Preview
CM-110
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
James E. Sell (BN 135935), Robert J. Taitz (BN 168334)
Tyson & Mendes, LLP
523 4th Street, Suite 100
San Rafael, CA 94901
‘TELEPHONE NO.: (628) 253-5070 FAXNO(Optionay: (415) 785-3165
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Option): } SE11@tysonmendes.com
ATTORNEY
FOR (Name): Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., et al
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Santa Clara
‘STREET ADDRESS: 191 N ist Street
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Jose, CA 95113
BRANCH NAME:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Jose Enrique UC
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Wenceslao Pineda Capili, et al.
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ‘CASE NUMBER:
(Check one): [X] UNLIMITED CASE (] Limited CASE 18CV325735
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded is $25,000
exceeds $25,000) or less)
A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE is scheduled as follows:
Date: July 10, 2018 Time: 3:45 p.m. Dept.: 6 Div.: Room:
Address of court (if different from the address above):
[X] Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone, by (name): Robert J. Taitz
INSTRUCTIONS: All applicable boxes must be checked, and the specified information must be provided.
Party or parties (answer one):
a (C) This statement is submitted by party (name):
b. [X) This statement is submitted jointly by parties (names):
Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC and Rasier-CA, LLC
Complaint and cross-complaint (to be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only)
a. The complaint was filed on (date):
b. (2) The cross-complaint, if any, was filed on (date):
Service (to be answered by plaintiffs and cross-complainants only)
a. [C) All parties named in the complaint and cross-complaint have been served, have appeared, or have been dismissed.
b. [2] The following parties named in the complaint or cross-complaint
(1) (2) have not been served (specify names and explain why not):
(2) (Cy have been served but have not appeared and have not been dismissed (specify names):
(3) (have had a default entered against them (specify names):
c. CC] The following additional parties may be added (specify names, nature of involvement in case, and the date by which
they may be served):
Description of case
a. Type of case in (K) complaint (2) cross-complaint (Describe, including causes of action):
Complaint - Motor Vehicle vs. Bicycle Incident
Page 1 of 5
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Cal. Rules of Court,
‘Judicial Council of California Essential rules 3.720-3.730
(CM-110 [Rev. July 1, 2044] f2]Forms- www.courls.ca.gov
18-1480 Uc
CM-110
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:Jose Enrique UC CASE NUMBER:
18CV325735
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Wenceslao Pineda Capili, et al.
4 b. Provide a brief statement of the case, including any damages. (If personal injury damages are sought, specify the injury and
damages claimed, including medical expenses to date [indicate source and amount], estimated future medical expenses, lost
earnings to date, and estimated future lost earnings. If equitable relief is sought, describe the nature of the relief.)
Plaintiff alleges personal injury from a Motor Vehicle vs. Bicycle
incident that occurred in San Jose, California on May 21, 2017.
() (if more space is needed, check this box and attach a page designated as Attachment 4b.)
Jury or nonjury trial
The party or parties request (&) a jury trial C2) a nonjury trial. (If more than one party, provide the name of each party
requesting a jury trial):
Trial date
a. (CD The trial has been set for (date):
b. [XJ] No trial date has been set. This case will be ready for trial within 12 months of the date of the filing of the complaint (if
not, explain):
c. Dates on which parties or attorneys will not be available for trial (specify dates and explain reasons for unavailability):
See attached list of unavailable dates.
Estimated length of trial
The party or parties estimate that the trial will take (check one):
a. [XK] days (specify number): 10
b. [] hours (short causes) (specify):
Trial representation (fo be answered for each party)
The party or parties will be represented at trial {X]) by the attorney or party listed in the caption (21 by the following:
a. Attorney:
b. Firm:
c. Address:
d. Telephone number: f. Fax number:
4 E-mail address: g. Party represented:
Additional representation is described in Attachment 8.
Preference
{-) This case is entitled to preference (specify code section):
10. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
a ADR information package. Please note that different ADR processes are available in different courts and communities; read
the ADR information package provided by the court under rule 3.221 for information about the processes available through the
court and community programs in this case.
(1) For parties represented by counsel: Counsel [xD has (J has not provided the ADR information package identified
in rule 3.221 to the client and reviewed ADR options with the client.
(2) For self-represented parties: Party [CJ has (1 has not reviewed the ADR information package identified in rule 3.221
Referral to judicial arbitration or civil action mediation (if available).
(1) (2) This matter is subject to mandatory judicial arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1141.11 or to civil action
mediation under of Code of Civil Procedure section 1775.3 because the amount in controversy does not exceed the
statutory limit.
(2) [) Plaintiff elects to refer this case to judicial arbitration and agrees to limit recovery to the amount specified in Code of
Civil Procedure section 1141.11.
(3) (2) This case is exempt from judicial arbitration under rule 3.811 of the California Rules of Court or from civil action
mediation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1775 et seq. (specify exemption):
(CM-110 [Rev. July 1, 2044] CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page 2 of 5
GEE Biro rms: intial
18-1480 Uc
CM-110
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:Jose Enrique UC CASE NUMBER:
18CV325735
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Wenceslao Pineda Capili, et al.
