O'Connor Et Al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Et Al 12.16.14 Plaintiffs' Motion To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related

Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document216 Filed12/16/14 Page1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Laura L. Ho (SBN 173179)

lho@gbdhlegal.com
Andrew P. Lee (SBN 245903)
alee@gbdhlegal.com
GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: (510) 763-9800
Fax: (510) 835-1417
Oren Sellstrom (SBN 161074)
osellstrom@lccr.com
Meredith Desautels (SBN 259725)
mdesautels@lccr.com
LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
131 Steuart Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 543-9444
Fax: (415) 543-0296
11
12
Attorneys for Plaintiff Gillette and the putative class in the matter
of Gillette v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05241-LB
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
17
18
DOUGLAS OCONNOR, THOMAS COLOPY, Case No.: 3:13-cv-03826-EMC

MATTHEW MANAHAN, and ELIE
GURFINKEL, individually and on behalf of all ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER
others similarly situated,
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
Plaintiffs,
19
20
vs.
21
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
22
Defendant.
23
24
25
26
27
28
558354.5
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
I.
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Local Rule 3-12 and 7-11, Plaintiff Ronald Gillette respectfully requests that the
Court consider whether the matters of Gillette v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05241-LB
and Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05200 should be related to the matter of
OConnor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-03826. As discussed below, these actions
concern the same parties, and would require the duplication of labor and expense if conducted before
different judges.
8
9
10
II.
A.
RELATED CASES
Gillette v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filed on November 26, 2014, Gillette v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05241-LB
11
is a putative class action alleging claims pursuant to the Federal Credit Reporting Act (FCRA),
12
California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), and the California Private
13
Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). See Gillette First Amended Compl. 1 attached hereto as
14
Exhibit A. Plaintiff Gillette alleges that Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) failed to provide Plaintiff
15
and a putative class of Uber drivers clear and conspicuous notice that it may procure consumer
16
background reports for employment purposes, and failed to obtain written authorization prior to
17
obtaining consumer background reports for employment purposes. Id. 41-50. Plaintiff Gillette also
18
alleges that Uber failed to provide Plaintiff and the putative class with a summary of their rights under
19
the FCRA and a copy of their consumer background report prior to taking adverse actions against
20
them, including termination of their employment and suspension and/or deactivation of their user
21
accounts. Id. 51-60. Plaintiff Gillette seeks to represent a nationwide FCRA class. Id. 29, 30.
22
Plaintiffs Gillette alleges similar claims under the ICRAA on an individual basis. Id. 61-75.
23
On behalf of the State of California, Plaintiff Gillette seeks civil penalties for violations of the
24
PAGA. Id. 76-83. Plaintiff alleges that Uber erroneously classifies its drivers as independent
25
contractors. As a result, Plaintiff seeks PAGA penalties on a representative basis for the following
26
violations: (1) failure to provide prompt payment of wages to driver employees upon termination and
27
resignation in violation of Labor Code 201, 202, 203; (2) failure to provide itemized wage
28
statements to driver employees in violation of Labor Code 226(a), 1174, and 1174.5; (3) failure to
1
558354.5
provide meal and rest periods in violation of Wage Order No. 9, Labor Code 226.7, 512, and 558;
(4) willful misclassification in violation of Labor Code 226.8; (5) failure to provide gratuities in
violation of Labor Code 351; (6) failure to keep required payroll records in violation of Wage Order
No. 9, Labor Code 1174 and 1174.5; (7) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Wage Order
No. 9, Labor Code 510, 558, 1194 and 1198; (8) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of
Wage Order No. 9, Labor Code 1182.12, 1194, and 1197; and (9) failure to reimburse driver
employees for all necessary expenditures and losses in violation of Labor Code 2802. Id. 76-83.
B.
Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.
Filed on November 24, 2014, Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser LLC, and Hirease
10
LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-05200-MEJ is putative class action alleging claims pursuant to the FCRA, the
11
Massachusetts Consumer Credit Reporting Act (MCRA), and California Consumer Credit Reporting
12
Agencies Act (CCRAA). Mohamed Compl. 1 attached hereto as Exhibit B. Plaintiff Mohamed
13
alleges that Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and a putative class of Uber drivers clear and
14
conspicuous notice that it may procure consumer background reports for employment purposes, and
15
failed to obtain written authorization prior to obtaining consumer background reports for employment
16
purposes in violation of the FCRA and the CCRAA. Id. 68-79. Plaintiff also alleges that
17
Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff Mohamed and the putative class with a copy of their consumer
18
background report prior to taking adverse actions against them, including termination of their
19
employment and suspension and/or deactivation of their user accounts in violation of the FCRA and
20
MCRA. Id. 70, 71. Plaintiff Mohamed further alleges that Defendants violated Massachusetts law
21
by failing to provide Plaintiff and the putative class their criminal offender record information
22
(CORI) policy. Id. 86-91.
23
C.
24
OConnor v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Filed on August 16, 2013, OConnor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. is a putative wage and hour
25
class action filed on behalf of Uber drivers in California. OConnor Second Amended Compl. 1
26
attached hereto as Exhibit C. The OConner Plaintiffs allege that although Uber classifies its drivers
27
as independent contractors, they are in fact employees because they are required to follow numerous
28
detailed requirements, including rules regarding their conduct with customers, the cleanliness of their
2
558354.5
vehicles, and their timeliness in picking up customers. Id. 21. The Plaintiffs allege claims for
unlawful or fraudulent business acts or practices pursuant to California Business and Professions Code
section 17200 et seq., and failure to reimburse necessary business expenses pursuant to California
Labor Code section 2802. Id. 34-35.
5
6
III.
A.
ARGUMENT
The Actions Concern the Same Parties.
All three actions concern the same parties. Uber Technologies, Inc. is a Defendant in each
action. Moreover, all three cases involve class allegations on behalf of Uber drivers. Whereas the
OConnor Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of California drivers only, the Gillette and Mohamed
10
Plaintiffs seek to certify nationwide classes that would include the proposed members of the OConnor
11
class. The Mohamed Plaintiff also seeks certification of a California class that is substantially similar
12
to the proposed OConnor class. Thus, all three actions involve the same defendant and proposed class
13
members.
14
B.
There is the Potential for Conflicting Results and the Duplication of Labor and Expense
if the Cases are Conducted Before Different Judges.
15
All three actions will likely involve a determination as to whether Uber drivers are employees
16
or independent contractors. Since the OConnor Plaintiffs allege claims based on the California Labor
17
Code, this issue must be decided in that matter. On December 4, 2014, Uber filed a motion for
18
summary judgment addressing this issue in the OConnor matter. ECF No. 211. This issue must also
19
be decided in the Gillette action as Plaintiff Gillette alleges claims pursuant to the PAGA based on
20
Ubers non-compliance with the California Labor Code. The resolution of the classification issue may
21
also impact the FCRA, ICRAA, CCRAA, and MCRA claims alleged in the Gillette and Mohamed
22
actions. Plaintiffs Gillette and Mohamed allege that Uber must comply with the requirements of these
23
statutes regardless of the employment or independent contractor status of its drivers. However, if the
24
Court determines that Uber drivers are employees, there will be no dispute as to whether Uber used
25
consumer background reports for employment purposes within the meaning of the FCRA, CCRAA,
26
ICRAA, and MCRA. See 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b) (governing conditions for furnishing and using
27
consumer reports for employment purposes); Cal. Civ. Code 1785.20.5 (governing report[s] for
28
3
558354.5
employment purposes); Cal. Civ. Code 1786.16 (governing the use of consumer background reports
for employment purposes other than suspicion of wrongdoing); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. 93
51(a)(3)(ii) (authorizing use of consumer background reports for employment purposes). Since the
classification issue affects all three cases, conducting them before different judges may result in the
unnecessary duplication of labor and expense for the Court and the Parties. Adjudication of this issue
by different judges may also lead to conflicting results.
7
8
9
IV.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Gillette respectfully requests that the Court consider whether the OConnor,
Mohamed, and Gillette actions should be related pursuant to Local Rule 3-12.
10
11
12
Dated: December 16, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
13
14
15
16
/s/ Andrew P. Lee

