WONTAR SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet May-16-2016 4:13 pm Case Number: CGC-16-552035 Filing Date: May-16-2016 4:10 Filed by: ARLENE RAMOS Image: 05399416 COMPLAINT RYAN SMYTHE VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ET AL. 001005399416 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.SUMMONS ‘SUM-100 (CITACION JUDICIAL) Rr vse OnLy (sol SPR ESO aE eA CoRIm NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: UBER TEHCNOLOGIES, INC., and DOES (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): 1 through 100, INCLUSIVE, YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: RYAN SMYTHE, on behalf (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): of himself and others similarly situated TYOTIGET You Fav ben sued: The cou may cde agaist ou witout your big Read unos you expend win 90 days. Read he hfomatn "You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after his summons and legal papers are served on you tof a writen response at this court and have a copy ‘served onthe palit. letter or phone call wil rot protect you. Your wien response rust be In proper fgal frm i you want the court to ‘ate. There may bea cout form that you can use fer your tesporse. You can find thes cout forms and mere informatin a the Calflora Shine Self Hobp Contr ca. gowole), your county law brary, orth courthouse nearest yu. Ifyou cannot pay the fing tho cour cer for «fee waver form, you do not fl yor response on lime, you may love tho case by Sela, ana your wages, money, and property| tay bo taken witout further waring om the cour. “There se oer togal requirements. You mey want to call an attomey ight away. you do not know an altorney, you may want to call an altomey refer! servic. iyou cannot sford en sllomey, you may be ella fr fae legal senicos (rom a nonpoftlogal services program. You can facta ‘these nenproft groups al ne Caloia Legal Services Website (vt. ewhelpcalfomiaorg, th Calfonia Coutts Ondine Sel-Help Center (ini courtife.ca. goviselinelp), or by contacting yur loal cour or county bar sesociation. NOTE: The court has a etaluoryllen for waived fees and ‘costs on any setlsment or ablation award of $10,000 of more ina civil case, The cout ilen must be paid befor the cout wit dsmiss te case. TAVISO! Lohan demandado. Si no respande dento de 30 das, fa corte puode decir en su contra sn escuchar su version, Leafs fomecin & Teno 90 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que lo ontreguon ast ctacisn y papeles logos par presentar una respuesta por oscrie en esta catty hacer quo so enregue una cope af domendanta. Una carte o ura Temata talafenice no fo protagen. Su respuosta por ascrfo ene quo star ‘botooa do ise do cu condado 0 onl corte que fe quedo més cece. ino puede pagar la cvola de presentactn, pide al secetero dole cote ‘ue ie dé. un formuterio do exonckén de pogo de cuoles. tno presen su respuesta lempo, puede perder el c2so por hcumpminto ye cote fe Doctd quar su sual, diner y biones sin nas advortencla Tay oboe 38 Es recomandebie qu lame a un abogedoinmedatamente. SI no conoce a un abogado, puede Hamar aun servicio do| omit a ne puede pagar a un abogedo, 8s postle que cumpla ca os requis para obtener servicios legals gatutos do un ‘rogreme de secs fegaios sn ines do luo. Puede encontrar estos gros an dnes do ue ena ilo web do Gallia Legal Sorvcas, fruawtelpalforna org), en af Canto de Ayuda co las Cortes do Callomis, (nn sucart.ca gov 0 ponlendose an contacto can la cote 2 Colgio do abogadas locales. AVISO: Por ey, a corte Bono doracho a rectome fas custas J los coelosaxentos por mpone in gravamen Sobre ‘ualgutarrecuporactén de 810,000 6 mds do valor recbida medianto un acuerdo una corcoatn do ariajo nun caso d derecho Cl. ToMe Que {pone gavamen gas arta I cors pd dsschar of came rrame anid address of the court eeareannerscsleonr! coiad eae 16-552035 400 MCALLISTER STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 ‘The name, address, and telephone numberof plaints attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, Is: (El nombre, fa clreccisn y ndmero de teléfono del abogado dei demandanta, o del demandante que no lene abogado, 68): POSWALL, WITTE BRELSFORD oe "1 & 1001 G STREET #301 Selene Ramer SACRAMENTO CA 95814 ‘ARLENE RAMOS DATE: MAY 162016 GLERKOFTHECOURT — cierk,by______ UE DUDputy (ocho) (Secretaria) (Adjunt) (For proof of service oF his summons, use Pool of Service of Summons (form POS-OT0)) (Para prueba da entraga de esta citation uso ol formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-019)). aunt or NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. () as an individual defendant. 2, [1] as the person sued under the fitious name of (specify): 3. 1 onbehait of spect under: (] 6cP 416.10 (corporation) (c0P 416.60 ¢minon) [Jccr 416.20 (etunct corporation) [=] GCP 416.70 (consorvatoo) be (F1.ccP 416.40 assoctation or partnership) [—]CCP 416.90 (authorized person) (J other (speci 4. [-] by ereonal davory on (dato: yess “ludit Coune of Cattomnin ‘SUMMONS sds ‘Goce of Co Procosue $5 41220, 485, Stee wy 200FOREST ae AER SR emer Rar Eon oc a pcs eee FJ q ie Court of California Saeraneato, CA 93814 Superior : reemenavo: 916-449-1300 sete 916-449-1320 ty OF San Francisco sora Ryan Sinyne : ramon cue aur oUF Sen PnGICO MAY 16 2016 ‘murmne 400 Medlister Sweet, 400 Medllstr Sct CLERKOF THE COURT rim avons San Pancaen, CA 94102 be swrcanwe. Civil Center Courthouse Z ‘Deputy Clerk ae ure RYAN SMYTHE V. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. i 5 CiviL CASE COVER SHEET Compo Ce Dagan =16-55203 feet eae Ti counter C2) Jendor [at 16-552. 5 Sirona doracedte | Finditt appear by dada sree $000) 00ers] "at eae tout ssatsy | com ‘tems 1-6 bolow must bo completed (ese Instructions on page 2). FCtoa on GN case pe et ass Ba fanter oun fry Comp eaten ore) . Fe ea tranny). a hana Coates aa) Cts TS Riarocotecem 9 1) saat nasi comcetomD Pesensninimepwy [| omnes) Conn oo) Soman so Tok mann rs 8 ena) ‘tonto © Goeecinan cece pt) Eeacprnblny faster, 1 evronmantir rads tort (30) wea mapa Sr danrane teoremenens El Serrano sconces omar Hon PUPOIWD (Other) Tort TE) Wrongtut ton (93) pea (ety (21 sense etr an pacts) C=] Onecare)” Elcannte Somat Sa) ie creo met) Onteaten) Comms cana hl Compa I rae (rose (Tncoen Itc sey) onan ote comin ut yt ao 2 tend ie 25) ete en Hesanve carton Soe nn ram os od Pena noun 2) oma Peau onsen ep Fe eaten 8) wet ermnss 2) 1 ob cnn ot “ Cc Somesretmer [1 omer jaca oon (38) aS 2 Tiseoso Lele rnpiorundor rte 3400 of the Celforia Roles of Gout. Wie cane complex, metho roquling exceptoral udisal menagorant 2.02) Lange numberof separately represeried parties 4. LZ] Largo numberof witnasses ».0Z] Extensive motion prectoe raking dct or novel 9. —] Cocrnation vith elated actions pending In one or more cots {saues that wil be timo-consumlng to resolve Inother counties, states, of counties, or i a federal coud ©. [2] substantial amount of documentary evicence 1. [] Subetantl pstudgment luda superision ‘8. Romadios sought (check ai that apy: [7] monstay b.[7] nonmenetry: decaratoryorinunctve sell 0. punive 4. Number of causes of acon (spec? 2 5. Thiscase Cy Jt» [_Jisnot aciass ection out, «htt natn a pate: Shite fe > iL les EE eee ean —— WOTICE + Panti must fl his cover sheet wth the fret papor led in aon o procaoding (xcept mall lms case or cass fed ‘ndorthe Probate Code, Famfy Code, cr Wola andinsitutlons Cove) (oa: Rules of Cau ule 2.220.) Fafa f le may roeu Insanctons. {Elo Bie cover sheet in adation to any cover shest requ by local cout lo, * Mts cates complex under rue 8.400 et soq, of he Calorie Rules of Cour you must gare a copy ofthis cover sheet on all tir paris othe ection o proceeding, + Unio this is coloctons ctse under ul 8.740 or 2 complex cas, ts cover shoot wil be sed for sata! purpanes eT ‘iviC GASE COVER SHEET STSeee eS a ae rd AQcw-o10 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET To Plelntifs and Others Fling Fist Papers, Wf you ao fing a frst poper (er example, a complaint) in a ch case, you must completo end fo, along wh your tal poper, te Ch Case Cover Shoe contained on page 4, This formation vil be used to coma satstes about the types and numbers of cases fled. You must compte fems 1 ough 6 onthe shoal in Korn 1, you musk check ‘ne bx forthe caso ype thet beat descbes te case Ifthe case fs both a gonaal and a mors specie ype of case std In omn ‘heck the moro opecfe ono, th caso has maple causes of action, cick to box that beet Indicates the primary cause of clon, ‘To asset you in completing tho shee, examples of ho cases that bang undor each case ype In Hem 1 are provided bolo. A cover heat must be fod only with your nol paper, Faure to fle cover shoot wth tho fet paper fed Ina ch caso may eubject @ pay, is counsel or both to sanctions undor rides 2.50 and 3.220 of tha Calon Fes of Cou. ‘To Partos In Rule 3.740 Colteetons Gases. A ‘colecons case" under rule 3.740 fs defaed us an acon for recovery of money ‘ed in gum slated o'be certain tha Is not mere thn $25,000, exclusive of Inet and atomeys foes, aang from a tansacton it leh proprty, sorces, or money was acquired on ered. A eollaionecese doesnot Inte an action se aking the folowing (1 ot ‘damages, (2) pune damages, (3) recovery of ral (4) recovery of porsonal property, or (5) 8 projudgment wit of fallachment. ‘Tho eriicaton of a caso ae a rule 2740 ‘so on this form means that Wit bo exam fom Uo general timeforsene requroments and cas0 managment