You are on page 1of 14

CAlJSE NO.

: _ _ _ _ __

.JANE DOE,

Plaintif.[,

vs.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a
"Uber" and "Uber Dallas"; TRIPLE
CLASS LIMOUSINES, LLC d/b/a
"Triple Class Limousines"; and T ALAL
ALI CHAMMOUT,

Defendants.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

COMES NOW, Plaintiff. JANE DOE and files this Original Petition, complaining of
Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGlI:'S, INC., d/b/a "Uber" and "Uber Dallas"; TRIPLE CLASS
LIMOUSINES, LLC d/b/a "'Triple Class Limousines"; and TALAL ALI CHAMMOUT, and for
causes of action, states the following:

SUMMARY
Uber is a $50 billion dollar company that rode into Dallas, Texas and other cities around the
world, making big promises of convenience and safety. By allowing customers to pay for
car-rides through a cutting-edge smart-phone app, Uber certainly honored its promise of
convenience. But Uber consistently has failed to honor its promise of safety - all for the
sake of padding its bottom line.
Sadly, this case is a glaring testament to the hollowness of Uber's safety promises. In this
case, by Uber's own admission, Uber made "'mistakes," Uber "failed to live up to [its] own
... standards," and an Uber representative "mistakenly granted [Defendant] Chammout

PL;\INTIIT"S ORI(i1N;\L PETITION

access to Uber as a driver."] More specifically. Uber empowered. emboldened. and enabled
a predator- Defendant Chammout. by placing him into a vehicle with unsuspecting women.
including the Plaintiff. in situations in which he would be driving them. alone to their homes
at night.
According to Uber's own admission. although Chammoufs account initially was marked
"will not be driving." an Uber representative mistakenly granted Chammout access to Uber
as a driver on April 17,2015. Uber's actions were akin to letting a tiger loose in a shopping
mall. After Uber began pairing Chammout with unsuspecting women, the question was not
whether Chammout would strike, but when and against whom. On July 25,2015. Chammout
struck- against the Plaintiff: and with devastating consequences.
This incident is not the first time that one of Uber's drivers has been alleged to have
committed a rape or other heinous crime. There have been all too many reports of similar
incidents in the relatively short life span of Uber as a company. Allegations of rapes or
other assaults by Uber drivers have occurred in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Orlando, San Francisco. Washington, D.C.. and New Delhi, India, among other cities.
This case is about holding Uber legally accountable for the foreseeable criminal acts of one
of its drivers. and forcing Uber to institute basic, common-sense corrective measures to
ensure that all of the drivers that it places in cars with its passengers many of whom are
young women, truly pose no safety threat to those passengers.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1.

Pursuant to Rules 190.1 and 190.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff states
that discovery in this cause is intended to be conducted under Level 3 .
.JURY DEMAND

2.

Pursuant to Rules 216 and 217 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff requests a
jury trial of this matter. Accordingly. Plaintiff tendered the proper jury fee with the filing
of Plaintiff s Original Petition.
RULE 47 STATEMENT OF MONETARY RELIEF SOlJGHT

3.

Plaintiff prefers to have the jury determine the fair amount of compensation for Plaintiffs
damages. and Plaintiff places the decision regarding the amount of compensation to be

]See Letter regarding this incident from Leandre Johns. General Manager of "Uber Dallas"
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

awarded in the jury's hands.

Rule 47 of the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure, however,

requires Plaintiff to provide a statement regarding the amount of monetary relief sought.
Accordingly, Plaintiff states that monetary relief of over $ 1,000,000, in amount to be
determined by the jury, is being sought.

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE


4.

Pursuant to rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiflrequests that Defendants
disclose to Plaintiff, within 50 days of the service of this request the information and
materials described in rule 194.2, to be produced at Crain Lewis Brogdon, LLP, 3400 Carlisle
Street, Suite 200, Dallas, Texas 75204.

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION SERVED


5.

Plaintiff serves interrogatories and requests for production upon Defendants with Plaintiffs
Original Petition and Request for Disclosure.

REQUEST FOR DEPOSITIONS


6.