Andrew P. Lee
Attorneys for Plaintiff Gillette and the putative
class in the matter of Gillette v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05241-LB
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
558354.5
Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document216-1 Filed12/16/14 Page1 of 55
EXHIBIT A
Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC
Case3:14-cv-05241-LB Document216-1
Document7 Filed12/15/14
Filed12/16/14
Page1
Page2
of 22
of 55
1
2
3
4

lho@gbdhlegal.com
alee@gbdhlegal.com
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 763-9800; (510) 835-1417 (Fax)
5
6
7
8
9

osellstrom@lccr.com
Meredith Desautels Taft (SBN 259725)
mdesautels@lccr.com
(415) 543-9444; (415) 543-0296 (Fax)
10
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class
11
12
13
RONALD GILLETTE, individually, and on

behalf of all others similarly-situated,
14
Plaintiff,
15
vs.
16
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a California

corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 3:14-cv-05241-LB

CLASS AND REPRESENTATIVE ACTION
AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. Failure to Provide Notice of Obtaining
Consumer Report in Violation of 15 U.S.C.
1681b(b)(2)(A)(i);
2. Failure to Obtain Authorization for Consumer
Report in Violation of 15 U.S.C.
1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii);
3. Failure to Provide Consumer Report Prior to
Taking Adverse Action in Violation of 15
U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i);
4. Failure to Provide a Summary of Rights Prior
to Taking Adverse Action in Violation of 15
U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii)
5. Failure to Provide Notice of Obtaining
Consumer Report in Violation of California
Civil Code 1786.16(a)(2)(B)
6. Failure to Obtain Authorization for Consumer
Report in Violation of California Civil Code
1786.16(a)(2)(C)
7. Failure to Provide Opportunity to Request and
Receive Copy of Consumer Report in Violation
of California Civil Code 1786.16(b)
8. Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004, California Labor Code 2698 et seq.
Demand for Jury Trial
AM. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05241-LB