10. c. Indicate the ADR process or processes that the party or parties are willing to participate in, have agreed to participate in, or
have already participated in (check all that apply and provide the specified information):
The party or parties completing If the party or parties completing this form in the case have agreed to
this form are willing to participate in or have already completed an ADR process or processes,
participate in the following ADR indicate the status of the processes (attach a copy of the parties' ADR
processes (check all that apply). stipulation):
(KX) Mediation session not yet scheduled
(CD Mediation session scheduled for (date):
(1) Mediation
CC) Agreed to complete mediation by (date):
(CD Mediation completed on (date):
(2) Settlement conference not yet scheduled
(2) Settlement (-) Settlement conference scheduled for (date):
conference
(1 Agreed to complete settlement conference by (date):
(C) Settlement conference completed on (date):
() Neutral evaluation not yet scheduled
(2) Neutral evaluation scheduled for (date):
(3) Neutral evaluation
(2) Agreed to complete neutral evaluation by (date):
(2 Neutra! evaluation completed on (date):
(CC) Judicial arbitration not yet scheduled
(4) Nonbinding judicial () Judicial arbitration scheduled for (date):
arbitration
CD Agreed to complete judicial arbitration by (date):
(22 Judicial arbitration completed on (date):
(CC) Private arbitration not yet scheduled
(5) Binding private (1 Private arbitration scheduled for (date):
arbitration
(2D Agreed to complete private arbitration by (date):
(0 Private arbitration completed on (date):
(] ADR session not yet scheduled
(6) Other (specify): (CV ADR session scheduled for (date):
() Agreed to complete ADR session by (date):
CV ADR completed on (date):
(M-110 [Rev. July 1, 2014] CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page 3 of 5
CEB
ceb.com
Es:
Zi]
18-1480 Uc
CM-110
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER:
Jose Enrique UC CASE NUMBER:
18CV325735
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Wenceslao Pineda Capili, et al.
41. Insurance
a {X] Insurance carrier, if any, for party filing this statement (name): James River Insurance Company
b. Reservation of rights: O21 Yes No
c. (2) Coverage issues will significantly affect resolution of this case (explain):
12. Jurisdiction
Indicate any matters that may affect the court's jurisdiction or processing of this case, and describe the status.
CQ Bankruptcy (CC) Other (specify):
Status:
13, Related cases, consolidation, and coordination
a. (CC) There are companion, underlying, or related cases.
(1) Name of case:
(2) Name of court:
(3) Case number:
(4) Status:
(2) Additional cases are described in Attachment 13a.
b. (2) Amotion to [) consolidate () coordinate will be filed by (name party):
14, Bifurcation
C) The party or parties intend to file a motion for an order bifurcating, severing, or coordinating the following issues or causes of
action (specify moving party, type of motion, and reasons):
15. Other motions
(CD The party or parties expect to file the following motions before trial (specify moving party, type of motion, and issues):
16. Discovery
a () The party or parties have completed all discovery.
b. [X] The following discovery will be completed by the date specified (describe all anticipated discovery):
Party ion
Description Date
Def Uber Technologies, Ine Written Discovery 03/31/2019
Def Uber Technologies, Inc Depositions 05/31/2019
Def Uber Technologies, Ine IME 07/31/2019
Def Uber Technologies, Ine Expert Discovery Per Code
c. (CD The following discovery issues, including issues regarding the discovery of electronically stored information, are
anticipated (specify):
(CM-110 (Rev. July 1, 2011] CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page 4 of 5
CB’ Essential
ceb.com f2\Forms" 18-1480 Uc
CM-110
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Jose Enrique UC CASE NUMBER:
18CV325735
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Wenceslao Pineda Capili, et al.
17. Economic litigation
a CJ This is a limited civil case (i.e., the amount demanded is $25,000 or less) and the economic litigation procedures in Code
of Civil Procedure sections 90-98 will apply to this case.
b, (This is a limited civil case and a motion to withdraw the case from the economic litigation procedures or for additional
discovery will be filed (if checked, explain specifically why economic litigation procedures relating to discovery or trial
should not apply to this case):
18, Other issues
(J The party or parties request that the following additional matters be considered or determined at the case management
conference (specify):
19. Meet and confer
a (KX) The party or parties have met and conferred with all parties on all subjects required by rule 3.724 of the California Rules of
Court (if not, explain):
b. After meeting and conferring as required by rule 3.724 of the California Rules of Court, the parties agree on the following
(specify):
20. Total number of pages attached (if any): 2
| am completely familiar with this case and will be fully prepared to discuss the status of discovery and alternative dispute resolution,
as well as other issues raised by this statement, and will possess the authority to enter into stipulations on these issues at the time of
the case management conference, including the written authority of the party where required.
Date: June 15, 2018
Robert J Tait >
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) N(sIGNATORE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY)
> (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY)
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
CC) Additional signatures are attached.
