SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet ‘Apr-13-2015 12:40 pm Case Number: CGC-15-545287 Filing Date: Apr-13-2015 12:34 Filed by: MARYANN E. MORAN Juke Box: 001 Image: 04867968 COMPLAINT STEWART ROSEN VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL. 001004867968 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scannedSUM-100 SUMMONS "FOR COURT USEONLY (CITACION JUDICIAL) (50L0 PARA USO.DELA CORTE) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO) UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; RASIER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability ‘company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFI (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): STEWART ROSEN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, and as Private Attorney General NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information| below. ‘You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after his summons and legal papers are served on you to flea wtten response at this court and have a copy served on the plant. A letter or phone call wil not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form i you want the cout fo ear your case. There may be a cout form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information atthe California Courts ‘Online Sel Help Center (uw. courtnfo.ca.gov/selthlp), your county law brary, or the courthouse nearest you. if you cannot pay the fling fee, ask the court clerk fora fee waiver form. f you do not fle your response on ime, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money. and property may be taken without further waming fom the cour. “There ae other legal requirements. You may want to call an attomey right way. If you do not know an atfomey, you may want io call an attomey referal service. f you cannot afford an attomey, you may be alge for free legal services from @ nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups atthe California Legal Services Web site (www Jawhelcalfomia. org), te Cabforia Courts Online Sel-Heip Center (swww.courtnfo.ca.gov/sothep).or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory Hen fr waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbivaton award of $10,000 or more in a cv case. The court's jen must be pald before the court wil dims the case. AVISO! Lo han demandade. Sino respande dentro de 20 das, la corte puede decidir an su conta sin escuchar su versién. Lea la informacion a continuacion Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta ctaciin y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en este corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada eleéinica no fo protegen. Su respuesta por ese tiene que aster ‘en formato legal correct si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posite que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta, Puede encontrar estes fermulrios dela corte y ms informacion en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de Calfomia (www. sucorte.ca,gov). en a Diboteca de leyes de su condado 0 en la corte que Je quede mas cerca, Sino puede pagar la cuota de presentacién,pida al secrearo dela corte que le 06 un formulario de exencién de pago de cvotes. Sino presenta su respuesia a fempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimianto y la cots le drs quitar su suelo, dinaro y bienes sin mas advertencia ‘Hay otros requistos egaes. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Sino conoce a un abogade, puede llamar @ un servicio de remision a abogados. Sino puede pagar a un sbogado, es posible que cumpa con ls requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuites de un programa de servicios legals sin fnes de luc. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro ena! sto web de Calfnia Legal Services, (ew lawhepcalfomia.or), no! Cantro de Ayuda de fas Cortes de California, (www. sucorte.ca.gov) 0 paniéndose en contac can fa carte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ly, la corte ane derecho a reciamer las cuotas y los costos exentos por mponer un gravamen sobre ‘cualquier recuperacién de $10,000 6 més de valor recbida mediante un acuerdo o una concesién de arbitaje en un caso de derecho cil, Tene que op’ elvan dl Crs aus Go msc pss croeha’ cana The name and adéress ofthe court i: CETTE Ty OF Elmore y creodtén de la corte os) 5 fan Francisco County Superior Court 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 “The name, adress, and telephone numberof plants attorney, of lant without an atom, is ¢. nombre, la direccién y el nimero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o de! dormandante que no tiene abogado, es): larold M. Jaffe LO of Harold M. J: aol cond vas 510-452-2610 N Ose pp CLERKOF THE COURT cor.» MARY ANN y e TAN rt (rocha) (Secretario) (Agurto) BOOT oT aries oF base Proof of Serica of Summons form POSDTO}T (Para prueba de entrega de esta citacién use ol formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. LL) as an individual defendant. 