558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page2
Page3
of 22
of 55
1
2
Plaintiff RONALD GILLETTE (Plaintiff), on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated

individuals, alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA),
15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. on a class basis, the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA),
California Labor Code 2698 et seq. on a representative basis, and the California Investigative
Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), California Civil Code 1786 et seq. on an individual
basis.
2.
The FCRA and ICRAA impose on entities that use consumer background reports
10
important procedural safeguards designed to protect consumers like Plaintiff Gillette. Plaintiff began
11
working for Uber Technologies, Inc. (Defendant or UBER) as a driver in approximately February
12
2013. In April 2014, Uber abruptly closed Mr. Gillettes account and terminated his employment as a
13
result of a consumer background report. Uber, however, failed to notify Mr. Gillette or obtain his
14
authorization prior to procuring his consumer background report. Moreover, Uber failed to provide
15
Plaintiff Gillette with a copy of his consumer background report and a description of his rights under
16
the FCRA. These actions amount to willful violations of the FCRA.
17
3.
Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant the California Private Attorneys General Act of
18
2004 (PAGA). The California Labor Code requires employers to provide to its employees, among
19
others things, itemized wage statements, meal and rest periods, minimum and overtime wages,
20
reimbursement of necessary expenses, full and complete gratuities, and prompt payment of wages
21
upon termination. Uber failed to comply with California Labor Code requirements due to the
22
erroneous classification of its drivers as independent contractors. Plaintiff Gillette seeks civil penalties
23
on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA on a representative basis.
24
25
26
27
28
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4.
This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs and putative class members FCRA claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.

5.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs PAGA claims pursuant 28
U.S.C. 1367.
1
558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page3
Page4
of 22
of 55
6.
Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1) & (2) because Defendant resides in
this judicial district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this
judicial district.
4
5
PARTIES
7.
Plaintiff Ronald Gillette is a resident of the City and County of San Francisco,
California and a consumer within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1681a(c) and California Civil Code
1786.2(b). Plaintiff Gillette is a former employee of Uber who worked as a driver from
approximately February 2013 to April 2014. The acts complained of herein occurred within the two
years preceding the filing of this Complaint and continue to the present.
10
8.
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in San
11
Francisco, California. Uber is a person within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1681a(b) and California
12
Civil Code 1786.2(a).
13
9.
The true names and capacities of DOES 1-20, inclusive, whether individual, corporate,
14
associate, or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to show the true
15
names, capacities, and involvement of DOES 1-20, inclusive, once they are ascertained. Plaintiff is
16
informed, believes, and thereon alleges that each of the defendants designated as a DOE is responsible
17
in some manner for the events, happenings, and omissions described herein, and that Plaintiffs injuries
18
and damages were proximately caused by said defendants. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon
19
alleges that at all times herein mentioned, each of the DOES 1-20, inclusive, was an agent, employee,
20
successor, predecessor, parent, and/or subsidiary of each of the remaining defendants, and each of
21
them was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of the applicable relationship.
22
23
PLAINTIFF GILLETTES FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10.
Founded in 2009, Uber provides on demand automobile transportation in over 200 cities
24
across 45 different countries. It allows its customers to request and pay for car services via a mobile
25
phone application. Uber advertises itself as your private driver in more than 40 countries. Request a
26
ride using the app and get picked up within minutes. On-demand means no reservations.
27
28
11.
In February 2013, Plaintiff was hired by Abbey Lane Limousine (Abbey), which
provides limousine and car services within the San Francisco Bay Area. Shortly after starting with
2
558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page4
Page5
of 22
of 55
Abbey, Plaintiff applied to become a driver for Uber. Following the submission of an application
through Ubers website, Plaintiff met with an Uber representative at one of Ubers San Francisco
office locations. There he passed a short test given on a tablet device, and had his picture taken.
Plaintiff began driving for Uber immediately thereafter. At no time during the application process did
Uber request Plaintiffs authorization to obtain a consumer background report, nor did it notify
Plaintiff that it would obtain a consumer background report.
12.
From approximately March 2013 to April 2014, Plaintiff successfully drove for Uber.
Using an SUV provided by Abbey, Plaintiff provided SUV car services in the San Francisco
metropolitan area. Plaintiff worked between 36-48 hours per week. On average he picked up and
10
dropped off between 4 to 7 customers per day. Although Plaintiff continued to work for Abbey, he
11
spent approximately 90% of his time working for Uber. Throughout his employment with Uber,
12
Plaintiff maintained a rating of between 4.7 and 4.8 out of 5 stars.
13
14
15
13.
Uber paid Abbey once per week for Plaintiff Gillettes services. The gross money
generated by Plaintiff was split as follows: 20% to Uber, 40% to Abbey, and 40% to Plaintiff.
14.
Uber classified Plaintiff as an independent contractor rather than as an employee. As a
16
result, Uber failed to provide Plaintiff with itemized wage statements, minimum and overtime wages,
17
lawful meal or rest periods, and reimbursement for necessary expenses. Uber also failed to keep
18
accurate payroll records showing Plaintiffs hours worked and wages paid. Moreover, Uber retained
19
all gratuities despite representing to its customers and to Plaintiff Gillette that gratuity is included in
20
the total cost of the car service. Gratuities of 15-20% are customary in the car service industry.
21
15.
In April 2014, Plaintiffs Uber account was abruptly deactivated. Both Plaintiff and
22
Abbey immediately contacted Uber to determine the reason for the deactivation. In response, Uber
23
requested that Plaintiff meet with a representative at Ubers Mission Street office location. The
24
meeting between Plaintiff and Uber lasted only a few minutes. Upon Plaintiffs arrival, a male
25
representative who failed to identify himself greeted Plaintiff in the building lobby. The representative
26
informed Plaintiff that something had come up on his consumer background report and that he could
27
no longer work for Uber. Prior to his termination, Uber failed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his
28
consumer background report or a summary of his rights under the FCRA or other applicable laws.
3
558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page5
Page6
of 22
of 55
16.
On April 25, 2014, Uber announced a new three-step background check policy that
includes county, federal, and multi-state checks. Uber further announced that [w]e apply this
comprehensive and new industry standard consistently across all Uber products, including uberX.
17.
Subsequently, Plaintiff through Abbey requested further information regarding
Plaintiffs consumer background report. Following several requests for information, Uber informed
Plaintiff that his consumer background report was produced by a company called Hirease, Inc., an
employment background screening company located in North Carolina. Pursuant to Plaintiffs request,
Hirease provided Plaintiff with a copy of his consumer background report on May 2, 2014.
18.
On October 29, 2014, Uber announced that it is on track to complete more than 2
10
million background checks of potential drivers in 2014, which Uber has noted is among the highest
11
totals of any major corporation in the world.
12
13
14
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL FCRA CLASS MEMBERS

