We hereby provide notice of Ms. Gadde's rights to indemnification and demand advancement of expenses (including attorneys' fees)

We are counsel to Twitter and are in receipt of your letters dated January 13, 2023 and March 3, 2023 sent on behalf of Vijaya Gadde, Parag Agrawal and Ned...

Because we have yet to receive any response from the Company, we write to repeat such demands and request...

This undertaking is being provided pursuant to that certain Director & Officer Indemnification Agreement, entered into on or about August 25, 2027, by Twitter

This undertaking is being provided pursuant to that certain Indemnification Agreement, entered into on or about October 1, 2013 by and between Twitter, Inc.

"It is the opinion of counsel for Plaintiffs that there is good cause for this action not to be assigned to a Master in the first instance"

"The information contained here in is for the use by the Court for statistical and administrative purpose..."

"While you have indicated that you will respond to my letters "in due course," I respectfully request a call at your earliest convenience to discuss the Company

Under Kim, Adolph’s allegations that Labor Code violations were committed against him while he was employed by Uber

PAGA provides no mechanism to enable a court to adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has been committed to a separate proceeding.

The Legislature enacted PAGA almost two decades ago in response to widespread violations of the Labor Code and significant underenforcement of those laws.

In October 2019, Adolph sued Uber in superior court, alleging individual and class claims for relief under Labor Code section 2802 and the UCL.

This case concerns a question of standing under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). Details on the Uber Lawsuit

Uber gets taken to court by Erik Adolph

First, Uber contends that unless Adolph’s non-individual claims are dismissed, his PAGA action will run afoul of Viking River

Uber makes several arguments in urging that a PAGA plaintiff loses standing to litigate non-individual claims in court

Five recent Court of Appeal opinions have reached the same conclusion. This unanimity is unsurprising because our reading of PAGA’s standing requirements...

Next, Uber contends that a PAGA plaintiff must have a “financial stake in the outcome of the case”

Uber also argues that PAGA contains a third standing requirement — the action must “be . . . brought by an aggrieved employee on behalf of himself or herself

Uber does not explain why pursuing some remedies in arbitration and others in court requires the PAGA action to be treated like an action severed...