res, unless a defondant flee a responahe ploadlng. A rule 3740 colsclons sso lb aubject othe requirements or sorvion and ablsning a fadgment in ro 3.740, ‘Te Partos In Complex Cassa. In complex casos ony, partes must also uso the Cll Case Cover Sheet to designate whether ho ‘ato fs compo. I plait betves the case Is complex undor ro 8.400 of th Calfomia ues of Cour, this net be inleated by ‘completing the appropiate boxes InHome 1 and 2. fa plant dosgnates 2 case w= comnlax, tho cover shast must bo sored te ‘complaint on al patos tothe acton. A defendant may flo and aa no lle than the tie offs fst appearance a jndor he {llatife destonaton, a courordesignation thatthe case Is no complex orf tha pain has made no designation a designation at econ ante CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES “Wm Puncnalbgiympay —_ ne Cain) Racnet Gouna ate ta) a Enon ry osof Gout age ‘Donegan Dan Tinchof Rado ‘are Rept) Unde Meat 0) 0 Sones oon oar ‘Senameaon beled) aeimcee eneniered erga eve) ‘even stn 6) anda sera conn ‘Seat Sere eo ibe ct hn rar fr fod hgcoe) Eee e400) reenre eau Sa oes "we Cons Cn Propo Damayertronght Soo ‘oer Sash of Contecareny ‘So ipeledatord tm my ‘catealns (64 manay eve, open Enforesment of ducgment eben 0 Pooks) ect fore) ‘Tetos Pept oom Slaten Gok Ste Pati are Nope utt ‘enos Rao Sheehan ate a rena Soom snunenteee it ere Pog ty laser nn rant ey Sem a Nodes asec ‘eohrmon ‘arid foo lane & gen ‘over cre) PolfoCaentn Ey of tr Pea Ho Cae Sr ad pron on rat es irate eine ong tare la none inte snr oot vy omy a Sr at at nt san Yanan ome a eral sol casa “vita Ponsenton cel ops Basel ete ny excels Mengape ton a sect in oat Mi Eon ees Sates ppt et et a am one (te) Tet = cca teen Sogn sess nina Deiter Se eugene Sooners) ucstnasts Gu Per oo an a Se Peete apo Ison) hogs Shc tes cbr nar Poin ecto’ saraton sn, ) as Coomera Fat mire ) sual er PE mercy Fe weet Nocera Pronsslenet Negigence (25) ‘Witt Mande (62) aieceaene wa i tar Sav Nan ae Olean Wa Snr on ie Cat Crt anita ‘cov nr eon Hae change | mc tie wa Seed nit Coe = wa jReviow Other Ch Petition "ang Tekan 6) ela — re Nokia ater Stone eal Sam ‘IVIL CASE COVER SHEET1 | POSWALL, WHITE & BRELSFORD R. Parker White (Bar No. 95579) William L. Brelsford, J. (Bar No. 202839) 1001 G Street, Suite 301 Sacramento, Califomia 95814 FIL Ez D ‘Telephone: (916) 449-1300 Superior Court of Caffornia Fasimile, (016) 449.1320 ‘ancisoo i WBrelsford@pwb-attomeys.com MAY 16 2016 LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY D. FULTON CLE! Jefiey D. Fulton (Bar No, 20646) : EE, COURT 50 River Plaza Drive, Suite 260 Sacramento, Califomia 95833 een ‘Telephone: (916) 993-4900 Facsimile: (916) 441-5575 E-Mail: JFulton@JFultonLaw.com 10 Attomeys for Plaintiffs 11 | RYAN SMYTHE, on behalf of himself and others 1p | sity situated 3 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 5 16 | RYAN SMYTHE, on behalf ofhimselfand |cASENO. CGC 16-55 20 35 others similarly situated 1” CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR - Plaintiffs, DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION v. 1) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA uy BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC,, and DOES 1 CODE SECTION 17200 ET SEQ. 20 | through 100, INCLUSIVE, 2) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE ‘WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC td) Defendants. ADVANTAGE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2s a 26 2 28 SCASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION10 u 12 13 15 16 " 18 19 20 a 23 26 7 28 Plaintiff hereby alleges: 1. INTRODUCTION L. This is a class action brought by Plaintiff RYAN SMYTHE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, whom have sustained injuries or damages arising out of the conduct of Defendants, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100 (hereinafter referred to collectively as “UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.”) in deliberately violating California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq. and for intentional interference with Plaintiffs" prospective economic advantage. 2, This Class Action Complaint specifically asserts causes of actions for Unfair Business Practices in Violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et sq, and Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage. 3. Plaintiff petitions this Court to allow -him to represent and prosecute claims against Defendants in class action proceedings on behalf of those similarly situated who are or were Lyft drivers during the class period, who suffered legal harms as described herein. Il, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of their business dealings and transactions throughout the State of California and in the county of San Francisco. ‘The amount in controversy collectively for all members of the Plaintiff Class exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. 