Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06652/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06652-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Case No. 3:16-cv-06652-RS

sf-3729309

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

WILLIAM L. STERN (BAR NO. 96105)

WStern@mofo.com

TIFFANY CHEUNG (BAR NO. 211497) 

TCheung@mofo.com

CLAUDIA M. VETESI (BAR NO. 233485)

CVetesi@mofo.com

LUCIA X. ROIBAL (BAR NO. 306721)

LRoibal@mofo.com

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-2482

Telephone: 415.268.7000

Facsimile: 415.268.7522

Attorneys for Defendant 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIAN METTER, individually and on behalf 

of a class of similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-cv-06652-RS

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Judge: Richard Seeborg

Action Filed: November 16, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-06652-RS Document 21 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Case No. 3:16-cv-06652-RS 1

sf-3729309

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

STIPULATION

Pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rule 6-1 and 6-2, Plaintiff Julian Metter

(“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), by and through their undersigned 

counsel, stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on November 16, 2016, and 

served Uber with the Complaint on or about November 17, 2016;

WHEREAS, the parties previously stipulated to extend the deadline for Defendant to 

respond to the Complaint, resulting in an extension up to and including January 9, 2017, and set 

the following briefing schedule (ECF No. 9):

x Plaintiff’s opposition to Uber’s responsive motion is due on or before February 1, 

2017; and 

x Uber’s reply in support of its motion is due on or before February 15, 2017;

WHEREAS, Defendant filed an unopposed motion to relate in Cordas v. Uber 

Technologies, Inc., No. 4:16-cv-04065-RS (N.D. Cal. filed July 20, 2016) (“Cordas”), which was 

granted on December 16, 2016. Because the cases were related, Defendant intended to file a 

motion to stay this case pending resolution of Cordas in response to the Complaint, on January 9, 

2017;

WHEREAS, on January 5, 2017, this Court heard Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion to 

Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or Stay Litigation in Cordas. Later that day, this Court granted 

Uber’s motion, and stayed the case pending completion of the arbitration;

WHEREAS, now that the Court has granted Uber’s motion to compel arbitration in 

Cordas, Defendant’s intended motion to stay pending resolution of Cordas is moot;

WHEREAS, Uber now plans to file a motion to compel arbitration in this case. Without 

an extension of time to file the motion to compel arbitration, there is insufficient time to prepare a 

motion to compel arbitration in the time remaining before Uber’s response is due;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has agreed to extend Defendant’s deadline to respond to the 

Complaint up to and including January 17, 2017; 

Case 3:16-cv-06652-RS Document 21 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Case No. 3:16-cv-06652-RS 2

sf-3729309

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

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to the following briefing schedule:

x Plaintiff’s opposition to Uber’s responsive motion is due on or before February 14, 

2017;

x Uber’s reply in support of its motion is due on or before February 28, 2017.

THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AND STIPULATED that Uber’s deadline to answer or

otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is extended up to and including January 16, 2017;

Plaintiff’s opposition to any responsive motion filed by Uber is extended up to and including 

February 14, 2017, and Uber’s reply in support of its motion is extended up to and including 

February 28, 2017.

Dated: January 6, 2017 WILLIAM L. STERN

TIFFANY CHEUNG

CLAUDIA M. VETESI

LUCIA X. ROIBAL

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ William L. Stern

WILLIAM L. STERN

Attorneys for Defendant

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Dated: January 6, 2017 LEE A. CIRSCH

ROBERT K. FRIEDL

TRISHA K. MONESI

FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.

By: /s/ Lee A. Cirsch

LEE A. CIRSCH

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

JULIAN METTER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: __________________ _________________________

Hon. Richard Seeborg

1/9/17

Case 3:16-cv-06652-RS Document 21 Filed 01/09/17 Page 3 of 3