19.
background reports used for employment purposes:
15
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person may not procure a

consumer report, or cause a consumer report to be procured, for
employment purposes with respect to any consumer, unless
16
17
(i) a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the
consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be
procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a
consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes; and
18
19
(ii) the consumer has authorized in writing (which authorization may be

made on the document referred to in clause (i)) the procurement of the
report by that person.
20
21
22
15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2)(A) governs the conduct of any person who obtain consumer
20.
Uber failed to provide Plaintiff and the putative class clear and conspicuous notice in
23
a written document that consists solely of the disclosure that it may procure consumer background
24
reports for employment purposes.
25
26
27
28
21.
Similarly, Uber failed to obtain written authorization from Plaintiff and the putative
class prior to obtaining consumer background reports for employment purposes.

22.
15 U.S.C. 1681b(3)(A) governs the conduct of any person who uses a consumer
background report to take adverse action against consumers with respect to their employment:
4
558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page6
Page7
of 22
of 55
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in using a consumer report for

employment purposes, before taking any adverse action based in whole
or in part on the report, the person intending to take such adverse action
shall provide to the consumer to whom the report relates
2
3
(i) a copy of the report; and

4
(ii) a description in writing of the rights of the consumer under this
subchapter, as prescribed by the Bureau under section 1681g(c)(3) of this
title.
5
6
7
23.
The purpose of 15 U.S.C. 1681b(3)(A) is to inform consumers of their rights under
the FCRA and provide them an opportunity to review the consumer report and correct any inaccuracies
before any adverse actions are taken.
10
24.
Uber failed to provide Plaintiff and the putative class with a summary of their rights
11
under the FCRA prior to taking adverse actions against them, including termination of their
12
employment and suspension and/or deactivation of their user accounts.
13
25.
Uber further failed to provide Plaintiff and the putative class a copy of their consumer
14
background reports prior to taking adverse actions against them, including termination of their
15
employment and suspension and/or deactivation of their user accounts.
16
26.
Defendants acted willfully in violating the requirements of the FCRA. Defendants
17
knew or should have known about their obligations under the FCRA. These obligations are well-
18
established by the plain language of the FCRA and in the promulgations and opinion letters of the
19
Federal Trade Commission.
20
27.
Despite Ubers awareness of its legal obligations, Uber acted consciously in breaching
21
its known duties and depriving Plaintiff and other class members of their rights under the FCRA. At
22
minimum, Ubers conduct was reckless in failing to make an appropriate inquiry to ascertain its
23
obligations under the FCRA.
24
28.
As a result of these FCRA violations, Uber is liable to Plaintiff and the putative class
25
for statutory damages of $100.00 to $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a)(1)(A), punitive
26
damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a)(2), and reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 15
27
U.S.C. 1681n(a)(3). Plaintiff and the putative class are also entitled to equitable relief against Uber
28
enjoining further violations of the FCRA.