5. Venue is proper in this county, because dofendent UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC, is headquartered and, at all times relevant herein, conducted business in San Francisco, California, " 0 1 CASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION1, PARTIES Plaintiff, RYAN SMYTHE is a current contractor of Lyft, Inc., a direct competitor of UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plaintiff has been providing services to Lyft from approximately September of 2014 to the present. 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times herein, Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. is and was a Delaware corporation, with its ‘principal place of business located at 1455 Market Street, 4" Floor, San Francisco, California, 94103, 8 Defendants and DOES 1 through 100 are corporations, incorporated in the State of Califor Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that there exists such a unity of interest and ownership between UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DOES | through 100 that the individuality and separateness of these Defendants have ceased to exist. The business affairs of UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DOES | through 100 are, and at all times relevant hereto were, so mixed and intermingled that the same cannot be reasonably segregated, and the same are in inextricable confusion. UBER TECHNOLOGIRS, INC. and DOES 1 through 100 are, and at all times relevant hereto, were used by UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. as mere shells and condi for the conduct of certain of UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S affairs, The recognition of the separate existence of these entities would not promote justice, in that it would permit Defendants to insulate themselves from liability to Plaintiff and the Class Members, Accordingly, these Defendants are merely the alter egos of UBER ‘TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and the fiction oftheir separate existence must be disregarded. 9, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all relevant times herein, all Defendants were the agents, employees, and/or servants, masters or employers of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things alleged in this Complaint, were acting in the 2 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION‘course and scope of such agency or employment, and with the approval and ratification of the each of the other Defendants, 10, The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues such. Defendants by fictitious names. Plsintiff will amend this Complaint to show the Defendants’ true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff alleges, upon information and belief, that each of the Defendants, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are legally responsible in some manner negligently, in warranty, strictly, intentionally, or otherwise, for the events and happenings herein referred to, and each of the Defendants proximately caused inj and damages to Plaintiff end each Class Member, as herein alleged. 11, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. does substantial business in California, ‘employing hundreds of California residents in various capacities, and contracting with drivers ‘who provide transportation service to residents throughout the State of California, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that between ninety (90) to one hundred (100) percent of Class Members presently reside in the State of California, 12, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. is headquartered in San Francisco, and has substantial contact with the State of California, and has done and continues to do business within the State of California, 13, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each and every of the acts and omissions alleged herein were performed by, and are attributable to, all Defendants, each acting as agents and/or employees, and/or under the direction and control of each of the other Defendants, and that said acts or failures to act were within the course and scope of said agency, employment, and/or direction and contro. ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION10 ul 2 B 14 15 16 "7 18 19 21 2 23 25 26 27 28 14, As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of Defendants, Plaintiff sand the Class Members have suffered, and continue to suffer from loss of earnings in amounts as ‘of yet ascertained, but subject to proof at the time of trial, in amounts in excess ofthe jurisdiction of this Court, IV. CLASS ACTION DESIGNATION 15. ‘This class action is properly brought pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382, and the procedural requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of ivil Procedure, which have been adopted by the California Supreme Court for use by trial courts of this state, Piai iff brings this class action on behalf of himself as well as all other Plaintiffs/Class Members similarly situated, with Plaintiff proceeding as the representative ‘member of the proposed class, defined as follows (the “Class Members”): All current and former Lyf drivers, who are or have been, within the last four (4) years and continuing while this action is pending (the “Class Period”), who provided and/or attempted to provide service to Lyft passengers but were prevented from doing so due to UBER TECHNOLOGIES, ING.’s unfair business practices and tortious interference. 16. The class of said persons within the State of California is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, and the disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to the Court. Named Plaintiff is informed and belioves, and thereon alleges, that Lyf contracted with, at minimum, hundreds of drivers who were prevented from providing services and earning income (“Class Members”) in the State of California during the Class Period as a result of UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’s unfair business practices and tortious interference. 17, Though the exact number and identity of Class Members are not presently known, they can best be identified through coordinated discovery pursuant to is class action. 4 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION10 ul 2 B 4 1s 16 7 18 19 20 24 2 23 24 25 26 2 28 18, There are common questiors of law and fact arising out of Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, as well as its continued practice of violating California law as to all ‘members of the class, ‘The action focuses on Defendants’ systematic course of creating fraudulent Lyf accounts from which sham orders were placed, at least in part to deprive Class ‘Members from earning income in violation of California Business and Professions Code which prohibits unfair business practices. 19, Furthermore, such common questions of law and fact predominate over any question affecting only individual members ofthe class, 20, The predominating common questions of law and fact include the following: Defendants” fraudulent and deceptive business practices designed, atleast in part, to deprive Lyf drivers of income, which were unfair business practices, and tortious interference, in violation of California law. 21, The defenses of Defendants, to the extent that any such defense is applied, are applicable generally to the whole class and are not distinguishable in individual claims. 22, The claims of the representative Plaintiff herein are typical of the claims of the ‘members of the class as a whole, all of whom have sustained and/or will sustain damages, including imeparable harm, as a proximate or legal result of the common course of conduct of Defendants as complained of in this Class Action Complaint, ‘The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of the class because Defendants subjected these Lyft drivers to identical unlawful conduct, 23, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all members of the class, in connection with which he has retained attomeys experienced in the prosecution of multi-party and class action cases, The named Plaintift is able to fairly and adequately protect the interests of all members of the class 5 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION10 u 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 2 23 4 25 26 2 because it is in his best interests to prosecute the claims herein alleged to obtain full compensation due to him for violations of California law. 24. Under the facts and circumstances set forth above, class action proceedings are superior to any other methods available for both fair and efficient adjudication of the rights of ‘each Class Member who is, or in the past was, a Lyft driver in California, who was deprived of income and incurred expenses as a result of Defendant's unlawful practices. Inasmuch as joinder of individual members of the class is not practical, said class members could not individually afford the litigation, such that individual litigation would be inappropriately burdensome, not only to said citizens, but also to the Courts of the State of California. 