Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05200/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05200-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED, et al.

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

RONALD GILLETTE, et al.

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-14-5200 EMC

No. C-14-5241 EMC

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ORDER

In its consolidated reply brief, Uber argues that litigation of PAGA claims is as “time

consuming, costly and procedurally complex” as litigating class actions. See Reply Br. at II.B.2. 

Plaintiffs are hereby directed to file a response to Uber’s arguments contained in Section II.B.2. 

///

///

///

Case 3:14-cv-05200-EMC Document 59 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Such response shall be filed no later than noon on Wednesday, May 13, 2015. The response shall

not exceed five (5) pages of text. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2015

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05200-EMC Document 59 Filed 05/11/15 Page 2 of 2