Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05241/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05241-2/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 CHANGING MTC 

ARB HEARING DATE

1. CASE NO. 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 Defendant

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD GILLETTE, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly-situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a 

California corporation, and DOES 1-20, 

inclusive,

Defendant.

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

STIPULATED REQUEST AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING 

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 

HEARING DATE

Civil Local Rule 6-2

Complaint Filed: November 26, 2014

FAC Filed: December 15, 2014

Trial Date: None set.

Case 3:14-cv-05241-EMC Document 30 Filed 04/01/15 Page 1 of 3
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 CHANGING MTC 

ARB HEARING DATE

2. CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05241 EMC

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber” or 

“Defendant”) and Plaintiff Ronald Gillette (“Plaintiff”) (collectively “Parties”) hereby stipulate to 

and request that the Court continue the hearing date for Uber’s motion to compel arbitration from 

April 14, 2015 at 10:30 am to May 7, 2015 at 1:30 pm.

This change in time is requested because Uber’s client representative will be out of 

the country on business on April 14, 2015 and will be unable to attend the hearing as currently 

scheduled. Counsel for Defendant therefore requested a stipulation from counsel for Plaintiff to 

continue the motion to compel arbitration hearing date. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to request a 

continuance of the motion to compel arbitration hearing and the next available date that worked for 

all parties and the Court is May 7, 2015. 

This request is not made for purposes of unnecessary delay, and none of the Parties 

will be prejudiced by the granting of this request. The Parties have previously stipulated to several 

time modifications. On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff and Defendant stipulated to extend

Defendant’s time to file a responsive pleading. On February 5, 2015, in conjunction with the parties 

in the related action Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. Case No. 14-05200 (“Mohamed”), 

Plaintiff and Defendant stipulated to a consolidated briefing schedule regarding the motions to 

compel arbitration in Mohamed and the instant action and requested that the Court continue the 

March 12, 2015 case management conference and associated case management deadlines in order to 

accommodate the consolidated briefing schedule. 

This stipulated request will create only a slight delay with respect to the motion to 

compel arbitration hearing date. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

14

Case 3:14-cv-05241-EMC Document 30 Filed 04/01/15 Page 2 of 3
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 CHANGING MTC 

ARB HEARING DATE

3. CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05241 EMC

Dated: March 31, 2015

/s/ Andrew M. Spurchise 

Andrew M. Spurchise

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendant Uber Technologies, 

Inc.

Dated: March 31, 2015

/s/Andrew P. Lee

Andrew P. Lee

GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & 

HO

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ronald Gillette

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: March 31, 2015 /s/ Andrew M. Spurchise 

ANDREW M. SPURCHISE

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: ______________, 2015

___________________________________

HON. EDWARD M. CHEN

Firmwide:132627007.1 073208.1047

The motion hearing is 

reset for 5/14/15 at 

1:30 p.m. 4/1

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:14-cv-05241-EMC Document 30 Filed 04/01/15 Page 3 of 3