Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00978/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00978-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Morine Devi
Plaintiff
Sunrise Senior Living, LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO DISMISS CLASS AND INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS AND STAY 

PROCEEDINGS

CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00978-DJC-JDP

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

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

MICHELE L. MARYOTT, SBN 191993

MMaryott@gibsondunn.com

JESSICA M. PEARIGEN, SBN 317286

JPearigen@gibsondunn.com

JORDAN E. JOHNSON, SBN 324051

JJohnson@gibsondunn.com

3161 Michelson Drive

Irvine, California 92612-4412

Telephone: 949.451.3800

Facsimile: 949.451.4220

Attorneys for Defendant

SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORINE DEVI, individually and on behalf of 

herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00978-DJC-JDP

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO 

DISMISS CLASS AND INDIVIDUAL 

CLAIMS AND STAY PROCEEDINGS

Case 2:23-cv-00978-DJC-JDP Document 8 Filed 06/28/23 Page 1 of 2
2

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO DISMISS CLASS AND INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS AND STAY 

PROCEEDINGS

CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00978-DJC-JDP

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

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING as set forth in the Parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss Class and 

Individual Claims and Stay Proceedings:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s class and individual claims are dismissed from the First Amended Complaint;

2. All proceedings and deadlines, including but not limited to Defendant’s responsive 

pleading and the initial case management conference and attendant deadlines, shall be STAYED in this 

action pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 

Case No. S274671;

3. Defendant’s responsive pleading shall be filed thirty (30) days after the California 

Supreme Court’s decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. S274671.

4. This Order is entered into without prejudice to either party’s right to challenge this 

Court’s jurisdiction over this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2023 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta

THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-00978-DJC-JDP Document 8 Filed 06/28/23 Page 2 of 2