25. To process individual cases would increase both the expenses and the delay not only to class members, but also to UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and the Court. In contrast, a class action of this matter will avoid case management difficulties and provide multiple benefits to the litigating parties, including efficiency, economy of scale, unitary adjudication with cousistent results and equal protection of the rights of each class member, all by way of the comprehensive and efficient supervision of the litigation by a single court. 26. Notice of the pendency and any result or resolution of the litigation can be provided to class members by the usual forms of publication or such other methods as deemed appropriate by the Court. 27, — Without Plaintiff class certification, the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Plaintiff class would create the risk of: @ Inconsistent or varying adjudi ions with respect to individual members of the me tiff class that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants; and/or "CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION10 " 12 13 14 15 16 a 18 19 20 24 2B 2s 27 28 (b) _—Adjudications with respect to the individual members of the Plaintiff class that would, as a practical matter, be disparities of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudication, or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests, Defendants have acted or refused to act in numerous aspects generally applicable to the whole class, thereby making final injunctive relief appropriate with regard to members of the class as a whole, V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 28. Plaintiff, RYAN SMYTHE is a current Lyf driver who experienced fraudulent requests for service from fraudulent Lyft accounts during the Class Period. 29. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a multi tional online ridesharing network company, has demonstrated policies and practices of: Directing its drivers and engaging third party companies and/or individuals to create fraudulent Lyft accounts that were tied to “burner” (Cisposable/prepaid) cellular telephones for the sole purpose of luring Lyft drivers to locations in which a false request for service directed them, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC, did this to discourage Lyft drivers from contracting with Lyft, to deprive the marketplace of Lyft drivers so that UBER drivers would benefit, and to create a higher wait time for Lyft customers in order to steer their patronage to UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. This conduct was, on at least one occasion, referred to 8 “Operation SLOG” which has been widely publicized in the media, 30, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. provided “burner” cellular telophones to its drivers and provided instructions on how to create fraudulent Lyft accounts and false calls for Lyft service. Additionally, Plaintiff’ is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that UBER 1 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION1 | TECHNOLOGIES, INC. contracted wit third patty companies for the purpose of utilizing these 2 | additional workforces to create fraudulent Lyf accounts and to cause false calls for Lyft service * | rote made. : 31. As arresult of UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’s conduct, which is fraudulent and ¢ | consists of unfair competition, Plaintiff and the putative class members have incurred expenses 7 | and lost income in responding to these fraudulent calls for service by fraudulent account holders. 8 VI. PLAINTIFFS? CLAIMS 9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 10 Violation of California Busine: u Professions Code Section 17200, ot (Against all Defendants) 2 b 32, Plaintiff hereby re-alleges, and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth 14 | otein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 31, This cause of action is pled against 15 | all Defendants, 16 33. This is a representative action for Unfair Business Practices. Plaintiff, on his own 17 | behalf and on behalf of the general public, and on behalf of others si 18 larly situated, brings this claim pursuant to California Business & Professions Code §§17200, et seq. The conduet of all 19 Defendants, as alleged in this Complaint has been and continues to be unfair, unlawful, and 20 a | harmful to Plaintiff, the general public and the Plaintiff Class. Plaintiff seeks to enforce 72 | important rights affecting the public interest within the meaning of California Code of Civil 23 | Procedure §1021.5. 4 34, Plaintiff is a “person” within the meaning of Business & Professions Code §17204, and therefore has standing to bring this cause of action for injunctive relief, restitution, 26 and other appropriate equitable relief. 