5
558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page7
Page8
of 22
of 55
1
2
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
29.
Plaintiff brings this action in his individual capacity and as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the following FCRA Disclosure Class and FCRA
Consent Class:
All individuals residing in the United States (including all territories and
other political subdivisions of the United States) who worked as an Uber
driver or applied to become an Uber driver on or after November 26,
2009 and received inadequate disclosure prior to consumer report
procurement as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i).
6
7
8
2009 and did not provide written consent prior to consumer report
procurement as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii).
9
10
11
30.
Plaintiff also brings this action in his individual capacity and as a class action pursuant
12
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the following FCRA Consumer Report Copy
13
Class and FCRA Summary of Rights Class:

2009 and was subject to an adverse action based in whole or in part on
information contained in the consumer report without receiving a copy of
the consumer report at least five business days prior to the adverse action
as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3)(i).
14
15
16
17
2009 and was subject to an adverse action based in whole or in part on
information contained in the consumer report without receiving a written
description of their rights under the FCRA at least five business days
prior to the adverse action as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3)(ii).
18
19
20
21
22
31.
Numerosity Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the putative
23
class exceeds 500 persons. Information concerning the exact size of the putative class is within the
24
possession of Defendant. The putative class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.
25
32.
Commonality Common questions of fact and law exist as to all class members and
26
predominate over any questions that effect only individual class members, including by example only
27
and without limitation, the following:
28
a.
Whether Defendant had a policy and/or practice of procuring or causing to be

6
558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page8
Page9
of 22
of 55
procured consumer reports for its drivers and applicants;
b.
Whether Defendant had a policy and/or practice of providing clear and
conspicuous notice in a written document that consists solely of the disclosure
that it may procure consumer reports for its drivers and applicants;
c.
Whether Defendant had a policy and/or practice of obtaining written
authorization from its drivers and applicants prior to procuring consumer
reports;
d.
Whether Defendant had a policy and/or practice of providing copies of

consumer reports to its existing drivers and applicants at least five business days
10
prior to taking any adverse action based in whole or in part on the consumer
11
reports;
e.
12
Whether Defendant had a policy and/or practice of providing a written
13
description of FCRA rights to its drivers and applicants at least five business
14
days prior to taking any adverse action based in whole or in part on a consumer
15
report;
f.
16
Whether any written description of FCRA rights provided to its drivers and
applicants is legally sufficient;
17
18
g.
Whether Defendant willfully failed to comply with the FCRA;
19
h.
The proper measure of statutory and punitive damages and the availability and
20
21
appropriateness of declaratory and injunctive relief;

33.
Typicality Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the putative class in that: (1)
22
Plaintiff is a member of the class; (2) Plaintiffs claims arise from the same practice or course of
23
conduct that forms the basis of the class claims; (3) Plaintiffs claims are based upon the same legal
24
and remedial theories as those of the class and involve similar factual circumstances; (4) there is no
25
antagonism between the interests of Plaintiff and absent class members; (5) the injuries that Plaintiff
26
suffered are similar to the injuries that class members have suffered.
27
28
34.
Adequacy Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the class in that: (1) there is
no conflict between Plaintiffs claims and those of other class and subclass members; (2) Plaintiff had
7
558731 2
Filed12/16/14Page9
Page10
of 22of 55
retained counsel who are skilled and experienced in class actions and who will vigorously prosecute
this litigation; (3) Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of class members.
3
4
PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

