Hassell v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
| Kent Hassel and Kent Hassell |
| Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. doing business as Uber Eats |
| 4:2020cv04062 |
| June 18, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Phyllis J Hamilton |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. § 2201 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 21
MOTION to Dismiss and Strike Class Allegations filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 9/9/2020 09:00 AM in Oakland, Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. Responses due by 8/18/2020. Replies due by 8/25/2020. (Attachments: #1 Rosenthal Declaration, #2 Request for Judicial Notice, #3 Proposed Order)(Behnia, Sophia) (Filed on 8/4/2020)
|
|
Filing 20
AMENDED STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING, filed by Kent Hassell, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Behnia, Sophia) (Filed on 8/3/2020) Modified on 8/4/2020 (jlmS, COURT STAFF).
|
|
Filing 19
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING; ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting #18 Stipulation. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2020)
|
|
Filing 18
STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING filed by Uber Technologies, Inc., Kent Hassell. (Behnia, Sophia) (Filed on 7/27/2020) Modified on 7/28/2020 (jlmS, COURT STAFF).
|
|
Filing 17
CLERK'S NOTICE RE: #15 AND #16 : CASE NO. 3:20-cv-4062-PJH, Kent Hassell v. Uber is not related to CASE NO. 3:20-cv-01886-EMC, Verhines et al v. Uber. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2020)
|
|
Filing 16
NOTICE of Opposition to Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related by Uber Technologies, Inc. re #15 Notice (Other). (Behnia, Sophia) (Filed on 7/20/2020) Modified on 7/21/2020 (ajsS, COURT STAFF).
|
|
Filing 15
NOTICE of Administrative Motion to Consider whether cases should be related filed in Colopy v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (19-cv-06462) and Verhines v Uber Technologies, Inc. (20-cv-1886) by Kent Hassell (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A: Administrative Motion to consider whether cases should be related)(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Filed on 7/15/2020) Modified on 7/16/2020 (ajsS, COURT STAFF).
|
|
Filing 14
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT filed by Uber Technologies, Inc. and Kent Hassell. (Behnia, Sophia) (Filed on 7/8/2020) Modified on 7/9/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF).
|
|
Filing 13
NOTICE of Appearance by Bridget R. O'Hara (O'Hara, Bridget) (Filed on 7/6/2020)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Joint Case Management Statement due by 10/8/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 10/15/2020 at 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 6/29/2020. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2020)
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER, Case Reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by The Clerk on 6/29/20. (haS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2020)
|
|
Filing 10
CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2020)
|
|
Filing 9
NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew Michael Spurchise (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 6/26/2020)
|
|
Filing 8
CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Uber Technologies, Inc... (Behnia, Sophia) (Filed on 6/26/2020)
|
|
Filing 7
NOTICE of Appearance by Sophia Behnia (Behnia, Sophia) (Filed on 6/25/2020)
|
|
Filing 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Kent Hassell re #1 Complaint, (Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Filed on 6/24/2020)
|
|
Filing 5
Summons Issued as to Uber Technologies, Inc.. (slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2020)
|
|
Filing 4
Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 9/18/2020. Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/25/2020 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom F, 15th Floor. This case may fall within the Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action. See #General Order 71. Parties and Counsel are directed to review General Ord er 71 to determine whether it applies to this case, and to comply with that General Order if applicable. (slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2020)
|
|
Filing 3
Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. 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 7/6/2020. (anjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2020)
|
|
Filing 2
Proposed Summons. (Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Filed on 6/18/2020)
|
|
Filing 1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT against Uber Technologies, Inc. (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-14596791). Filed by Kent Hassell. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Liss-Riordan, Shannon) (Filed on 6/18/2020) Modified on 6/19/2020 (slhS, COURT STAFF).
|
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.