2. Ti as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3 Oe on behalf of (specify) ‘CCP 416.10 (corporation) COP 416.60 (minor) CCP 416,20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee) (CGP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person) ‘thor (speci) 4. (by personal delivery on dete): —_ ‘SUMMONS Cama Re HES a ceca Esau Fars Rosen, StewartTWNISINO FI Sate dt AyD larold M. Jaffe, Esq, (Calif. State Bar #57397) Ey AW OFFICES OF HAROLD M. JAFFE APR 13 2015 521 Grand Avenue Oakland, CA 94610 IE COt [Tel: (510) 452-26100Fax: (510) 452-9125 M ft email: jaffeS10@aol.com IARY ANN M rian W. Newcomb, Esq. (Calif. State Bar #55156) iN AW OFFICES OF BRIAN W. NEWCOMB 1770 Menlo Avenue, Ste. 101 [Menlo Park, CA 94025 iTel: (650) 322-7780 @ Fax: (650) 322-7740 [Attorneys for Plaintiffs STEWART ROSEN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly \Situated, and as Private Attomey General SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION CGC-15-545287 TEWART ROSEN, on BehalfofHimselfand | CASE NO. 1 Others Similarly Situated, and as Private ttomney General, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: Plaintiffs, 1) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES, PURSUANT TO B&P CODE §§17200 EL SEQ.; 2) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware RELATIONS; corporation; RASIER, LLC, a Delaware 3) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE limited liability company; RASIER-CA, LLC, ‘WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC Delaware limited liability company, and RELATIONS; AND }OES | to 100, inclusive, 4) DECLARATORY RELIEF Defendants. I, INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff, Stewart Rosen, on behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, and Private Attomey General (referred to individually as “ROSEN” or collectively as “Plaintiffs”), ymplains against defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation (“UBER”), SIER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“RAISER”); and RASIER-CA, LLC, a }elaware limited liability company (“RAISER-CA”) (or UBER, RAISER and RASIER-CA shall e collectively referred to as “UBER, ET AL.”), as hereinafter set forth, IL. BACKGROUND AND PARTIES 2. Plaintiff ROSEN is the owner of one permitted taxicab medallion number 634, issued 1 = CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT1 fby the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency (“SFMT”) of the City and County of 2 [San Francisco (hereinafter referred to as the “City”), and has operated a medallion with Yellow Cab 3 |for more than thirty years. 4 3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that atall relevant times herein, |defendant UBER is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business located at 1455 [Market Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94103. 4, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times herein, jefendant RASIER is a Delaware limited liability company, with its principal place of business located at 182 Howard Street, #8, San Francisco, California, 94105. Plaintiffs are also informed and See eo ol elieve and thereon allege that at all relevant times herein, defendant RASIER is a subsidiary of 11 UBER and licenses mobile application technology from defendant UBER. 12 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times herein, 13 |Hefendant RASIER-CA is a Delaware limited liability company, with its principal place of business 14 located at 182 Howard Street, #8, San Francisco, California, 94105. 94105. Plaintiffs are also 15 }informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times herein, defendant RASIER-CA is 16 |p subsidiary of UBER, and has obtained a class P Transportation Network Company Permit from the 17 [California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”). 18 6. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as, 19 [DOES 1-50, inclusive, and therefore, sues said Defendants by said fictitious names. Plaintiffs will 20 jamend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 21 |1-100, inclusive, when the same is ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each of the 22 |fictitiously named Defendants is legally responsible to Plaintiffs for the matters alleged and set forth 23 herein. 24 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times herein 25 |imentioned, Defendants DOES 1-100, inclusive, were the agents, servants, employees, alter egos, 26 jinstrumentalities, predecessors-in-interest, representatives, co-venturers, co-conspirators, and 27 partners of each of the other defendants; and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting in 28 |the course and scope of their authority as agents, servants, employees, alter egos, instrumentalities, 2 = CLAss ACTION COMPLAINT1 [predecessors-in-interest, representatives, co-venturers, co-conspirators, and partners, with the ermission and consent of their co-defendants and as such, share liability with each other with respect to the matters complained of herein. 8. Those similarly situated are past and present owners of taxi medallions issued for itted taxi-cabs in the City who have been and continue to be harmed by UBER, ET AL.’s unfair ci practices. 9. Except as described herein, Plaintiffs are, as yet, ignorant of the true names, Ikapacities, nature and extent of the participation in the course of conduct alleged herein of the Ce ee lpersons sued herein as DOES 76-100, inclusive, and therefore, sues those Defendants by such 10 fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the 11 JPOES 76-100 Defendants when the same is ascertained. 12 TI. AGENCY/JOINT VENTURE 13 10. _Atall times herein mentioned, the Defendants herein have transacted business within 14 |hhe City and elsewhere within the State of California, 15 Iv. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16 11, Defendants, both individually and collectively, are subject to the jurisdiction of this 17 [Court by virtue of their business dealings and transactions throughout the state of California and in 18 |fhe City, and by their violations of California Business & Professions Code (“B & P Code”) §§17200 19 [ine 20 | 12, Venue is proper in this county, because Defendants and each of them, at all times 21 [relevant herein, conducted business in San Francisco County. 