35.
On September 4, 2014, Plaintiff gave written notice by certified mail of Ubers
violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code as alleged in this complaint to the Labor
and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and Uber. See Letter from Andrew P. Lee to
Secretary Marty Morgenstern (Sept. 4, 2014) attached hereto as Exhibit A.
8
9
10
11
12
13
36.
The LWDA did not provide notice of its intention to investigate Ubers alleged
violations within thirty-three (33) calendar days of the September 4, 2014 postmark date of the notice
sent by Plaintiff. See Cal. Lab. Code 2699.3(a)(2)(A).
37.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Uber uniformly misclassifies
all of its drivers as independent contractors when they are, in fact, employees.
38.
Uber exerts significant control over its drivers. For example, Uber drivers must adhere
14
to rules regarding the cleanliness of their car, their clothing, the timeframe within which they pick up a
15
customer following a request, and must provide transportation for at least one customer per month.
16
39.
As a result, Uber failed to provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with
17
itemized wage statements, minimum and overtime wages, lawful meal or rest periods, and
18
reimbursement for necessary expenses. Uber also failed to keep accurate payroll records showing
19
aggrieved employees hours worked and wages paid. Moreover, Uber retained all gratuities owed to
20
aggrieved employees despite representing to its customers that gratuity is included in the total cost of
21
the car service. Gratuities of 15-20% are customary in the car service industry.
22
40.
Plaintiff further alleges that Uber violated PAGA in the following ways: (1) Uber has
23
failed to provide prompt payment of wages to driver employees upon termination and resignation in
24
violation of Labor Code 201, 202, 203; (2) Uber has failed to provide itemized wage statements to
25
driver employees in violation of Labor Code 226(a), 1174, and 1174.5; (3) Uber has failed to
26
provide meal and rest periods in violation of Wage Order No. 9 and Labor Code 226.7, 512, and
27
558; (4) Uber has willfully misclassified its driver employees in violation of Labor Code 226.8; (5)
28
Uber has retained portions of gratuities intended for driver employees in violation of Labor Code
8
558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page10
Page11
of 22
of 55
351; (6) Uber has failed to keep required payroll records in violation of Wage Order No. 9 and Labor
Code 1174 and 1174.5; (7) Uber has failed to pay overtime wages in violation of Wage Order No. 9
and Labor Code 510, 558, 1194 and 1198; (8) Uber has failed to pay minimum wages in violation
of Wage Order No. 9 and Labor Code 1182.12, 1194, and 1197; (9) Uber has failed to reimburse
driver employees for all reasonably necessary expenditures and losses incurred by driver employees in
direct consequence of the discharge of their duties, including but not limited to fuel, insurance,
maintenance, and toll costs, in violation of Labor Code 2802.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT
(15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i))
8
9
10
11
12
41.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

42.
Uber willfully violated 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) because it failed to provide
13
Plaintiff and the putative class clear and conspicuous notice in a written document that consists
14
solely of the disclosure that it may procure consumer background reports for employment purposes.
15
16
17
18
19
43.
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for himself and all others similarly situated for this
violation pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a)(1)(A).

44.
Plaintiff seeks punitive damages for himself and all others similarly situated for this
violation pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a)(2).

45.
In the alternative to the Plaintiffs allegations that these violations were willful, he
20
alleges that the violations were negligent and seeks issue certification of that issue and appropriate
21
remedy, if any, under 15 U.S.C. 1681o.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii))
22
23
24
25
26
46.

47.
Uber willfully violated 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii) because it failed to obtain
27
written authorization from Plaintiff and the putative class prior to obtaining consumer background
28
reports for employment purposes.

9
558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page11
Page12
of 22
of 55
1
2
3
4
5
48.

49.

50.
alleges that the violations were negligent and seeks appropriate remedy, if any, under 15 U.S.C.
1681o.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3)(i))
8
9
10
11
12
51.

52.
Uber willfully violated 15 U.S.C. 1681b(3)(A)(i) because it failed to provide Plaintiff
13
and the putative class with a summary of their rights under the FCRA prior to taking adverse actions
14
against them, including termination of their employment and suspension and/or deactivation of their
15
user accounts.
16
17
18
19
20
53.

54.

55.
21
22
1681o.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3)(ii))
23
24
25
26
27
28
56.

57.
Uber willfully violated 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii) because it failed to provide
Plaintiff and the putative class a copy of their consumer background reports prior to taking adverse
10
558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page12
Page13
of 22
of 55
actions against them, including termination of their employment and suspension and/or deactivation of
their user accounts.
58.
4
5
6
7

59.

60.
1681o.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA INVESTIGATIVE
CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES ACT
(Cal. Civ. Code 1786.16(2)(B))
10
11
12
13
14
61.
15
62.
Plaintiff alleges this cause of action on an individual basis only.
16
63.
Uber willfully violated California Civil Code 1786.16(2)(B) because it failed to
17
provide Plaintiff clear and conspicuous notice of the following in a written document that consists
18
solely of the disclosure: (1) that it may procure a consumer background report for employment
19
purposes; (2) the permissible purpose of the report; (3) that the disclosure may including information
20
on the consumers character, general reputation, personal characteristics, and mode of living;
21
(4) identification of the name, address, and telephone number of the investigative consumer reporting
22
agency conducting the investigation; (5) notification of the nature and scope of the investigation
23
requested, including a summary of the provisions of California Civil Code 1786.22.
24
25
26
27
64.
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for himself for the violation pursuant to California
Civil Code 1786.16(2)(B).

65.
Plaintiff seeks punitive damages for this violation pursuant to California Civil Code
1786.50(b).
28
11
558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page13
Page14
of 22
of 55
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Cal. Civ. Code 1786.16(a)(2)(C))
1
2
3
4
5
66.
67.
68.
Uber willfully violated California Civil Code 1786.16(a)(2)(C) because it failed to
obtain written authorization from Plaintiff prior to obtaining a consumer background report for
employment purposes.
10
11
12
13
69.
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for this violation pursuant to California Civil Code
1786.16(a)(2)(B).
70.
1786.50(b).
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Cal. Civ. Code 1786.16(b))
14
15
16
17
18
71.
19
72.
20
73.
Uber willfully violated California Civil Code 1786.16(b)(1) because it failed to
21
provide, by means of a box to check on a written form, the opportunity to request and receive a copy of
22
the consumer background report obtained for Plaintiff. Uber also willfully violated California Civil
23
Code 1786.16(b)(1) because if failed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his consumer background
24
report within three days of request.
25
74.
26
1786.16(a)(2)(B).
27
28
75.
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for this violation pursuant to California Civil Code
1786.50(b).
12
558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page14
Page15
of 22
of 55
1
2
3
4
5
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT (PAGA)
(California Labor Code 2698 et seq.)
76.

77.
Plaintiff is an aggrieved employee under PAGA, as he was employed by Uber during
the applicable statutory period and suffered one or more of the Labor Code violations set forth herein.
Accordingly, he seeks to recover on behalf of himself and all other current and former aggrieved
employees of Uber, the civil penalties provided by PAGA, plus reasonable attorneys fees and costs.
78.
Plaintiff seeks to recover the PAGA civil penalties through a representative action
10
permitted by PAGA and the California Supreme Court in Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal. 4th
11
969. Therefore, class certification of the PAGA claims is not required, but Plaintiff may choose to
12
seek certification of the PAGA claims.
13
79.
Plaintiffs seek civil penalties pursuant to PAGA for violations of the following Labor
14
Code provisions:
15
a.
termination and resignation in violation of Labor Code 201, 202, 203;
16
17
b.
failure to provide itemized wage statements to driver employees in violation of

Labor Code 226(a), 1174, and 1174.5;
18
19
failure to provide prompt payment of wages to driver employees upon
c.
failure to provide meal and rest periods in violation of Wage Order No. 9 and
Labor Code 226.7, 512, and 558;
20
21
d.
willfully misclassifying its driver employees in violation of Labor Code 226.8;
22
e.
failure to provide gratuities intended for driver employees in violation of Labor

Code 351;
23
24
f.
Labor Code 1174 and 1174.5;
25
26
g.
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Wage Order No. 9 and Labor Code
510, 558, 1194 and 1198;
27
28
failure to keep required payroll records in violation of Wage Order No. 9 and
h.
failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Wage Order No. 9 and Labor
13
558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page15
Page16
of 22
of 55
Code 1182.12, 1194, and 1197;
i.
failure to reimburse driver employees for all reasonably necessary expenditures
and losses incurred by driver employees in direct consequence of the discharge
of their duties, including but not limited to fuel, insurance, maintenance, and
toll costs, in violation of Labor Code 2802;
j.
7
8
9
failure to provide itemized wage statements to driver employees in violation of

Labor Code 226(a).
80.
With respect to violations of Labor Code 226(a), Labor Code 226.3 imposes a civil
penalty in addition to any other penalty provided by law of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) per
10
aggrieved employee for the first violation, and one thousand dollars ($1,000) per aggrieved employee
11
for each subsequent violation of Labor Code 226(a).
12
81.
With respect to violations of Labor Code 510, 512, Labor Code 558 imposes a civil
13
penalty in addition to any other penalty provided by law of fifty dollars ($50) for initial violations for
14
each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in addition to an
15
amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages, and one hundred dollars ($100) for subsequent
16
violations for each underpaid employee for each pay period for which the employee was underpaid in
17
addition to an amount sufficient to recover underpaid wages. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks civil penalties
18
in the amount of unpaid wages owed to aggrieved employees pursuant to Labor Code 558(a)(3).
19
20
21
82.
With respect to violations of Labor Code 1174, Labor Code 1174.5 imposes a civil
penalty of $500.
83.
Labor Code 2699 et seq. imposes a civil penalty of one hundred dollars ($100) per
22
pay period, per aggrieved employee for initial violations, and two hundred dollars ($200) pay period,
23
per aggrieved employee for subsequent violations for all Labor Code provisions for which a civil
24
penalty is not specifically provided, including Labor Code 226.7, 226.8, 1174, 1182.12, 1194, 1197,
25
1198, and 2802.
26
27
28
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed Class, prays for judgment
against Defendants as follows:
14
558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page16
Page17
of 22
of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
A.
Certification of Plaintiffs FCRA claims as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23;