Plainti 1'1' hereby requests dates for the depositions of the following employees and/or agents
of Uber:

1) Joe Sullivan, Uber safety manager, 2) Leandre Johns, General Manager of

"Uber Dallas," 3) the Uber agent(s) and/or employee(s) who granted Defendant Chammout
access to Uber as a driver on or about April of2015, 4) the Uber supervisor of the agent(s)
and/or employee(s) who granted Defendant Chammout access to Uber as a driver on or about
April of 2015, 5) all members of the Uber "Safety Team" who investigated the incident
made the basis of this suit

6) all Uber agent(s) and/or employee(s) who had any

responsibilities for investigating the qualifications, employment history, or criminal history


of Defendant Chammout before the incident made the basis of this suit 7) the Uber agent

PLAINTIFI'S ORIGINAL PETITION

and/or employee with the most knowledge regarding assaults, violent crimes, and rapes
allegedly committed by Uber drivers other than Defendant Chammout.

PARTIES
7.

PlaintitfJANE DOE is an individual residing in Dallas County, Texas. Due to the extremely
personal and sensitive nature of this lawsuit, Plaintiff is proceeding under the pseudonym of
"Jane Doe."

Defendants have full knowledge of Plaintiffs identity, due to Defendants'

involvement in the underlying acts and omissions that form the basis of this petition.
8.

Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a "Uber," is a California corporation, doing


business in the state of Texas as "Uber" and "Uber Texas."

It has maintained continuous

and systematic ties with the State of Texas, and it entered into a contract with Texas residents
and/or committed a tort in whole or in part in the State of Texas, causing injury to a'rexas
resident. It may be served by serving its Texas agent for service of process:

National Registered Agents, Inc.


1999 Bryan, Suite 900
Dallas, Texas 75201
9.

Defendant TRIPLE CLASS LIMOUSINES, LLC, dba "Triple Class Limousines" is a Texas
corporation, doing business in the state of Texas, and may be served by serving its agent for
service of process:

Talal Ali Chammout


Triple Class Limousines, LLC
2217 Sky Harbor Drive
Plano, Texas 75205
11.

Defendant TALAL ALI CHAMMOUT is an individual residing in Collin County, Texas and
may be served by serving service of process at:

PLAINTIl'FS ORIGINAL PETITION

Talal Ali Chammout


2217 Sky Harbor Drive
Plano, Texas 75205
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
12.

Venue is proper in this Court by virtue of sections 15.001 et. seq. of the Texas Civil Practice
& Remedies Code because the cause of action which is the basis of this case arose in whole

or in part in this county, and/or Defendants' residence or principal office is in this county.
This Court has jurisdiction because Plaintiffs damages are within the jurisdictional limits of
this Court.

13.

Uber is a $50 billion dollar company that rode into Dallas, Texas and other cities around the
world, making big promises of convenience and safety.

By allowing customers to pay for

car-rides through a cutting-edge smart-phone app, Uber certainly honored its promise of
convemence.

But Uber consistently has failed to honor its promise of safety - all for the

sake of padding its bottom line.


14.

Uber represents to its customers on its website and elsewhere that Uber has a "commitment
to safety," that Uber it is "putting safety first." that Uber provides "the safest transportation
option," that Uber provides "safe rides," that "the Uber experience has been designed from
the ground up with your safety in mind," that Uber utilizes "multi-layered background
checks:' and that every Uber driver "is thoroughly screened through a process that includes
county, federal, and multi-state criminal background checks that go back as far as the driver's
state's law allows."

15.

Sadly, this case is a glaring testament to the hollowness of Uber's safety promises.

In this

case, by Uber's own admission, Uber made "mistakes," Uber "failed to live up to [its] own
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

... standards," and an Uber representative "mistakenly granted [Defendant] Chammout


access to Uber as a driver.,,2 More specifically, Uber empowered, emboldened, and enabled
a predator - Defendant Chammout, by placing him into a vehicle with unsuspecting women,
including the Plaintiff, in situations in which he would be driving them, alone to their homes
at night.
16.

What Uber should have known, and could have known through even the most casual perusal
of the internet using Google, was that Defendant Chammout had been convicted of felony
assault in 1995 and convicted of the federal felony of possession of firearms in 2007.

In

fact, the federal government indicted Chammout in 2006 for being a felon in possession of
firearms and conspiracy to possess stolen government property, including pistols and rocket
launchers.

