plaintiff agreed to grant an extension of time for Defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint to April 28, 2014, and the Court has so ordered; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court's February 25, 2014 Case Management Scheduling Order (Dkt. #23), April 15, 2014 is the last day for the parties to conduct their Rule 26(f) conference, meet and confer regarding ADR and a discovery plan, and comply with ADR L.R. 3-5, and April 29, 2014 is the last day for the parties to file their Rule 26(f) report, complete initial disclosures, and file a Case Management Statement in the above-captioned matter (collectively, the April 15 and April 29 deadlines are referred to as the "Initial Discovery Deadlines"); and

WHEREAS, the parties are currently scheduled to appear telephonically before this Court for the initial Case Management Conference on May 7, 2014 at 3:15 p.m.; and

WHEREAS, the parties agree that it would be most convenient and efficient to continue the Initial Discovery Deadlines and Case Management Conference by 30 days.

THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate as follows:

STIPULATION

1. The parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and respectfully request a continuance of the Initial Discovery Deadlines until May 15, 2014 and May 29, 2014 respectively, and a continuance of the Case Management Conference scheduled for May 7, 2014 until June 4, or 5, 2014 or as soon as practicable thereafter as the availability of the Court's calendar permits.

2. The reason for the requested change of time for the Initial Discovery Deadlines and initial Case Management Conference is that a First Amended Complaint was recently filed by Plaintiff on March 28, 2014. Plaintiff has agreed to grant an extension of time for Defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint until April 28, 2014, and the Court has so ordered. Therefore, so that the parties have sufficient time to consider the pleadings and the claims and defenses raised therein, and in the interest of mutual convenience to the parties and the Court, the parties believe that it is prudent to continue the Case Management Conference and Initial Discovery Deadlines until after Defendants have filed their responsive pleading on April 28, 2014.

3. Three other time modifications have been made by stipulation in this matter. On February 21, 2014, Plaintiff and Enterprise stipulated that the time for Enterprise to respond to the original Complaint would be extended until April 4, 2014. See Dkt. 19. On February 25, 2014, Plaintiff and Lyft stipulated that the time for Lyft to respond to the original Complaint would also be extended to April 4, 2014. See Dkt. 25. Following the filing of the First Amended Complaint, the parties stipulated to extend the time for Defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint until April 28, 2014, and the Court so ordered on March 31, 2014. See Dkt. 30. Additionally, the Court previously ordered that the initial Case Management Conference be continued from May 6, 2014 to May 7, 2014. See Dkt. 23. No other time modifications have been ordered by the Court.

4. The effect of this requested time modification would be to move the deadlines for the exchange of initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1), the conference of the parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), the submission of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) Joint Statement, and the ADR deadlines set by Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR Local Rule 3-5. The proposed time modification would also postpone the date on which the parties may commence discovery under Federal Rule of Civil procedure 26(d)(1).

5. All parties agree to the stipulation as indicated by their signatures below. The parties respectfully request that the Court approve the stipulation, pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2 and enter an Order thereupon. A form of Proposed Order is filed herewith.

ATTESTATION

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.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court having considered the above joint request, and good standing appearing therefore, HEREBY ORDERS that the scheduled initial Case Management Conference date of May 7, 2014 is vacated, and shall be rescheduled for telephonic hearing on June ____, 2014 at__________.

Further, the April 15, 2014 and April 29, 2014 deadlines set forth in the Order Setting Initial CMC and ADR Deadlines (Dkt. 5) and Case Management Scheduling Order for Reassigned Civil Cases (Dkt. 23) are vacated and reset for May 15, 2014 and May 29, 2014, respectively.

IT IS SO ORDERED.