Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01441/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01441-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EMILY WOLF, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LYFT, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-01441-JSW 

ORDER CONTINUING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Re: Docket No. 42 

On January 21, 2016, after the Court had reviewed the parties’ notice regarding the United 

States Supreme Court’s ruling in Cambpell-Ewald v. Gomez, __ U.S. __, 2016 WL 228345 (Jan. 

20, 2016), the Court lifted the stay in this case, and it ordered the parties to appear for an initial 

case management conference on March 25, 2016, at 11:00 a.m. (Docket No. 42.) The Court also 

ordered that the parties’ initial case management statement was due by no later than March 18, 

2016. The parties have not complied with that deadline. 

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the case management conference from March 25, 

2016, to April 1, 2016. The parties shall file a joint case management statement by March 25, 

2016. In addition to the subjects covered in the Court’s form Joint Case Management Conference 

Statement and Proposed Order, the parties shall address the following issues in the appropriate 

sections: 

What are the specific factual and legal issues in the litigation, and what is the support from 

the pleadings or otherwise, as to the relevance of those issues? 

What is plaintiff’s best estimate as to the amount in controversy, including damages 

reasonably sought by plaintiff in the case in chief, and by the defendant in any counterclaim, 

excluding punitive damages? 

Case 4:15-cv-01441-JSW Document 43 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

eac

to w

par

pro

not

the

Ma

Da

What is

ch stage of th

What ar

what specifi

What fo

rties should i

the estim

the estim

opose spendi

how ma

Finally,

t impose mo

e Court’s dea

arch 25, 201

IT IS S

ated: March 2

s the parties’

he litigation?

re the specif

c issues is ea

orms of disc

identify: 

mated numb

mated numb

ing on depos

any and wha

, the parties 

netary sanct

adlines. The

6. 

SO ORDER

22, 2016 

’ best estima

?

fic subject m

ach item rele

overy to the

ber of interro

ber of deposi

sitions; and

at type of exp

are HEREB

tions in the a

e parties’ res

RED. 

2

ate as to the a

matters as to w

evant? 

 parties wish

ogatories and

itions, includ

perts to the p

Y ORDERE

amount of $2

ponse to this

amount of at

which the pa

h to pursue. 

d/or requests

ding the tota

parties conte

ED TO SHO

250.00, per s

s Order to Sh

JE

Un

ttorney’s fee

arties wish to

 In respondi

s for admissi

al amount of

emplate usin

OW CAUSE 

side, for thei

how Cause a

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

es that will b

o conduct di

ing to this qu

ion, includin

f time that th

ng. 

why the Cou

ir failure to c

also shall be

WHITE 

District Judg

be incurred a

iscovery and

uestion, the 

ng subparts;

e parties 

urt should 

comply with

e due on 

ge 

at 

d

h

Case 4:15-cv-01441-JSW Document 43 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 2