As part of a plea agreement in 2007, the government dropped the conspiracy

charge, and Chammout then served six and a half years in federal prison.

He was not

released until 2012, just three years before the events made the basis of this suit.
17.

News reports readily available to Uber on the internet also should have made Uber aware
that the federal judge presiding over the possession of firearms case cited the following other
alleged acts of violence in sentencing Chammout to six and half years in prison: 1)
allegations that Chammout had shot a juvenile in the leg, 2) allegations that Chammout had
struck a juvenile in the face, 3) allegations that Chammout had hit his wife in the head with
a crow baL and 4) allegations that Chammout had hired a hit man to kill his wife.
Furthermore, Chammout's criminal records indicated that he had been arrested for
prostitution in Dallas in 2014.

2See Letter regarding this incident from Leandre Johns, General Manager of"Uber Dallas"

PLAINTIITS ORIGINAL PETITION

18.

In this case, Chammout used a faked City of Dallas permit to get himself and his company,
Triple Class Limousines, approved by Uber. The permit used by Chammout actually expired
in 2010 and had been issued to a different driver.

The City of Dallas has stated that it is

"one hundred percent certain" that Chammout was not permitted by the city to be a driver in
the city, and that Chammout did not go through the city's vetting system, at all.

In fact

under the City of Dallas' rules, Chammout would have been prevented from obtaining a
permit to drive for a full 5 years following his release from prison in 2012.
19.

According to Uber's policies, there should have been two sets of background checks done
on Chammout: 1) a set of checks by the city - in this case, the City of Dallas, and 2) a set of
checks done by Uber. Here, neither set of checks was done. and Uber let Chammout loose
on the unsuspecting public, including the Plaintiff. Among many other mistakes, Uber does
not appear to have verified Chammout's alleged permit to drive on the City of Dallas'
website, and Uber certainly did not do even the most cursory of background checks on
Chammout or did not heed the results of the checks. in the event that any checks were done.

20.

According to Uber's own admission, although Chammout's account initially was marked
"will not be driving," an Uber representative mistakenly granted Chammout access to Uber
as a driver on April 17,2015. Uber's actions were akin to letting a tiger loose in a shopping
mall.

After Uber began pairing Chammout with unsuspecting women, the question was not

whether Chammout would strike, but when and against whom.


2l.

On or about July 25, 2015, Chammout struck - against the Plaintiff: and with devastating
consequences. On that day, Uber sent its agent and/or employee, Chammout to pick up the
Plaintiff on McKinney Avenue in Dallas around 8:00 p.m.

Chammout drove the Plaintiff

to her home in Dallas County, Texas, where he followed her inside the home against her
PLAINTIFF"S ORIGINAL PETITION

wishes and violently struck her on the back of the head.

Inside the Plaintiffs home,

Chammout then raped the Plaintiff. The PlaintiiT never consented to any sexual relations
with Chammout. Chammout has now admitted to having sexual relations with the Plaintiff.
and the State of Texas has charged Chammout with felony sexual assault of the Plaintiff.
22.

This incident is not the first time that one of Uber's drivers has been alleged to have
committed a rape or other heinous crimes. There have been all too many reports of similar
incidents in the relatively short life span of Uber as a company.

Allegations of rapes or

other assaults by Uber drivers have occurred in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Orlando, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and New Delhi, India, among other cities. Each
time, Uber apologizes. Each time, Uber promises to take all necessary corrective measures
to prevent future similar incidents. And, each time, Uber denies all legal responsibility for
the incident. Furthermore, in the face of this parade of horribles, Uber persists in pursuing
an agenda of actively opposing any and all regulatory and legislative efforts to mandate that
it strengthen the background checks performed on Uber's drivers.
23.

This case is about holding Uber legally accountable for the foreseeable criminal acts of one
of its drivers, and forcing Uber to institute basic, common-sense corrective measures to
ensure that all of the drivers that it places in cars with its passengers

many of whom are

young women, truly pose no safety threat to those passengers.


24.

As a result of Defendants' actions and omissions, the Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue
to suffer extreme emotional distress, pain, mental anguish, and suffering. She bas incurred,
and will continue to incur, substantial damages and bodily injuries arising out of the acts and
omissions alleged herein.