(CM-110 [Rev. July 1, 2014] CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Page 5 of 5
CEB
ceb.com
Essential
{2)Forms"
18-1480 Uc
James E. Sell (SBN 135935) — Unavailable Dates per
Paragraph 6.c. to Case Management Conference Statement
First Day Trial Begins Case Est. Time County
June 25, 2018 Transguard v. RGW Construction Alameda County
July 6, 2018 Manuel v. Thomas Alameda County
July 9, 2018 Vroman v. Boosted Inc. San Francisco County
August 10, 2018 Miles v. City of Oakland Alameda County
August 13, 2018 Callen v. Phelps San Francisco County
‘August 20, 2018 Slavin v. Uber San Francisco County
August 27, 2018 Valencia v. O.C. Jones San Mateo County
September 10, 2018 Shanahan v. Uber San Francisco County
September 11, 2018 King v. Shasta YMCA Shasta County
September 26, 2018 Golden Eagle v. Bay Cities Contra Costa County
September 28, 2018 Mack v. City of Oakland Alameda Superior Court
October 1, 2018 Steen v. Uber San Francisco County
October 9, 2018 Kozel v. Airline Coach San Francisco
October 9, 2018 Fineberg v. Beauty Bar San Francisco
October 15, 2018 Javelin Logistics Corp. v. DHL USDC, Western District of WA
October 19, 2018 Friedman v. Walnut Orchard Sonoma County
October 29, 2018 Rahim v. Uber Alameda County
November 5, 2018 Collins v. RGW Alameda County
November 6, 2018 Lisby v. Ovation Solano County
November 9, 2018 Oura v. Casa Del Sol Sonoma Superior
November 13, 2018 State Farm/Griego v. Whiting San Francisco
November 13, 2018 Schwartz v. Sattui Winery, Inc., et Napa County
al.
November 29, 2018 Perrin v. Greater Vallejo Solano County
December 10, 2018 Porras v. Uber San Francisco County
December 10, 2018 Trask v. TDL Wine, LLC Napa County
December 10, 2018 Reed v. Steelex Tulare County
December 10, 2018 Abdoun v. RGW Construction Alameda County
January 7, 2019 Vigilant v. Saxco Alameda County
January 7, 2019 Anchor v. Flores Alameda County
January 14, 2019 DeLaRosa v. OC Jones San Joaquin County
January 14, 2019 Salyer v. CSAA. Fresno County
January 14, 2019 Stuart v. Uber Alameda County
January 22, 2019 Loli v. Avalos Alameda County
January 28, 2019 Rosenbaum v. Uber San Francisco County
6/15/2018
February 11, 2019 Wyeth v. Holster Alameda County
February 11, 2019 Walsh v. Phelps San Francisco county
February 25, 2019 Richards y. Uber Alameda County
February 25, 2019 Welton v. 816 Geary San Francisco County
March 11, 2019 Scott v. Visalia Tulare County
March 11, 2019 Alban v. Uber San Francisco County
March 18, 2019 Johnson-Hogan v. Uber San Francisco County
March 26, 2019 Russel v, Vertical Partners Stanislaus County
‘April 2, 2019 Meyers v. Luque San Francisco County
April 2, 2019 Martinez v. Uber San Francisco County
April 22, 2019 Williams v. Ovation Ultra Lounge Alameda County
April 22, 2019 Batchan v. Jamtown, LLC Alameda County
April 29, 2019 Rainey v. Uber San Francisco County
May 6, 2019 Kistler v. Montgomery San Francisco County
May 13, 2019 Ragsdale v. Uber Sacramento County
August 9, 2019 Rubi v. Ellis Alameda County
October 28, 2019 Lloyd v. Uber Alameda County
Case Name: Jose Enrique Uc v. Wenceslao Pineda Capili, et al.
Case Number: Santa Clara County Superior Court No.: 18CV325735
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, declare that I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the
within action or proceeding. Iam employed by Tyson and Mendes and my business address is 523
Fourth Street, Suite 100, San Rafael, CA 94901
On June WE, 2018, I caused to be served the following document(s):
14
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
on the interested parties in this action:
iXx BY MAIL: I further declare that I am readily familiar with the firm's business practice
10 of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal
Service, and that the correspondence shall be deposited with the United States Postal
DT Service this same day in the ordinary course of business pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 1013(a). I then sealed each envelope and, with postage thereon fully
12
prepaid, placed each for deposit in the United States Postal Service, this same day, at my
13 business address shown above, following ordinary business practices.
14
15 Shervin Lalezary, Esq.
Shawn Lalezary, Esq.
16 Albert P. Di Rocco, Jr., Esq.
LALEZARY LAW FIRM, LLP
17
280 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 400
18 Beverly Hills, CA 90212
(T) 310-550-8888
19 (F) 310-550-8988
Attorneys for Plaintiff
20
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
22 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 1872018, at San Rafael, California.
23
24
Angela Martinéz
! LZ Cet.
lixy
25
26
27
28