Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 3:14-cv-05200-EMC (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150619b95 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 18, 2015
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONFIRM DEFENDANTS' TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiffs RONALD GILLETTE and ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED and Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER, LLC and HIREASE, LLC (collectively, the "Parties") hereby stipulate to confirm that the deadline for Defendants to respond to the complaints is July 9, 2015. This Stipulation is based on the following: 1. The Parties previously agre
More

STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONFIRM DEFENDANTS' TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiffs RONALD GILLETTE and ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED and Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., RASIER, LLC and HIREASE, LLC (collectively, the "Parties") hereby stipulate to confirm that the deadline for Defendants to respond to the complaints is July 9, 2015. This Stipulation is based on the following:

1. The Parties previously agreed in the Joint Case Management Conference Statement (Docket No. 34) that Defendants would have 30 days from the date of the Court's ruling on Defendants' motions to compel arbitration to respond to the complaints.

2. On June 9, 2015, the Court entered a ruling denying Defendants' motions to compel arbitration.

3. Pursuant to the Parties' agreement, and subject to this Court's approval, Defendants have until July 9, 2015 to respond to the complaints.

4. This request is not made by the Parties for purposes of unnecessary delay and no party will be prejudiced by the granting of this request. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. and Plaintiff Gillette previously stipulated to an extension of Defendant's time to respond to the complaint. Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC and Plaintiff Mohamed previously stipulated to two extensions of Defendants' time to respond to the complaint. Defendant Hirease, LLC and Plaintiff Mohamed previously stipulated to one extension of Hirease's time to respond to the complaint.

THEREFORE, the parties to this Stipulation hereby stipulate and respectfully request as follows: that the Court confirm the cutoff for Defendants to respond to the complaints as July 9, 2015.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer