Antman v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Plaintiff: Sasha Antman
Defendant: Uber Technologies, Inc.
Case Number: 3:2015cv01175
Filed: March 12, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: San Francisco Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Joseph C. Spero
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 10, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 193 ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 182 Motion to Dismiss. As set forth in the attached order, the court grants Uber's motion and dismisses the complaint with prejudice. If the plaintiffs want to pursue a fees motion, then the court grants Uber's request for further briefing. The parties must confer within 14 days and settle on any briefing schedule. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2018)
January 14, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 91 ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler denying 49 Motion Directing Comcast to Produce Subpoenaed Records; granting 58 Motion for Protective Order. (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2016)
December 2, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 59 Order granting in part in part 51 Discovery Letter Brief entered by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. For the reasons discussed in the attached order, the subpoenas (see ECF No. 50-2 at 11-22, 24-29, 31-35, 37-42) need not be delayed until the plaintiff files an amended complaint. The court directs the parties to confer on, and work to resolve, the non-party's "substantive objections" to the subpoenas. (See ECF No. 50-2 at 8.) The court also directs Uber and the non-party t o propose a protective order that prevents any information gleaned from this discovery from being used in other litigation including, specifically, Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Doe, No. 3:15-cv-908 (N.D. Cal.). The defendant may not disclose any infor mation obtained from these subpoenas, for any purpose, before the court enters that protective order. The court vacates the hearing set for November 10, 2015; its primary purpose was to try to work out some of the objections to the scope of the subpoenas, objections that now will be addressed first during the meet-and-confer process set forth in the attached order.
November 19, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler granting 48 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 50 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. The relevant information in [ECF No. 49], and the whole of [ECF No. 51], are sealed. (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2015)
October 19, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 44 ORDER GRANTING UBER'S MOTION TO DISMISS MR. ANTMAN'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. The court dismisses the First Amended Complaint without prejudice for lack of standing. Mr. Antman may file a Second Amended Complaint within 28 days from the date of this order. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 10/19/2015.(lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2015)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Antman v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sasha Antman
Represented By: Robert Ahdoot
Represented By: Keith Andrew Custis
Represented By: Theodore Walter Maya
Represented By: Tina Wolfson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Uber Technologies, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?