Gacovino v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al
| Maria Gacovino |
| Uber Technologies Inc., Uber USA, LLC, Rasier-NY, LLC and Rasier LLC |
| 3:2024cv00501 |
| January 29, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Charles R Breyer |
| Assault Libel & Slander |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 29, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 Case transferred in from District of New York Eastern; Case Number 2:24-cv-00033. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. |
| MEMBER CASE OPENED: New York Eastern, 2:24-cv-00033,, Gacovino v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al, Opened in California Northern District as 3:24-cv-00501-CRB pursuant to Conditional Transfer Order CTO-7 cc: JPMDL (far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2024) |
| Filing 9 Certified JPMDL Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-7): Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1407 to the Northern District of California for the reasons stated in the order of October 4, 2023, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer. (LF) |
| Filing 8 STATE COURT RECORD Received from Suffolk County Clerk's Office on 1/25/2024. (LJ) |
| Case transferred to District of Northern District of California. Original file, certified copy of transfer order, and docket sheet sent. ALL FILINGS ARE TO BE MADE IN THE TRANSFER COURT, DO NOT DOCKET TO THIS CASE. (LF) |
| Filing 7 JPMDL Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-7): Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1407 to the Northern District of California for the reasons stated in the order of October 4, 2023, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (LF) |
STIPULATION AND ORDER re #6 . The parties' stipulated motion at DE #6 to extend the time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint is APPROVED. The deadline for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint is 1/30/2024. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst on 1/9/2024. (CT)
|
| Filing 6 STIPULATION MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., UBER USA LLC, RASIER LLC AND RASIER-NY LLC TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT by Rasier LLC, Rasier-NY LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber USA LLC (Attachments: #1 Declaration E. O'Toole in Support of Stipulation Motion to Extend Time, #2 Proposed Order, #3 Certificate of Service) (O'Toole, Edward) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Jaime M Farrell on behalf of Maria Gacovino (notification declined or already on case) (Farrell, Jaime) |
| Filing 4 Clerk's Notice Re: Consent. A United States Magistrate Judge has been assigned to this case and is available to conduct all proceedings. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent.The form may also be accessed at the following link: #https://img.nyed.uscourts.gov/files/forms/MJConsentForm.pdf (LJ) |
| Filing 3 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (KD) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/5/2024: #1 Additional Corrections) (LJ). |
| Case Assigned to Judge Gary R. Brown and Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (LJ) |
| Filing 2 Civil Cover Sheet.. Re #1 Notice of Removal,, by Rasier-NY LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber USA LLC (O'Toole, Edward) |
| Notice: Re: Incomplete Civil Cover Sheet. The Clerk's Office cannot assign this case without a completed 2 Page Form Civil Cover Sheet. Please submit A COMPLETED 2 Page Civil Cover Sheet. This event can be found under the event Other Documents - Proposed Summons/Civil Cover Sheet. (KD) |
| FILING FEE: $ 405, receipt number ANYEDC-17424469 (LJ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Rasier-NY LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber USA LLC from Supreme Court State of NY Suffolk County, case number 628450/2023. Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -Yes (Attachments: #1 Affidavit in Support E. O'Toole Certification in Support of Notice of Removal, #2 Exhibit A in Support of E. O'Toole Certification, #3 Exhibit B in Support of E. O'Toole Certification, #4 Exhibit C in Support of E. O'Toole Certification, #5 Exhibit D in Support of E. O'Toole Certification, #6 Exhibit E in Support of E. O'Toole Certification, #7 Certificate of Service) (O'Toole, Edward) Modified on 1/5/2024 (LJ). |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