7 28 8 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION10 u 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 2 2B 25 ey 28 35. Defendants’ conduct constitutes unfair business practices, as defined in Section 17200, et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code. This Court has authority, pursuant to Section 17203 of the Business and Professions Code, to “make such orders...as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition.” Moreover, this Court possesses the inherent power to craft such injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the interests of the partes, pending trial of this matter on the merits. 36. Defendants’ violations of California wage and hour laws constitute unfair business practices because they were done repeatedly over a significant period of time, and in a systematic manner to the detriment of Plaintiffs, Furthermore, California Labor Code §90.5 articulates the public policies of this State to enforce vigorously minimum labor standards, to exisure employees are not required or permitted to work under substandard and unlawful conditions, and to protect law abiding employers and their employees from competitors who lower their costs by failing to comply with minimum labor standards, 37. For the four (4) years preceding the filing of this ection, as a result of Defendants’ unfair business practices, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, and request damages and/or restitution of all monies to PlaintiffS in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. Plaintiffs further seek a temporary, preliminary and/or permanent order providing for equitable ‘and injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from pursuing the policies, sets, and practices complained of herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as set forth below. W W W 9 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION1 CAUSE OF ACTION a Intentional Interference with Prospective Keonomic Advantage a (Against all Defendants) 4 38. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges, and incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37. This cause of action is pled against all Defendants. 39. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs and putative class members had business relationships with clients and prospective clients, which contained probable future economic © 10 | benefit and/or advantage to Plaintiff and the putative class, u 12 13 14 15 | Putative class, to sever their present and prospective business relationships with Plaintiff and the 40. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that Defendants, willfully and deliberately committed the wrongful acts alleged herein with the intent to harm Plaintiff an the putative class financially and to induce clients and prospective clients of Plaintiff and the 16 | putative class. 7 18 19 20 41, Asa proximate result of such wrongful acts, Plaintiff and the putative class have suffered injury and damage to its business and goodwill in an amount to conform to proof at trial, but in no event less than the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, 21 42. Pl 2 % Vand designed to obstruct and otherwise interfere with the successful operation of Plaintiff and 24 putative class members’ business. Plaintiff and the putative class therefore and entitled to 25 iff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the acts of Defendants, in interfering with their business relationships, as described therein, were willful and malicious ‘recover exemplary and punitive damages in a sum sufficient to punish Defendants. 26 a7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as set forth below, 28 | 10 ‘CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION©oeyxeFa kw 10 4 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VIL PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1. Fornominal damages; 2. For compensatory damages; 3. For restitution of all monies due (expenses incurred and lost income) to Plaintiffs from the unlawful business practices of Defendants; 4, For interest accrued to date pursuant to California Civil Code sections 3287 and 3288, 5. For punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294; and 6. Forall such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper, Dated: May 16, 2016 By: LAW OFFICES OF JERFREY-D. FULTON RRS Jeffrey D. Fulton R. Parker White William 1.. Brelsford, J. Attorneys for Plaintiffs DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury. Dated: May 16, 2016 By: LAW [OFFICES OF JEFFREY D, FULTON YY Van Jeffrey D. Fulton _ R. Parker White William L. Brelsford, Jr. Attomeys for Plaintifis 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION