Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06385/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06385-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

Case No. 3:16-cv-06385

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

AND RELATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

Shannon Seibert, Bar No. 240317

seibert@ssjblaw.com

Joe Bautista, Bar No. 255708

joebau@ssjblaw.com

SEIBERT & BAUTISTA

22 Battery Street, Ste. 888

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: 415.954.9455

Facsimile: 415.494.8115

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Kent M. Roger, Bar No. 095987

Brian C. Rocca, Bar No. 221576

Sujal J. Shah, Bar No. 215230

Minna Lo Naranjo, Bar No. 259005

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

One Market, Spear Street Tower

San Francisco, CA 94105-1596

Tel: +1.415.442.1000

Fax: +1.415.442.1001

kent.roger@morganlewis.com

brian.rocca@morganlewis.com

sujal.shah@morganlewis.com

minna.naranjo@morganlewis.com

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC. d/b/a

FLYWHEEL TAXI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware

corporation; UBER USA, LLC, a Delaware

limited liability company; RASIER, LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company; RASIERCA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability

company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-06385

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’

DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO

COMPLAINT AND RELATED

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Case 4:16-cv-06385-JSW Document 20 Filed 11/29/16 Page 1 of 3
1 Case No. 3:16-cv-06385

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

AND RELATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1 and 6-2, the parties hereby stipulate to an extension of the

deadline for Defendants to respond to the Complaint and for an enlargement of the related

briefing schedule.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this action on November 2, 2016 (Dkt. 1) and

served Defendants on November 3, 2016;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), Defendants requested, and Plaintiff agreed, to

extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to the Complaint from November 25, 2016 to

December 23, 2016;

WHEREAS, Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss the Complaint, and the parties

have conferred regarding an appropriate schedule for the briefing on that motion, in light of the

upcoming holidays and other scheduling matters;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), the parties jointly seek to extend the time

frames set forth in Local Rule 7-3 for the briefing on a motion;

WHEREAS, the parties have not previously sought an order extending time in this matter,

and the proposal will not alter the date of any other deadline already fixed by the Court;

THEREFORE, the parties, through their undersigned counsel, stipulate as follows, and

request that the Court enter an order setting the following deadlines:

1. Defendants shall file their motion to dismiss on or before December 20, 2016.

2. Plaintiff shall file its opposition on or before January 27, 2017.

3. Defendants shall file their reply on or before February 10, 2017.

4. The hearing on the motion to dismiss shall be noticed for the week of February 20,

2017 or February 27, 2017, or as soon thereafter as the Court’s schedule allows.

//

//

//

//

//

Case 4:16-cv-06385-JSW Document 20 Filed 11/29/16 Page 2 of 3
2 Case No. 3:16-cv-06385

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

AND RELATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: November 17, 2016 By: /s/ Brian C. Rocca

Brian C. Rocca1

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Attorneys for Defendants

DATED: November 17, 2016 By: /s/ Shannon Seibert

Shannon Seibert

SEIBERT & BAUTISTA

Attorneys for Plaintiff

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November ___, 2016

United States District Judge

1 Brian C. Rocca, the filer of this document, hereby attests that he obtained the concurrence of the

other signatory, Shannon Seibert, prior to its filing.

29

Case 4:16-cv-06385-JSW Document 20 Filed 11/29/16 Page 3 of 3