22 V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 23 13. This action is brought by Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons 24 {similarly situated as a class action pursuant to Section 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 25 [fhe Class which plaintiff seeks to represent is composed of and defined as follows: 26 “Holders of taxicab medallions issued by the SMTA, and who have been operating as such ‘any time during the period from April 14, 2011 to date (‘“Plaintiff Class"). Specifically excluded 27 from the Plaintiff Class are the defendants herein; officers, directors, or employees of any efendants; any entity in which any defendant has a controlling interest; the affiliates, legal 28 |fepresentatives, attorneys, heirs or assigns of any defendants; and any federal, state or local 3 = CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTfovernmental entity, and any judge, justice or judicial officer residing over this matter and the jembers of their immediate families and judicial staffs.” 14, This action has been brought, made properly maintained as a class action, pursuant fo the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 because there is a well-defined ‘ommunity of interest in the litigation and the proposed class is easily ascertainable. a) — Numerosity. ‘The Plaintiff Class is so numerous that the individual joinder of all members is practicable under the circumstances of this case. During the four years prior to the filing of this complaint, there were and are more an 1,500 medallions issued for the operation of taxicabs in the City. Plaintiffs are informed and lieve that as of December 2014, there were 1900 medallions issued for the operation of taxicabs in the City. Each medallion authorizes the operation of one taxicab, and a taxicab may not legally in the City without a validly issued taxicab medallion license. The exact size ofthe Plaintiff lass and the identity of the owners of the medallions are ascertainable from the records of the FMTA, and from the various taxicab companies which operate in the City. ‘There will be no fficulty in the management of this litigation as a class action. b) Common Questions Predomindate. ‘Commons questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Plaintiff Class and jominate over any questions which may affect only individual members. ‘These commons uestions of law and fact include, without limitation: i) whether defendants violated the unfair competition law; ii) _ theamount of additional revenues and profits obtained by the defendants attributable to their violation of the Unfair Competition Law; iii) the effect upon and the extent of injuries sustained by plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class and the appropriate type and/or measure of damages; and iv) the appropriate nature of class equitable relief. ©) — Typicality. Plaintiffs’ claims asserted herein are typical of the claims of the members of the 4 ~ c1ass AcTION COMPLAINTaintiff Class. Plaintiff and all members of the Plaintiff Class sustained injury and damages arising ut of defendants’ common course of conduct in violation of law as complained of herein, The juries and damages of each member of the Plaintiff Class were caused directly by defendants’ 1eful conduct in violation of the law as alleged herein. d) Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the aintiff Class. Plaintiff resides in California and has been a holder of a taxicab medallion during 1e entire period of the Plaintiff Class and prior thereto and has no interest which are adverse to the terests of the absent class members. ©) Superiority. A.class action superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication f the controversy since such individual joinders of all members of the class is impracticable, Class ion treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common 14 fblaims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the unnecessary duplication of 15 [effort and expense that numerous individual actions would engender. Furthermore, the expense and 16 [burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for an individual member of the 17 folass to redress the wrong done to them, while an important public interest will be served by 18 faddressing the matter as a class action. ‘The cost of the court system of adjudication of such 19 }individualized litigation would be substantial. Individualized litigation would also present the 20 [potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. 21 15. Plaintiffs are unaware of any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the 22 management of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. 23 VI. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 24 16. UBER provides prearranged transportation services for compensation through its 25 fbubsidiaries using an online-enabled Smart Phone application (the “UBER APP”) to connect 26 |passengers with drivers. For each passenger trip, UBER controls the financial transaction between 27 the customer, UBER and the driver. A customer hails an UBER driver through the UBER APP 28 downloaded on the customer’s Smart Phone; UBER calculates the customer’s fare based upon 5 = CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT1 location information from a GPS enabled mobile device; UBER receives a customer fare by charging 2 |fhe credit card the customer provided to UBER and registering their personal information on the 3 | UBER APP; and then UBER pays the UBER driver’s portion of the fare to the driver. UBER 4 retains a portion of every fare, commonly twenty percent (20%) and sometimes more. The core 5 |kervice being provided by UBER is passenger transportation for compensation on public roadways. 