Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01257/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01257-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham 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

865266.1 3:15-cv-01257-JST

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND PLAINTIFFS’ TIME TO MOVE TO STRIKE 

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP

44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2450

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

BRUCE L. SIMON (Bar No. 96241) 

 bsimon@pswlaw.com 

BENJAMIN E. SHIFTAN (Bar No. 265767) 

 bshiftan@pswlaw.com 

PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 433-9000 

Facsimile: (415) 433-9008 

CHRISTOPHER B. DOLAN (Bar No. 165358) 

 chris@cbdlaw.com 

THE DOLAN LAW FIRM 

1438 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94102 

Telephone: (415) 421-2800 

Facsimile: (415) 421-2830 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. dba Yellow Cab 

Co.; Administrative Services SD, LLC dba 

Yellow Radio Service; All Yellow Taxi, Inc. 

dba Metro Cab; American Cab, LLC; 

American Cab, LLC dba Pomona Valley 

Yellow Cab; Bell Cab Company, Inc.; TMMTM, Inc.; Big Dog City Corporation dba 

Citywide Dispatch, Citywide Taxi, and Big 

Dog Cab; Cabco Yellow, Inc. dba California 

Yellow Cab; C&J Leasing, Inc. dba Royal 

Taxi; G&S Transit Management, Inc.; Gorgee 

Enterprises, Inc.; LA City Cab, LLC; Long 

Beach Yellow Cab Co-operative, Inc.; 

Network Paratransit Systems, Inc.; South Bay 

Co-operative, Inc. dba United Checker Cab; 

Taxi Leasing, Inc. dba Yellow Cab of Ventura 

County; Tri-City Transportation Systems, Inc.; 

Tri Counties Transit Corporation dba Blue 

Dolphin Cab of Santa Barbara, Yellow Cab of 

Santa Maria, and Yellow Cab of San Luis 

Obispo; and Yellow Cab of South Bay Cooperative, Inc. dba South Bay Yellow Cab,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Uber Technologies; Rasier, LLC; and RasierCA, LLC,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-01257-JST

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO EXTEND PLAINTIFFS’ 

TIME TO MOVE TO STRIKE 

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

Case 3:15-cv-01257-JST Document 60 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 4
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

865266.1 1 3:15-cv-01257-JST

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND PLAINTIFFS’ TIME TO MOVE TO STRIKE 

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP

44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2450

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiffs L.A. Taxi Cooperative, Inc. dba Yellow Cab Co.; Administrative Services SD, 

LLC dba Yellow Radio Service; All Yellow Taxi, Inc. dba Metro Cab; American Cab, LLC; 

American Cab, LLC dba Pomona Valley Yellow Cab; Bell Cab Company, Inc.; TM-MTM, Inc.; 

Big Dog City Corporation dba Citywide Dispatch, Citywide Taxi, and Big Dog Cab; Cabco 

Yellow, Inc. dba California Yellow Cab; C&J Leasing, Inc. dba Royal Taxi; G&S Transit 

Management, Inc.; Gorgee Enterprises, Inc.; LA City Cab, LLC; Long Beach Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc.; Network Paratransit Systems, Inc.; South Bay Co-operative, Inc. dba United 

Checker Cab; Taxi Leasing, Inc. dba Yellow Cab of Ventura County; Tri-City Transportation 

Systems, Inc.; Tri Counties Transit Corporation dba Blue Dolphin Cab of Santa Barbara, Yellow 

Cab of Santa Maria, and Yellow Cab of San Luis Obispo; and Yellow Cab of South Bay Cooperative, Inc. dba South Bay Yellow Cab (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Uber 

Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC ("Defendants"), by and through their 

undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to continue Plaintiffs’ deadline to move to strike 

any part of Defendants’ Answer by 14 days, through and including September 28, 2015. In 

support of the instant stipulation, the Parties state as follows: 

WHEREAS, on August 3, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint against 

Defendants (Dkt. 50). 

WHEREAS, on August 24, 2015, Defendants filed their Answer (Dkt. 52). 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have written a letter to Defendants regarding certain alleged 

deficiencies in Defendants’ Answer that, according to Plaintiffs, would be the appropriate subject 

of a motion to strike under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

WHEREAS, the parties intend to have further meet and confer discussions regarding 

Defendants’ Answer that may eliminate the need for Plaintiffs to file such a motion to strike. 

WHEREAS, the parties’ proposed extension of time will allow the parties (1) sufficient 

time to have such meet and confer sessions, and (2) sufficient time for Plaintiffs—if necessary—to 

prepare their motion to strike Defendants’ Answer. 

Case 3:15-cv-01257-JST Document 60 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 4
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

865266.1 2 3:15-cv-01257-JST

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND PLAINTIFFS’ TIME TO MOVE TO STRIKE 

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP

44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2450

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

WHEREAS, the parties have sought—and the Court has granted—an extension of time for 

Defendants to respond to the Original Complaint (Dkt. 11).

WHEREAS, the Court has not previously modified the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a 

motion to strike any part of Defendants’ Answer. 

WHEREAS, the Parties' proposed extension of Plaintiffs’ deadline to file a motion to strike 

any part of Defendants’ Answer will not change or alter the date of any event or any deadline 

already fixed by Court order; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs respectfully reserve the right to seek additional time to move to 

strike any part of Defendants’ Answer, if necessary and for good cause shown; 

NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby STIPULATE and AGREE that Plaintiffs’ deadline 

to move to strike any part of Defendants’ Answer is extended through and including September 

28, 2015.

 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: September 9, 2015 By: /s/ Benjamin E. Shiftan

BRUCE L. SIMON (Bar No. 96241) 

 bsimon@pswlaw.com 

BENJAMIN E. SHIFTAN (Bar No. 265767) 

 bshiftan@pswlaw.com 

PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 433-9000 

Facsimile: (415) 433-9008 

CHRISTOPHER B. DOLAN (Bar No. 165358) 

 chris@cbdlaw.com 

THE DOLAN LAW FIRM 

1438 Market Street

San Francisco, California 94102 

Telephone: (415) 421-2800 

Facsimile: (415) 421-2830 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Case 3:15-cv-01257-JST Document 60 Filed 09/14/15 Page 3 of 4
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

865266.1 3 3:15-cv-01257-JST

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND PLAINTIFFS’ TIME TO MOVE TO STRIKE 

DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP

44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2450

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

Dated: September 9, 2015 By: /s/ Andra Barmash Greene

ANDRA BARMASH GREENE (Bar. No. 23931) 

 agreene@irell.com 

A. MATTHEW ASHLEY (Bar. No. 198235) 

 mashley@irell.com 

IRELL & MANELLA LLP 

840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400 

Newport Beach, California 92660-6324 

Telephone: (949) 760-0991 

Facsimile: (949) 760-5200 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, Benjamin E. . 

Shiftan hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained by all 

signatories.

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2015 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01257-JST Document 60 Filed 09/14/15 Page 4 of 4