Defendants' actions and omissions proximately caused the

Plaintifrs injuries and damages.


PLAINTIFF'S ORI(i1NAL PETITION

CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 1: Sexual Assault - All Defendants
25.

Defendant Chammout committed the felony criminal offense of assault upon the Plaintiff.
Under Texas law, the elements of assault are the same in civil and criminal suits, and it is
the law of this State that an assault is both an offense against the peace and dignity of the
State, as well as an invasion of privacy rights and a ci vi I tort. For that reason, the definition
of assault. whether in a civil or criminal trial, is the same.

26.

Defendants Uber and Triple Class Limousine are liable for Defendant Chammoui's conduct
as alleged above. pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior because Defendant
Chammout was acting in the course and scope of his employment with Defendants Uber and
Triple Class Limousine at the time of the occurrence.

27.

In the alternative. ifChammout was an independent contractor. Defendants Uber and Triple
Class Limousine are liable for Defendant Chammoufs conduct as alleged above, because
Uber and Triple Class Limousine failed to exercise reasonable control over employees,
agents, andlor independent contractors when pairing them in vehicles with Uber passengers.

See, e.g., Read v. The Sco/l Fetzer Co., 990 S.W.2d 732 (Tex. 1998).
Count 2: Negligence - Uber
28.

Uber was negligent, among other ways. in:


1.

Failing to properly hire, train, and supervise its drivers, such as Chammout;

2.

Failing to promulgate and enforce effective safety policies for screening drivers of
Uber vehicles for criminal and violent tendencies;

3.

Failing to conduct appropriate background checks on Chammout before allowing


him to transport passengers of Uber;

PLAINTI "'''''S ORIGINAL PETITION

4.

Accepting a faked City of Dallas permit from Chammout without verifying whether
it was real;

5.

Waiving any Uber background check of Chammout based on the faked City of
Dallas permit;

6.

Failing to verify that the City of Dallas conducted any background checks of
Chammout;

7.

Granting Chammout access to Uber as a driver, although his file was marked: "will
not be driving" and Chammout had a criminal history and personal history that
disqualified him from driving;

8.

Creating a false and misleading sense of security for Uber passengers, such as the
Plaintin~

by making exaggerated and untruthful claims about Uber's alleged

extensive screening ofUber's drivers;


9.

Failing to act with the high level of care required of ""common carriers" in the State
of Texas, that is, failing to exercise the high degree of care that a very cautious and
prudent carrier would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances;

10.

Failing to exercise reasonable control over employees, agents, and/or independent


contractors when pairing them in vehicles with Uher passengers. S'ee, e.g. Read v.

The Scoll felzer Co., 990 S.W.2d 732 (Tex. 1998).

Count 3 - Negligence - Triple Class Limousine


29.

Triple Class Limousine was negligent and grossly negligent among other ways, in:
1.

Failing to properly hire, train, and supervise its drivers, such as Chammout;

2.

Failing to promulgate and enforce effective safety policies for screening drivers of
its vehicles for criminal and violent tendencies;

PLAINTIFF'S ORI(i1NAL PETITION

10

3.

Failing to conduct appropriate background checks on Chammout before allowing


him to transport passengers;

4.

Failing to verify that the City of Dallas conducted any background checks of
Chammout;

5.

Granting Chammout access to Uber as a driver, although his file was marked: "will
not be driving:' and Chammout had a criminal history and personal history that
disqualified him from driving; and

6.

Failing to act with the high level of care required of "common carriers" in the State
of Texas, that is, failing to exercise the high degree of care that a very cautious and
prudent carrier would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances .
.Joint Enterprise

30.

Alternatively, Defendants are liable for the negligence of each other under a theory of joint
enterprise because: 1) an express or implied agreement among Defendants existed, 2) a
common purpose was to be carried out by Defendants, 3) a common pecuniary interest in
that purpose existed among Defendants, and 4) an equal right to control the enterprise
existed.
Negligence -Proximate Causation

31.

Each ofthe foregoing acts or omissions, singularly or in combination with others, constituted
negligence, which proximately caused the above-referenced occurrence and Plaintiffs
injuries and damages.

PLAINTIFF'S ORICilNAL PETITION

II

PERSONAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES


32.

