Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05200/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05200-10/pdf.json

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

---

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

650 California Street

20th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94108.2693

415.433.1940

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

STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO EXTEND DEFS’ TIME TO FILE 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING

1. 3:14-cv-05200-EMC

3:14-cv-05241-EMC

JOHN C. FISH, Jr., Bar No. 160620

jfish@littler.com

ROD M. FLIEGEL, Bar No. 168289

rfliegel@littler.com

ANDREW M. SPURCHISE, Bar No. 245998

aspurchise@littler.com

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

650 California Street

20th Floor

San Francisco, California 94108.2693

Telephone: 415.433.1940

Facsimile: 415.399.8490 

Attorneys for Defendants

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND RASIER, 

LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED,

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly-situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RASIER, 

LLC; HIREASE, LLC; and DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-05200-EMC

Case No. 3:14-cv-05241-EMC

STIPULATED REQUEST AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND

DEFENDANTS’ TIME TO FILE 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING

Complaint Filed: November 24, 2014

Trial Date: None set.

RONALD GILLETTE, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly-situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a 

California corporation, and DOES 1-20, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case 3:14-cv-05200-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 4
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

650 California Street

20th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94108.2693

415.433.1940

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

STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO EXTEND DEFS’ TIME TO FILE 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING

2. 3:14-cv-05200-EMC

3:14-cv-05241-EMC

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 extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to the 

complaints until 14 days after the anticipated stipulated filing of Plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint, 

or if the Parties are unable to agree on a stipulation for the filing of same, until 7 days after the Court 

rules on Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a consolidated complaint. This Stipulation is based on the 

following:

1. The current deadline for Defendants to respond to the operative complaints in 

Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. and Gillette v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. is July 9, 

2015.

2. Plaintiffs previously indicated in the Joint Case Management Conference Statement 

(Mohamed Docket No. 56; Gillette Docket No. 34) that they would consider filing a consolidated 

complaint if the Court were to deny Defendants’ motions to compel arbitration. 

3. Plaintiffs have now requested that Defendants stipulate to the filing of a consolidated 

complaint. The Parties are currently meeting and conferring regarding whether consolidation is 

appropriate and, if so, the terms of a stipulation regarding consolidation and the filing of a 

consolidated complaint. The Parties expect to submit to the Court a stipulation regarding 

consolidation, if any, within 14 days. 

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.

5. Nothing stated in or implied by this Stipulation and Proposed Order is intended to or 

shall affect Plaintiffs’ right, if any, to amend their complaints in accordance with Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 15.

Case 3:14-cv-05200-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 4
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

650 California Street

20th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94108.2693

415.433.1940

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

STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO EXTEND DEFS’ TIME TO FILE 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING

3. 3:14-cv-05200-EMC

3:14-cv-05241-EMC

6. Nothing stated in or implied by this Stipulation and Proposed Order is intended to or 

shall affect any of the Parties’ rights, arguments or positions with regard to the Parties’ dispute 

concerning arbitration or any other rights of the Parties.

THEREFORE, the parties to this Stipulation hereby stipulate and respectfully request as 

follows: that the Court extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to the complaints until 14 days 

after the anticipated stipulated filing of Plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint, or if the Parties are unable 

to agree on a stipulation for the filing of same, until 7 days after the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ motion 

for leave to file a consolidated complaint.

Dated: July 8, 2015

/s/ Andrew M. Spurchise 

Andrew M. Spurchise

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendants Uber Technologies, 

Inc. and Rasier, LLC

Dated: July 8, 2015

/s/Theodore Maya

Theodore Maya

AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC

Attorneys for Plaintiff Abdul Kadir Mohamed

Dated: July 8, 2015

/s/Andrew P. Lee

Andrew P. Lee

GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & 

HO

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ronald Gillette

Case 3:14-cv-05200-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/09/15 Page 3 of 4
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

650 California Street

20th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94108.2693

415.433.1940

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

STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO EXTEND DEFS’ TIME TO FILE 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING

4. 3:14-cv-05200-EMC

3:14-cv-05241-EMC

Dated: July 8, 2015

Dated: July 8, 2015

/s/Mitchell J. Freedman

Paul K. Schrieffer

Mitchell J. Freedman

P.K. SCHRIEFFER LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Hirease, LLC

/s/Sarah K. Hamilton____________________

Sarah K. Hamilton

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Hirease, LLC

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this 

document has been obtained from the signatories on this e-filed document.

Dated: July 8, 2015 /s/ Andrew M. Spurchise ANDREW M. SPURCHISE

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: ______________, 2015

___________________________________

HON. EDWARD M. CHEN

Firmwide:134541216.4 073208.1047

7/9

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:14-cv-05200-EMC Document 86 Filed 07/09/15 Page 4 of 4