Mwithiga v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Nevada District Court Mwithiga v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Mwithiga v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Peter Mwithiga
Defendant:	Uber Technologies, Inc.
Case Number:	2:2018cv00768
Filed:	April 26, 2018
Court:	US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office:	Las Vegas Office
Presiding Judge:	Carl W. Hoffman
Presiding Judge:	Gloria M. Navarro
Nature of Suit:	Labor: Fair Standards
Cause of Action:	Civil Miscellaneous Case
Jury Demanded By:	Both

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
March 14, 2019	Filing 37 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 10 Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 11 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and 12 Motion to Stay During Pendency of Arbitration are DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 22 Defendant's Motion to Strike is DENIED, and 23 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Response to Surreply is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/14/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
December 4, 2018	Filing 36 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 31 Uber's motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 32 Uber's motion to extend discovery is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 35 the parties' stipulation to extend discovery is DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 12/4/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 14, 2019

Filing 37 ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 10 Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 11 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and 12 Motion to Stay During Pendency of Arbitration are DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 22 Defendant's Motion to Strike is DENIED, and 23 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Response to Surreply is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/14/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

December 4, 2018

Filing 36 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 31 Uber's motion to stay discovery is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 32 Uber's motion to extend discovery is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 35 the parties' stipulation to extend discovery is DENIED as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 12/4/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

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 Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Mwithiga 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: Peter Mwithiga
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.
Represented By:	Montgomery Y Paek
Represented By:	Rick D Roskelley
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?