Search court records - party Molly Gibbons, page 4

No. 197 ORDER granting Parties' 196 Stipulated Motion to Stay Deadline to Respond to First Amended ...

Document Duffy v. Yardi Systems Inc et al, 2:23-cv-01391, No. 197 (W.D.Wash. Jan. 3, 2025)

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ “Stipulated Motion to Stay Deadline to Respond to First Amended Class Action Complaint” pending resolution of the forthcoming motion to consolidate the above-captioned matter with Shewmaker v. Yardi Systems, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-01948-RSL, and Frank v. Yardi Systems, Inc., No. 2:24-cv- 02053-RSL.

The Court concludes that there is good cause for the stay and therefore GRANTS the motion.

The deadline for responding to the First Amended Complaint in this case is stayed pending resolution of the forthcoming motion to consolidate.

Plaintiffs shall file the anticipated motion to consolidate within ten days of the date of this Order: defendants do not intend to oppose consolidation.

Should the Court deny the motion to consolidate, defendants will have 45 days from the denial to answer, dismiss, or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Robert Lasnik
Analyze Party
- McKenna Duffy
Analyze Firm
- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro

No. 13 ORDER granting Parties' 12 Stipulated Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants

Document Rosa v. City of Issaquah et al, 2:24-cv-01673, No. 13 (W.D.Wash. Jan. 2, 2025)

CITY OF ISSAQUAH, a municipal corporation in and for the State of Washington; MAYOR MARY LOU PAULY in her official capacity; WALLY BOBKIEWICZ, City Administrator, in his official capacity; STEPHANIE JOHNSON, Human Resources Director, in her official capacity,

Plaintiff Cheyanne Dixson Rosa (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Stephanie Johnson, Mayor Mary Lou Pauly, and Wally Bobkiewicz (the “Individual Defendants”), by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to the dismissal of all claims against the Individual Defendants with prejudice and without fees or costs to any party.

Plaintiff’s four claims will proceed against only Defendant the City of Issaquah.

Based on the foregoing stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED that all claims in this case against Defendants Stephanie Johnson, Mayor Mary Lou Pauly, and Wally Bobkiewicz are hereby dismissed with prejudice and without fees or costs to any party.

Plaintiff’s four claims will proceed against only Defendant the City of Issaquah.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Tana Lin
Analyze Party
- Cheyanne Rosa
- City of Issaquah
Analyze Firm
- Pacific Justice Institute
- Summit Law Group

No. 34 ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 8 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

Document Uber Technologies Inc et al v. City of Seattle, 2:24-cv-02103, No. 34 (W.D.Wash. Dec. 31, 2024)

Motion for Temporary Restraining OrderDenied

But “restrictions on protected expression are distinct from restrictions on economic activity or, more generally, on nonexpressive conduct.” Id. at 567.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Marsha Pechman
Analyze Party
- Uber Technologies
Analyze Firm
- Covington & Burling
- Davis Wright Tremaine

No. 31 ORDER granting Plaintiff-Intervenor's 26 Unopposed Motion for Permissive Intervention

Document Uber Technologies Inc et al v. City of Seattle, 2:24-cv-02103, No. 31 (W.D.Wash. Dec. 26, 2024)

Motion to InterveneGranted

This matter is before the Court on the motion of proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor Maplebear Inc., d/b/a Instacart (“Instacart”) to intervene in this case.

Instacart is permitted to join this case as a plaintiff for the purpose of pursuing the constitutional and statutory claims stated in its intervenor’s complaint;

Instacart will not submit any substantive briefing related to the temporary restraining order scheduled for a hearing on December 31, 2024; 3.

Instacart may participate in that hearing, including by offering argument, evidence, or both as deemed appropriate by this Court; 4.

Instacart may participate fully at other stages of the litigation, including in any briefing, argument, or motions practice related to a preliminary injunction; ORDERED this 26th day of December, 2024.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Marsha Pechman
Analyze Party
- Uber Technologies
Analyze Firm
- Covington & Burling
- Davis Wright Tremaine

No. 194 ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE AND RELATED DATES

Document Duffy v. Yardi Systems Inc et al, 2:23-cv-01391, No. 194 (W.D.Wash. Dec. 20, 2024)

April 12, 2025 May 10, 2025 May 10, 2025 Reports from expert witnesses under FRCP 26(a)(2) due August 11, 2025 All motions related to discovery must be noted on the motion calendar no later than the Friday before discovery closes pursuant to LCR 7(d) or LCR 37(a)(2)

If any of the dates identified in this Order or the Local Civil Rules fall on a weekend or federal holiday, the act or event shall be performed on the next business day.

following alterations to the Electronic Filing Procedures apply in all cases pending before Judge Lasnik: – Alteration to Section IV, Paragraph M of the Electronic Filing Procedures - Unless the proposed order is stipulated, agreed, or otherwise uncontested, the parties need not e-mail a copy of the order to the judge’s e-mail address.

Parties may file and serve reply memoranda, not to exceed nine pages in length, on or before the noting date.

Pursuant to LCR 11(b), an attorney who fails to give the Deputy Clerk prompt notice of settlement may be subject to such discipline as the Court deems appropriate.

Cite Document

Analyze

Search within this case
Analyze Judge
- Robert Lasnik
Analyze Party
- McKenna Duffy
Analyze Firm
- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro

No. 17 ORDER on Defendant's Request to Respond to TRO

Document Uber Technologies Inc et al v. City of Seattle, 2:24-cv-02103, No. 17 (W.D.Wash. Dec. 19, 2024)

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Notice of Intent to Respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.

In its Notice, Defendant asks for leave to file their response by 5:00 PM on Tuesday, December 24, 2024.

Under the Local Civil Rules, Defendant’s response is due 48 hours from service, which includes electronic means.

The Court here finds good cause to permit a brief extension of the response deadline, given the complexity of the issues.

Additionally, the Court has directed its Courtroom Deputy to work with the Parties to schedule a hearing on the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order at a convenient time on December 31, 2024.

Cite Document

Analyze