As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has suffered severe bodily, economic, and
mental injuries. Consequently, Plaintiff seeks the following damages:

33.

1.

Medical Expenses: Plaintiff has incurred bodily injuries which were caused by the
incident in question. Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses in the past and will
continue to incur them in the future.

2.

Physical Pain: Plaintiff has endured severe physical pain in the past and will
endure pain in the future.

3.

Mental Anguish: Plainti1fhas endured mental anguish in the past and will endure
mental anguish in the future.

4.

Loss of Earning Capacity: Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earning capacity in the
past, and will continue to suffer a loss of earning capacity in the future.

5.

Impairment: Plaintiff has endured physical impairment in the past, and will
continue to suffer the effects in the future.

6.

Disfigurement: Plaintiff has incurred disfigurement as a result of the Defendants'


negligence and will continue to suffer from disfigurement in the future.

In all reasonable probability, Plaintiff will continue to suffer from these injuries for the rest
of Plaintiffs life, and Plaintiff seeks compensation for such future damages.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
34.

All conditions precedent to Plaintiff's right to recover the relief sought herein have
occurred or have been performed.

RELIEF SOUGHT
35.

Plaintiff requests that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, and that this case be
tried, after which Plaintiff recovers:

1.

Judgment against Defendants for a sum within the jurisdictional limits of this Court
for the damages indicated above. Plaintiff prefers to have a jury determine the
amount of Plaintiff s damages;

PLAINTI FF'S ORIGINAl, PETITION

12

2.

Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum amount allowed by law;

3.

Costs of Court; and

4.

Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,
CRAIN LEWIS BROGDON, L.L.P.

Gl

QUENTIN BROGDON

State Bar No. 03054200


ROBERT D. CRAIN
State Bar No. 00790525
3400 Carlisle Street Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75204
Phone: (214) 522-9404
Fax: (214) 969-5522
Email:
Email: ,~~~~,~"~"'~.; ~'"~ ~~~~~,~,~~,~,~~~~~,~~~;CC~~~~;;~,,~,,~~;
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PI j\lNTII~rS ORIGINAL PETITION

I3

Page 1 of 1

UBER

Dear Mr. Sweckard,


We wanted to update you on our investigation into the circumstances leading up to Talai Ali
Chammout being charged with sexual assault Our goal has been to understand how Mr.
Chammout got to use UbeL and what steps we need to take to prevent this from happening
again.
Our internal investigation has shown that

In January 2014, Mr. Ch ammout signed up to use Uber as a way to generate business
for his family's limo company via uberBLACK. He provided Uber with a fake City of
Dallas license. The fact that his license was fake means he never underwent either a
City of Dallas or Uber background check.
At that time, Mr. Chammout's account was marked as "Will Not Be Driving" .. because
that was not the purpose for which he signed up to use Uber.
However, on April 17, 2015. an Uber representative mistakenly granted liAr. Chammout
access to Uber as a driver.

As a result of our investigation, and in close coordination with the City of Dallas Transportation
Department, we conducted an audit of all limo companies and livery drivers who use Uber in
Dallas today. This included:

A manual review of each City of Dallas limousine permit that has been provided by
either owners or drivers as a means of identification when signing up to use Uber.
A cross-check of the City's registered limousine drivers against our internal database to
identify any abnormalities or incorrecl information.
A review to confirm thaI every driver or limo company owner in Dallas using the platform
has been put through Uber's background check process.

In addition, we are taking the following steps to improve our safety procedures in Dallas:

The introduction of extra spot check.s 10 ensure that the documents in our system including photo 10, Social Security number and driver's license ., are accurate and
IIp-lo-date: and.
The creation of a new approval layer before drivers signing up to use Uber are allowed
1o accept rides.

We're also interested in discussing with you the potential to improve the City's online portal so
that TNCs can more quickly and reliably check that the paper documents provided are genuine.
Uber prides itself on providing a safe, convenient. reliable and affordable ride. In this instance,
we failed 10 live up to ollr own high standards. for which we are truly sorry. We are determined
to learn from the mistakes that were made so we can do better in the future. Our thoughts are
with the victim and her family. Thank you for your continued support.

https:llhtml1-f.scribdassets.coml770gf97 c5c4mOck6/imagesll-6df284e3e3 .jpg

8/8/2015

You might also like