6 17, UBER holds itself out to the public and acts as a transportation company using 7 partner drivers of black cars and other types of vehicles” which have not been licensed as a charter 8 |party car by the CPUC for any type of service. The CPUC licenses and regulates charter-party 9 [barriers for-hire vehicles throughout California, A charter-party carrier includes “limousines” which 10 fare sometimes referred to colloquially as “black cars”. See Section 5371.4) of the California Public 11 [Utilities Code (“PUC”). Applicable statutes and regulations preclude as a matter of law using 12 [limousines bearing a permit from the CPUC to perform taxicab services in the City. For example, 13 fh Black car must provide a prearranged service, including the maintenance of a weigh bill, and may 14 fot have meters or roof lights so as to distinguish these vehicles from those that can respond to “on 15 |demand” street hail service. Therefore, pursuant to PUC § 5351, ef seg., a CPUC authorized 16 flimousine/black car is not permitted to engage in taxicab transportation service, which must be 17 fregulated by the City. 18 18. In San Francisco, the SFMTA is responsible for the regulation of taxicabs. The 19 JSFMTA has developed a regulatory scheme to protect the riding public. In order to drive or operate 20 taxicab in the City, onemust obtain apemit, See San Francisco Transportation Code (‘SF Code”) 21 § 1105(a)(1). Pursuant to the SF Code, a taxi means a vehicle operated pursuant to a taxi medallion 22 jor ramp taxi medallion (permit issued by the SFMT to operate a particular taxi vehicle that is 23 |bpecifically adapted with access for wheelchair users), that is legally authorized to pick up 24 [passengers within the City, with or without prearrangement of a distinctive color or colors which is 25 |operated at a rate per mile or upon a waiting time basis, or both, which is measured by a taxi meter, 26 [and which is used for the transportation of passengers for hire over and along the public streets, not 27 Jpver a defined route, but to a certain destination in accordance with an under the direction of the 28 |passenger or the person hiring such vehicle. SF Code § 1102(jj) and (Ill). 6 ~ cLass ACTION COMPLAINT19. The SF Code also regulates taxi drivers and the conduct of the operation of taxis ithin the City. For example, see requirements imposed on drivers of taxicabs by SF Code (§ 11108(¢)(1), which provides in pertinent part that a “driver” shall not refuse or direct or permit the sal, of prospective passengers in any place within the City for transportation to any other place in the City [as long as] the prospective passenger(s) present themselves for transportation in a clean, herent, safe and orderly manner and for lawful purpose and the driver has sufficient time before 1¢ end of his or her shift.” 20. _ UBER markets itself to the public as an elite public transportation company that rovides through its “partner drivers” taxi-like on-demand services to consumers through the use of fhe UBER APP. However, UBER is not licensed for any type of service, either as a limousine ice by the CPUC or as a taxi company by the SFMTA. Nevertheless, UBER continues to hold tself out as an alternative to traditional licensed taxicabs and regularly touts its service as being in irect competition with the taxi industry. UBER utilizes black car and gypsy vehicle drivers to erform as taxicab drivers, and thus requires its black car drivers to follow procedures in violation f the SF Code, UBER’s “partner drivers” pick up fares by street hail or e-hail in violation of the FMTA rules. UBER is not licensed by the SFMTA to offer any taxi-related service whatsoever. 21. Furthermore, by written agreement, UBER and its “partner drivers,” each driver is muired to operate in violation of the SF Code, as set forth in pertinent part supra on UBER’s ebsite, www,uber.com/city/san-francisco. UBER represents that in San Francisco it provides “Uber X” vehicles, which are a cheaper black car option and seat up to four people; a classic black , which is UBER’s default option and also seats up to 4 people; and SUV vehicles which seat ip to 6 people. Indeed the website invites members of the public to “hop into the sleek black car, ell the driver your destination, and you'll be on your way.” The website also represents that “UBER s your on-demand private driver. Request to ride at any time using our IPhone and Android Apps 1 from M.Uber.com.” The website additionally states that: “After the ride, UBER will stomatically charge the credit card you have on file. ‘There is no need to hand your driver any ayment, and the tip is included.” Therefore, UBER is utilizing black cars, their drivers and drivers f other cars without meeting any of the basic requirements of any controlling regulatory agency. 77 = CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTeer aus 10 u 12 2B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22. The UBER website also sets forth its pricing information with respect to each of the sbove-referenced vehicles that starts with a basic fare and then adds a per-mile rate within the City, lp per-mile rate outside of the City, a per-mile rate, a minimum fare as well as a cancellation fee. ER's website also sets forth flat rates for certain destinations, such as a trip between San ‘a and the San Francisco International Airport; and between San Francisco and the Oakland lAirport. The consumer can only pay by credit card. The consumer is not permitted to pay in cash fps required by the SF Code. UBER black cars acting as taxicabs promulgate fares through the UBER JAPP, which utilizes GPS enabled [Phones and black cars or gypsy cars to determine distance and fares in direct violation of the SF Code, because the GPS devices act as illegal meters for taxi ervices. Therefore, the rates charged by UBER do not correspond with the provisions of the SF ‘ode, unfairly compete with the government regulated fares charged by the taxis with the medallions [belonging to the Plaintiff class, and are not measured pursuant to an approved taximeter as required py the SF Code. The illegal meters also violate the CPUC regulations. 23. UBER uses the UBER APP to measure time and distance. In California, before any Weighing or measuring device can be used, it must first be evaluated and approved by the [Department of Agriculture. This process is know interchangeably as “type cettification,” certification” or “type evaluation.” The process examines the design, features, operating characteristics and performance of devices for compliance with legal requirements. Its purpose is ensure devices are accurate, reliable, and do not facilitate fraud. 24, California Business and Professions Code (“Bus. & Prof. Code”) § 12500.5 prohibits Laone from using a weighing, measuring or counting instrument or device for commercial purposes in the State of California without first obtaining approval of the measuring or counting instrument 1r device from the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Bus. & Prof. Code § 12500.5 vides in pertinent part: “It shall be unlawful to sell or use for commercial purposes any weight [pr measure, or any weighing, measuring or counting instrument or device of atype or design that has Jpot first been so approved by the Department ...” 25. — UBER uses the UBER APP to measure time and distance in order to calculate its [customers’ fares. 8 ~ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT10 u 12 2B 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 26. Although UBER functions in all respects, as a taxicab company, it claims that itis ‘a transportation company. In order to avoid complying with any regulatory agencies, including ¢ SEMTA and the CPUC. In fact, UBER is indeed a taxi company as: © UBER receives requests for taxi services from a customer; © UBER transmits this request for a taxi service to an independent “partner” driver and a black car or other vehicle with whom UBER has a written contract for service and revenue sharing; © The“partner” driver proceeds to service the request for transportation for the customer, and © —_ UBER measures the ride fare, bills the passengers and pays the drivers. 27. Thus UBER provides the same service as a taxicab company; while evading any JFesponsibility for the requirements imposed on drivers of taxicabs and ramp taxis as well as on taxicab companies. 28. Alternatively, UBER is operating as a charter-party carrier, defined as engaging in fine transportation of persons by motor vehicle for compensation (subject to exclusions not apposite o UBER’s operations). PUC § 5360. UBER selectively engages the service of drivers, establishes jerms for transportation services, sets fares, collects revenues from passengers and distributes [payment to drivers. Taken together, these services fall squarely within the definition of “charter- party carrier.” UBER is not a licensed charter-party carrier. 29. _ UBER’s business model is based upon deceiving the public, ignoring public safety regulations, circumventing legally established rates and pricing models, dodging taxes and fees imposed on other transportation providers and shifting all risks and liability to others. In fact, JUBER’s widely stated mission is to “disrupt” the established regulated taxi operations and substitute lp mobile-application-based service free of any regulations governing public transportation services, 30. UBER has intentionally and knowingly encouraged UBER drivers to unlawfully jpompete with properly licensed taxicab drivers for passengers, and to provide taxicab services in kKirect violation of the SF Code. 31. UBER has engaged, and continues to engage, in unlawful business practices that are 9 ~ cLass ACTION cOMPLART1 }iltegal per se and that directly impact the functioning of legitimate taxicab service to the detriment 2 [pf the Plaintiff class, the medallion owners and the public in general. UBER’s conduct misleads the [passenger public and significantly interferes with the conduct of legally authorized taxicab business 1d the owners of the medallions issued by the SMTA who make up the Plaintiff Class by unfairly ompeting with said medallion owners. Simply stated, UBER’s “partner” drivers, who are operating ithout restriction, are taking passengers, from taxis owned and/or operated by medallion owners Jpnd thus income away from medallion owners who are complying with the rules of inter alia the ISFMTA. Moreover, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, diminished revenue, Cw rane Jnproductive taxi lease expenses, and other related out-of-pocket costs, as a direct and proximate 10 [result of UBER’s illegal conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continues to suffer 11 }injuries in fact as a direct result of UBER’s illegal conduct. 12 32. Plaintiffs seck an award of damages as set forth below as well as restitution and an 13 |injunction pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seg. seeking to prohibit UBER from 14 fponducting an unlawful business in violation of the PUC and the SF Code. 15 33. Plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Private Attomey 16 General Doctrine pursuant to CCP § 1021.5, or through the Common Fund Theory as established 17 bby the Courts of this State. 18 Vil. CAUSES OF ACTION 19 EIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 20 (Unfair Business Practices Pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200 et seg. 21 Against All Defendants) 2 34, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation 23 |eontained in paragraphs 1 through 33 above, as if set forth in full herein. 4 35. Beginning on an exact date unknown to Plaintiffs, but in any event, within four years 25 |pf the filing of this complaint, and continuing to the present, the Defendants engaged and continue 26 |fo engage in acts of unfair competition and in unfair, deceptive or unlawful business practices within 27 |the meaning of Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seg., including but not limited to, engaging in 28 unlawful business practices that are, as stated above, illegal per se. UBER’s conduct in violating the 10 cass ACTION COMPLAINTUC and the SF Code, as herein above described, constitute an unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent 2 [pusiness practice in violation of the unfair competition law. 36. UBER’s knowing failure to adopt policies in accordance with and/or adhere to these 37. __ Inaddition to misleading the passenger public, UBER’s conduct materially interferes th the business of the legally authorized medallion owners who make up the Plaintiff Class. That 9 fs, UBER has been, and is currently, engaged in unfair competition within the meaning of Bus. & 10 [Prof. Code § 17200, et seg., and Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class, have suffered injuries 11 fin fact, including but not limited to, a loss of income and out-of-pocket expenditures as a direct and 12 [proximate result of UBER’s unpermitted taxi service in the City. 13 38. Unless restrained and enjoined, UBER will continue in the acts and practices alleged 14 fpbove. Accordingly, the Court must issue an injunction restraining and enjoining UBER from 15 fengaging in the acts and practices alleged above. Plaintiffs further request that an order restoring to 16 [phe Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class all money or property which has been lost by means 17 pf UBER’s unfair and deceptive business practices. 18 39. In addition, pursuant to CCP § 1021.5, the Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff 19 |lass are entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in bringing 20 jphis action. 21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as 22 [hereinafter set forth. 23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 24 (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations 25 Against All Defendants) 26 40. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation 27 bontained in paragraphs 1 through 39 above, as if set forth in full herein. 28 41. UBER is intentionally interfering with the economic relationship between the 11 = cLass AcTION COMPLAINTsportation services. Therefore, UBER operates outside of the law. 42. As.aproximate result of UBER’s wrongful and illegal conduct, Plaintiffs and embers of the Plaintiff Class have suffered damages in a sum according to proof. 43. The aforementioned acts of UBER were and are willful, oppressive and malicious. erefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages. 44, Further, unless restrained, UBER will continue to operate outside of the law, and terfere with Plaintiffs’ economic relationships with passengers who ride in taxicabs of the edallion owners, to Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury for which damages would not afford jequate relief. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief to stop UBER’s unlawful acts set forth above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as ereinafter set forth. ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Against All Defendants) 45. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation tained in paragraphs 1 through 44 above, as if set forth in full herein. 46. _ UBER isnegligently interfering with the economic relationship between the Plaintiff 1edallion owners and the passenger public through its illegal acts as set forth above. Iti continuing 0 “disrupt” the established regulated taxi business and its operations and to substitute a mobile- :pplication-based service without regard to any regulations governing public transportation services the City, UBER fails to act with reasonable care, Therefore, UBER operates outside the law. 47. Asa proximate result of UBER’s wrongful and illegal conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount according to proof. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as 12 = cuass action COMPLAINT10 rt 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Inceinater set forth. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief Against All Defendants) 48. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every allegation Jtontained in paragraphs 1 through 47 above, as if set forth in full herein, 49, An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and UBER ltoncerning their respective rights and duties. On the one hand, Plaintiffs contend that UBER is }atentionally, unlawfully and unfairly competing with Plaintiffs by the use of vehicles as illegal axicabs in violation of the SF Code, and that UBER is operating as a taxicab company without any f the restrictions that govern taxicab drivers (as well as taxicab companies). On the other hand, JUBER denies that it is a taxicab company subject to the SF Code or any other regulations applicable fo limousines or Black cars. 50. A judicial determination is necessary and appropriate at this time under the lbircumstances in that declaratory relief would have the practical effect of informing the parties’ future conduct and by removing the financial burden being caused by the unsettled state of affairs. 51. Plaintiffs have experienced damages as a result of the illegality of UBER’s actions Ips such actions impair and interfere with Plaintiffs” business as a medallion owner. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as |hereinafter set forth. PRAYER - RELIEF SOUGHT WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, and the proposed Class, pray for judgment land specific relief against Defendants as follows: 1. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that this action is a proper class action and certify the proposed class and/or any appropriate subclasses; 2. That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that UBER violated and continues to violate Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. by engaging in unlawful business practices that misleads the passenger public and significantly interfere with the ‘business of the legally authorized taxicab service by the medallion owners who make 13 = cLAss ACTION COMPLAINT© we 2 Ae ke wD 10 uw 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 an 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. ts up the Plaintiff Class; That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that UBER is in violation of the SF Code by utilizing Black cars as taxicabs in direct competition with duly licensed taxicab drivers; this action is a proper class action and certify the proposed class and/or any appropriate subclasses; ‘That the Court declare, adjudge and decree that UBER is in violation of CPUC by utilizing Black cars as taxicabs in direct competition with taxicabs owned by ‘medallion owners such as Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class; ‘That the Court order UBER to pay restitution to Plaintiffs due to UBER’s unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent practices, pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200-17208; For a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining UBER, its agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under or in concert with them, to cease and desist from any unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent activities in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seg., including but not limited to, the following acts: a) Utilizing Black cars as taxicabs in direct competition with the Plaintiff Class; b) Utilizing any other unlicensed ornonpermitted vehicles in direct competition with the Plaintiff Class; For damages in a sum according to proof; For reasonable attorney fees under one of the theories set forth above; For costs of suit incurred herein; For interest thereon; For any such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. ATED: April 10, 2015 # N df es HAROLI JAFFE, on behalf of HAROLD M. JAFFE and BRIAN W. NEWCOMB, Attomeys for Plaintiffs STEWART ROSEN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, and as Private Attorney General 14 - cLAss ACTION COMPLAINT‘TOE OR PART WOU ATTORNEY Rae Ss na ar ep | eee FLL of Harold M. Jaffe 3521 Grand Avenue “Cire Phat maar Oakland, CA 94610 ; Teieptone no: 510-452-2610 raxno: 510-452-9125 | APR 13 2015 arronNey FoR fame): Plaintiffs ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY oF San Francisco E COURT srrecrsooress- 400 MeAilister Street ORIGINAL ey. cramer coor San Francisco, CA 94102 prance name: Main CASE NANE: ROSEN v. UBER MARY ANN MORAR TES CASE COVER SHEET ‘Complex Case Designation GEG 15-945 787 Unlimited Limited Untited C3 Unted CA counter CA Joinder a demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) $25,000 orless)|___(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) ocr Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 7. Check one Gox below for the case type that best describes this case: eae oe es a Tcrcmmanaron cn egetay came ua eat rt teeter ie Sor cosine tonctiynmoneny — Ep Serna, ae Pamage/Wrongtul Death) Tort Other contract (37) ‘Securities litigation (28) Asbestos (04) Environmental/Toxic tort (30) Se on as Sone Medical malpractice (45) Co Eminent somainioverse Iracrance verge une aig ton Other PUPDIWD (23) ‘condemnation (14) types (41) spr om Te Seceieec oe eee Business tort/unfair business practice (07) brave Enforcement of judgment (20) aoe ver oa case, oe pa a Somes oe Intellectual property (19) Drugs (38) Other complaint (not specified above) (42) Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other non-PUPDMND tort (35) Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other petition (not specified above) (43) ot eatn oh a eons eee 2. Thiscaso GE) is Co) isnot complex under rule 3.400 ofthe Califomia Rules of Cour. Ifthe case le complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. [1] Large number of separately represented parties. d. 9 Large number of witnesses ». GE Extensive motion practice raising dificult or novel Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that willbe time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court . (2) Substantial amount of documentary evidence [XI Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision Remedies sought {chock al that apply) a a. 5 monetary b. EF nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. (1) punitive Number of causes of action, ): This case is ee N he action suit. If there are any known related cases, fle and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015,) Date: 4/10/2015 > | MM. (CYPE OR Pan AME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATIBRREY FOR PARTY) NOTICE ‘+ Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the fist paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases fled under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to fle may result in sanctions. * File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. «If this case is complex under rule 3.400 ot