Jane Doe LSA 3 et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Jane Doe LSA 8, Jane Doe LSA 3, Jane Doe LSA 10, Jane Doe LSA 9, Jane Doe LSA 5, Jane Doe LSA 7, Jane Doe LSA 4 and Jane Doe LSA 6
Defendant: Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC
Case Number: 3:2021cv04194
Filed: June 2, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Presiding Judge: James Donato
Nature of Suit: Assault Libel & Slander
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 28, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 28, 2021 Filing 25 Case Remanded to San Francisco County Superior Court per dkt 24, Order Remanding Case. (Attachments: #1 Certified Docket) (sfb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2021)
October 25, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER REMANDING CASE. Plaintiffs' motion for remand, Dkt. No. 15, is suitable for decision without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332 is lacking. Consequently, the Court finds that the case was removed improvidently and without jurisdiction, and must be remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). See DeMartini v. DeMartini, 964 F.3d 813, 819 (9th Cir. 2020) ("Section 1447(c) remands are mandatory because once it appears that the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction the court must remand."). The case is ordered remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Plaintiffs' request for fees, costs, and sanctions, Dkt. No. 15, is denied. The hearing that was set for October 28, 2021, is vacated. Signed by Judge James Donato on 10/25/2021. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2021)
August 9, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER. The hearing on the motion to remand, Dkt. No. 15, is re-set for October 28, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor. The case management conference that was set for September 16, 2021, is vacated pending further order. Signed by Judge James Donato on 8/9/2021. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2021)
July 23, 2021 Filing 22 REPLY (re #15 MOTION to Remand and Attorneys' Fees ) filed byJane Doe LSA 10, Jane Doe LSA 3, Jane Doe LSA 4, Jane Doe LSA 5, Jane Doe LSA 6, Jane Doe LSA 7, Jane Doe LSA 8, Jane Doe LSA 9. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Abrams, Rachel) (Filed on 7/23/2021)
July 22, 2021 Filing 21 Summons Issued as to Uber Technologies, Inc.. (elyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2021)
July 22, 2021 Filing 20 Summons Issued as to Raiser, LLC. (elyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2021)
July 22, 2021 Filing 19 Proposed Summons. (Abrams, Rachel) (Filed on 7/22/2021)
July 22, 2021 Filing 18 Proposed Summons. (Abrams, Rachel) (Filed on 7/22/2021)
July 16, 2021 Filing 17 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re #15 MOTION to Remand and Attorneys' Fees ) filed byRaiser, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Randy Luskey, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Declaration of Ryan Buoscio, #4 Exhibit B, #5 Exhibit C)(Luskey, Randall) (Filed on 7/16/2021)
July 16, 2021 Filing 16 NOTICE of Appearance by Randall Scott Luskey (Luskey, Randall) (Filed on 7/16/2021)
July 2, 2021 Filing 15 MOTION to Remand and Attorneys' Fees filed by Jane Doe LSA 10, Jane Doe LSA 3, Jane Doe LSA 4, Jane Doe LSA 5, Jane Doe LSA 6, Jane Doe LSA 7, Jane Doe LSA 8, Jane Doe LSA 9. Motion Hearing set for 8/12/2021 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. Responses due by 7/16/2021. Replies due by 7/23/2021. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of William A. Levin in Support, #2 Proposed Order, #3 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Abrams, Rachel) (Filed on 7/2/2021)
June 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 14 Order by Judge James Donato granting #10 Stipulation. At the joint request of the parties, the time for defendants to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the complaint is extended until 30 days after the entry of an order resolving the issue of remand. The parties will meet and confer and propose a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss opposition or reply within 7 days of the entry of an order denying remand. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2021)
June 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 13 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/16/2021 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 9/9/2021. Signed by Judge James Donato on 6/22/21. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2021)
June 21, 2021 Filing 12 Proposed Order re #10 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Time for Defendants to Respond to Complaint by Raiser, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Schleier, Samuel) (Filed on 6/21/2021)
June 21, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge James Donato for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson no longer assigned to case, Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras.. Signed by Clerk on 06/21/2021. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(mbcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2021)
June 17, 2021 Filing 10 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Time for Defendants to Respond to Complaint filed by Raiser, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Schleier, Samuel) (Filed on 6/17/2021)
June 17, 2021 Filing 9 CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2021)
June 16, 2021 Filing 8 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Raiser, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc... (Schleier, Samuel) (Filed on 6/16/2021)
June 16, 2021 Filing 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Raiser, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. re #2 Certificate of Interested Entities, #1 Notice of Removal, (Schleier, Samuel) (Filed on 6/16/2021)
June 16, 2021 Filing 6 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Jane Doe LSA 10, Jane Doe LSA 3, Jane Doe LSA 4, Jane Doe LSA 5, Jane Doe LSA 6, Jane Doe LSA 7, Jane Doe LSA 8, Jane Doe LSA 9.. (Abrams, Rachel) (Filed on 6/16/2021)
June 8, 2021 Filing 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Raiser, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. re #4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines, ; Joint Case Management Statement & Prop Order (Schleier, Samuel) (Filed on 6/8/2021)
June 3, 2021 Filing 4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 8/26/2021. Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/2/2021 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor. (elyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2021)
June 2, 2021 Filing 3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 6/16/2021. (bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2021)
June 2, 2021 Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Raiser, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. re #1 Notice of Removal, (Schleier, Samuel) (Filed on 6/2/2021)
June 2, 2021 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from San Francisco Superior Court. Their case number is CGC-21-591921. (Filing fee $402 receipt number 0971-16036421). Filed byUber Technologies, Inc., Raiser, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Schleier, Samuel) (Filed on 6/2/2021)

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: Jane Doe LSA 3 et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Uber Technologies, Inc.
Represented By: Samuel Q Schleier
Represented By: Randall Scott Luskey
Represented By: Gary Alan Wolensky
Represented By: Linda I. Yen
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: Raiser, LLC
Represented By: Samuel Q Schleier
Represented By: Randall Scott Luskey
Represented By: Gary Alan Wolensky
Represented By: Linda I. Yen
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 ]
Plaintiff: Jane Doe LSA 8
Represented By: Laurel Lisa Simes
Represented By: Meghan McCormick
Represented By: Rachel Beth Abrams
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 ]
Plaintiff: Jane Doe LSA 3
Represented By: Laurel Lisa Simes
Represented By: Meghan McCormick
Represented By: Rachel Beth Abrams
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 ]
Plaintiff: Jane Doe LSA 10
Represented By: Laurel Lisa Simes
Represented By: Meghan McCormick
Represented By: Rachel Beth Abrams
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 ]
Plaintiff: Jane Doe LSA 9
Represented By: Laurel Lisa Simes
Represented By: Meghan McCormick
Represented By: Rachel Beth Abrams
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 ]
Plaintiff: Jane Doe LSA 5
Represented By: Laurel Lisa Simes
Represented By: Meghan McCormick
Represented By: Rachel Beth Abrams
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 ]
Plaintiff: Jane Doe LSA 7
Represented By: Laurel Lisa Simes
Represented By: Meghan McCormick
Represented By: Rachel Beth Abrams
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 ]
Plaintiff: Jane Doe LSA 4
Represented By: Laurel Lisa Simes
Represented By: Meghan McCormick
Represented By: Rachel Beth Abrams
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 ]
Plaintiff: Jane Doe LSA 6
Represented By: Laurel Lisa Simes
Represented By: Meghan McCormick
Represented By: Rachel Beth Abrams
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?