Case 3:19-cv-05279-EMC Document 206 Filed 11/25/20 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ricardo J. Prieto (Admitted PHV)
`rprieto@eeoc.net
`SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
`11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
`Houston, Texas 77046
`Telephone: (713) 621-2277
`Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
`
`Melinda Arbuckle (Cal. Bar No. 302723)
`marbuckle@eeoc.net
`SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
`402 West Broadway, Suite 400
`San Diego, California 92101
`Telephone: (713) 621-2277
`Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
`
`Robert R. Debes, Jr. (Admitted PHV)
`bdebes@debeslaw.com
`DEBES LAW FIRM
`5909 West Loop South, Suite 510
`Bellaire, Texas 77401
`Telephone: (713) 623-0900
`Facsimile: (713) 623-0951
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff, Jacob McGrath, and
`Proposed Collective Action Members
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`JACOB McGRATH, on behalf of himself and
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`DOORDASH, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No: 3:19-cv-05279-EMC
`
`PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE
`TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS IN
`SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
`RECONSIDERATION [ECF NO. 200]
`
`Action Filed: August 23, 2019
`
`Judge: Edward M. Chen
`Date:
`October 29, 2020
`Time:
`N/A
`Place: N/A
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to File
`Supplemental Exhibits ISO of Reconsideration
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-05279-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05279-EMC Document 206 Filed 11/25/20 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS IN
`
`SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [ECF NO. 200]
`
`Pursuant to Civil. L.R. 7-3(d), Plaintiff hereby seeks leave of the Court to file
`
`supplemental Exhibits in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 200) (“the
`
`Motion”), which are submitted herewith as Exhibits A and B.
`
`On November 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to file Motion for
`
`Reconsideration of Order Compelling Arbitration (ECF No. 200). The Court granted Plaintiff’s
`
`Motion for leave, and deemed it the Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 201).
`
`As Plaintiff explains in the Motion, and relevant to this motion, the Court should,
`
`respectfully, reconsider its Order granting arbitration because “it failed to consider Plaintiff’s
`
`timely-lodged Objection (ECF No. 192), which objects to Defendant’s current arbitration
`
`agreement roll-out that took place during this litigation.” (see ECF No. 200 at p. 5, citing to
`
`O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2013 WL 6407583, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2013) (Chen,
`
`J.) (refusing to enforce arbitration agreements which were presented to putative class members
`
`during the pendency of an action)). Accordingly, Defendant’s current arbitration agreement
`
`administered through CPR should not be enforced in this case. (Id.). Furthermore, the Court
`
`erred when it failed to consider Plaintiff’s timely-lodged Objection concerning Defendant’s
`
`counsel presenting arbitration agreements with class waivers to Opt-In Plaintiffs (which it then
`
`sought to enforce against them here), without first conferring with their undersigned counsel.
`
`20
`
`(see ECF No. 200 at p. 3).
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s request in the Motion to invalidate all arbitration agreements
`
`relevant to the Opt-In Plaintiffs administered through CPR which Defendant impermissibly
`
`rolled-out during this litigation, Plaintiff seeks leave to submit two Exhibits which: (1) lists the
`
`individuals who were presented with arbitration agreements by Defendant, without notifying the
`
`undersigned counsel, despite Defendant’s knowledge of their legal representation (Exhibit A);
`
`and (2) which lists the individuals who had yet to opt-into this case, but who were represented by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to File
`Supplemental Exhibits ISO of Reconsideration
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-05279-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05279-EMC Document 206 Filed 11/25/20 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`the undersigned counsel, and were presented with arbitration agreements by Defendant (Exhibit
`
`B).
`
`It is Plaintiff’s position that Defense counsel had an ethical and legal obligation to confer
`
`with the undersigned counsel before presenting the individuals listed in Exhibit A with an
`
`arbitration agreement and class waiver. Furthermore, it is Plaintiff’s position that had Defense
`
`counsel timely conferred with the undersigned regarding its planned arbitration agreement roll-
`
`out, Plaintiff’s counsel would have had an opportunity to notify Defense counsel of its
`
`representation of the individuals listed in Exhibit B.
`
`Good cause exists to grant Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff previously notified the Court in his
`
`Motion (see ECF 200 at p. 11), that “Plaintiff is currently reviewing Defendant’s late filed
`
`declaration (ECF No. 187-1) to determine: (1) which Opt-In Plaintiffs have been affected by the
`
`arbitration roll out and/or (2) which Opt-In Plaintiffs Defendant had knowledge of their legal
`
`representation but nonetheless presented them with a class action waiver without consulting with
`
`their undersigned counsel.” The purpose was to compile a list of specific examples, as reflected
`
`in Exhibits A and B, in support of Plaintiff’s Motion so that Plaintiff could present the result of
`
`such review in a Motion for Reconsideration. (see ECF No. 200 at p. 4 fn. 3). Indeed, the
`
`information reflected in Exhibits A and B is directly relevant to Plaintiff’s Motion because it will
`
`assist the Court in determining that violations occurred consequent to Defendant’s arbitration
`
`roll-out. Finally, Plaintiff has no other opportunity to provide this information to the Court, in
`
`light of the Clerk’s Notice that “there shall be no reply brief or hearing absent further order of the
`
`21
`
`Court.” (ECF No. 201).
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Exhibits A and B are limited to identifying information for the above discussed Opt-In
`
`Plaintiffs, which shows when they opted into this case, when they were presented with
`
`Defendant’s arbitration agreement, and when they retained Plaintiff’s counsel.
`
`Defendant’s counsel has advised Plaintiff’s counsel that it opposes his request.
`
`DATED: November 25, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to File
`Supplemental Exhibits ISO of Reconsideration
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-05279-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05279-EMC Document 206 Filed 11/25/20 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/s/Ricardo J. Prieto
`Ricardo J. Prieto
`
`
`SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
`
`Ricardo J. Prieto (Admitted PHV)
`rprieto@eeoc.net
`11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
`Houston, Texas 77046
`Telephone: (713) 621-2277
`Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
`
`Melinda Arbuckle (Cal. Bar No. 302723)
`marbuckle@eeoc.net
`402 West Broadway, Suite 400
`San Diego, California 92101
`Telephone: (713) 621-2277
`Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
`
` &
`
`
`
`
`DEBES LAW FIRM
`
`Robert R. Debes, Jr. (Admitted PHV)
`bdebes@debeslaw.com
`5909 West Loop South, Suite 510
`Bellaire, Texas 77401
`Telephone: (713) 623-0900
`Facsimile: (713) 623-0951
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff, Jacob McGrath, and
`Proposed Collective Action Members
`
`- 3 -
`Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to File
`Supplemental Exhibits ISO of Reconsideration
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-05279-EMC
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`