seq. of the Califomia Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding ‘© Unless this isa collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only ie: 9 Morin Dean’ CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ‘Cal. Regge gf Cau 2 32 Ba HS: SEA er as "LR RR VS Rosen, StewartTo Plaintiffs and Others Fling First Papers. if you ae ling a rt complete ano fle, slong with your frst paper, the Cl Case Cover Sheet, contained on cases led. You must complete ems 1 throug that best desorives the case. Ifthe case fis both a general and a more specific type of case ited in tem 1, one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary statistics about the types and numbers ‘one box for the case. check the more spect cM-010 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET per (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, u must 1. This information will be used to compile ‘on ihe sheet In item 1, you must cause of action. ‘o.assat youn. completing ie sheet, examples ofthe cases that belong under each case type in tem 1 are provided below, A cover sheet must be fled only Sarnia paper, allure to fle cover sheet with the rst paper fl n'a cil ease may subject a party, ii counao, or both fo sancione under ries 2.30 and 3.220 of te Calforia Rules of Cour. a To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A “collections case” undor rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money ‘owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attomey's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, saris, or money we damages, (2) puntive damages, attachment @ Identification of a case as a rule 3.740 {huevo requrements and cage remagarent ree, niee «defender ie # cease will be Subj ‘To Parties in Complex Cases. In daeo is complon Wa pana bokeves ‘completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. Ifa ‘complaint on ail parties to the action. A defendant may 10 the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.7 cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case's complex under nue 3400 ofthe Calfomia Rules of Cour, this must be ndeated by lant designates a case as complex, the caver shaet must be sorved with the le and serve no later than the time of its fist appearance a joinder in the. acured on ced. A coloctons cage doesnot clude an acon seeking the folowing (1) for Teal property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment 3 cle 180 pater case oh ikon nears tet Kil be exam fom fe goeral Tegponsive pleading. Arle 3.740 colectons Plaintiff's designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that ‘case is complex. ‘Auto Tort ‘Aulo (22}Personal njuny/Property ‘Damas ‘Death Uninsured Motorist (48) (f tho ‘caso Involves an uninsured ‘motoast caim subject to ariration, check this om Instead of Auto) ‘Other PUPDIWD (Personal injury! Property DamageMirongul Death) ‘Asbestos (04) “Asbestos Property Damage ‘Asbestos Personal injury! ‘Wrongful Death Physicians & Surgeons Other Professional Heath Care Mal Other PUPDIND (23) Premises Liabilty (e.g, sip ‘and fal) Intentional Bodly Inury/PDAWD (e.g. assaut, vandalism) Intentonal infin of ‘Emotonal Distress Negligent inficton of Emotional Distress Other PUPDIWD Non-PUPDAWD (Other) Tort Business Tor/Uniak Business Practice (07) Ci Rights (0... discrimination, CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract ‘Breach of ContractWarranty (08) ‘reach of Rental/Lease ‘Contract. (not unlawful detainer org Congaivarenty Breach Soler Plaintiff (not raud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract, ‘Warrar ty ‘Other Breach of ContracWarranty Collections (e.g,,money owed, open ‘book accounts) (08) Collection Case-Seller Paint ‘Other Promissory Note/Collections ‘Coverage Other Contract (37) “Contractual Fraud ‘Other Contract Dispute Real Property ‘Eminent Oomain/inverse ‘Condemnation (14). Wrongful Eviction (33) (Other Real Property (e.g. quit tite) (26) ‘Writ of Possession of Real Property ‘Mortgage Foreciosure Quiet Tite Other Real Property (not eminent ‘domain, lanalordtenant, or Tereciosur) Untawful Detainer ‘Commercial (31) Residential (32) ‘Drugs (38) (tho case involves ilogal Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403) “Anttrust/Trade Reguation (03) Construction Defect (10), Claims involving Mass Tort (40) ‘Secures Ligation (28) EnvironmentalToxe Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims {arising from provsionaly complex 250 type isiod above) (81) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) ‘Sister State tudgment ‘Adminisvatve Agency Awaré (not unpaid taxes) Petton/Ceriication of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes (Other Enforcement of Judgment ‘Case Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other Complaint (not spectiod ‘above) (42), Deciaratory Rellet Only Injunctive Rel Only nan- harassment) Mechanies Lien Other Commercial Complaint ‘Case’ (nor-fortnen-complex) ‘other Git Complaint 7 Miscellaneous Civil Petition fase areal) (nt cul 65 (95) (tte ase involv arinerhip ane Coprate harassment) (08) ‘fopert as Commercial or Resicertal) Govemance (21) Dlamaton (slander, ba eae Other Petton ot spectod Fraud (1) Asset Forfar (8) Sea Harassment Inttesual Property (19 Petton Re: Aiton Avard (11) Workpiace Vioience Frtedona Neaigerce 25) Wa of Mandate (2) us ElderDepencent Adu Peapeccen n ‘Wnt Mandamus on Lined Gout oe Other Proessonal Mak Peton for Name Change oer SSNS Pee) Patten or Rete rom ate Employment ter Juccial Review (39) MI ‘Wrongful Termination (36) Review of Health Officer Order Sahaiaiiaian GnetEnpeymont C1 Neat pen apr TOR TT OT are CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Page 2 oft ESSENTIAL FORNS™ Rosen, Stewart