B.
Appointment of Plaintiff Gillette and Plaintiffs Counsel as class representative and
Class Counsel respectively;

C.
Class notice to all Uber drivers nationwide who worked for Uber during the five years
prior to the filing of the original Complaint through the trial of this action;
D.
Declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order preliminarily and permanently
enjoining Uber from engaging in the practices challenged herein;

E.
An award of actual or statutory damages to Plaintiff and the Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
1681n(a)(1)(A) in an amount subject to proof at trial;

F.
An award of punitive damages to Plaintiff and the Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
1681n(a)(2) and California Civil Code 1786.50(b);

G.
An award of actual or statutory damages to Plaintiff pursuant to California Civil Code
1786.50(a)(2) in an amount subject to proof at trial;
15
H.
An award of civil penalties pursuant to PAGA;
16
I.
An award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a)(3),
17
California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5, California Civil Code 1786.50(a)(2), California Labor
18
Code 2699(g) and/or other applicable law;
19
J.
Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and
20
K.
Such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper.
21
22
23
24
/s/ Andrew P. Lee

Andrew P. Lee
25
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class
26
27
28
15
558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page17
Page18
of 22
of 55
1
2
3
4
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the putative class, hereby demands trial by jury.
5
6
/s/ Andrew P. Lee

Andrew P. Lee
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
558731 2
Filed12/16/14
Page18
Page19
of 22
of 55
EXHIBIT A
Filed12/16/14
Page19
Page20
of 22
of 55
Filed12/16/14
Page20
Page21
of 22
of 55
Filed12/16/14
Page21
Page22
of 22
of 55
Filed12/16/14
Page22
Page23
of 22
of 55
EXHIBIT B
Case3:14-cv-05200-MEJDocument216-1
Filed12/16/14Page1
Page25
of 18
of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TINA WOLFSON, SBN 174806

twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
ROBERT AHDOOT, SBN 172098
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
THEODORE W. MAYA, SBN 223242
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
BRADLEY K. KING, SBN 274399
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
1016 Palm Ave.
West Hollywood, California 90069
Tel: 310-474-9111; Fax: 310-474-8585
Counsel for Plaintiff
ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED
10
11
12
13

San Francisco Division
14
15
16
ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED, individually and on Case No. 14-5200

behalf of all others similarly situated,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
17
Plaintiff,
18
v.
19
20
21
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RASIER, LLC;

HIREASE, LLC; and DOES 1-50,
Defendants
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200
Filed12/16/14Page2
Page26
of 18
of 55
Plaintiff ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED, by and through his counsel, brings this Class Action
1
2
Complaint against UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Uber); RASIER, LLC (Rasier); HIREASE,
LLC (Hirease); and DOES 1-50 (collectively, Defendants), on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and alleges, upon personal knowledge as to his own actions and his counsels
investigations, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
6
1.
This class action challenges Defendants widespread violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681-81x (FCRA), in employment background screening. This case
further challenges Defendants widespread violations of related California and Massachusetts laws,
10
including the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Reporting Act (MCRA) M.G.L. c. 93 50 et seq.,
11
and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), Cal. Civ. Code 1785.1 et
12
seq.
13
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14
15
16
17
2.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 because this action
arises under the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., which is a federal statute.
3.
The Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
18
1332(d)(2), because the proposed class has more than 100 members, the class contains at least one
19
member of diverse citizenship from Defendants, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.
20
4.
The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendant UBER
21
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. has its principal place of business in this District at 800 Market Street, 7th
22
Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102, and Defendant RASIER, LLC has its principal place of business in
23
this District at 1455 Market Street 4th floor, San Francisco, CA, 94103. Defendants are authorized to,
24
and do, conduct substantial business in California.
25
5.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(1), because a
26
substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this District in
27
Defendants Uber and Rasiers offices here.
28
1
Filed12/16/14Page3
Page27
of 18
of 55
6.
Intradistrict Assignment: Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-2(c) a substantial part of the
events or omissions which give rise to the claims occurred in San Francisco County, and it is therefore
appropriate to assign this action to the San Francisco Division.

PARTIES
4
5
6
7
7.
Plaintiff ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED is an individual and a resident of Boston,
Massachusetts.
8.
Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. is a company that conducts business
throughout the United States. Uber is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware
with its principal place of business at 800 Market Street, 7th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.
10
9.
Defendant RASIER, LLC is, on information and belief, a wholly owned subsidiary of
11
Uber. Rasier is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with its
12
principal place of business at 1455 Market Street 4th floor, San Francisco, CA, 94103.
13
10.
Defendant HIREASE, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of
14
the state of Florida with its principal place of business at 695 S. Bennett St, Southern Pines, NC
15
28387.
16
11.
At all times relevant hereto, Uber and Rasier were users of consumer reports and
17
therefore subject to regulation under 15 U.S.C. 1681b, Cal. Civ. Code 1785.20.5, and M.G.L. c 93
18
50. Hirease is a producer of such reports subject to regulation under the same laws.
19
12.
Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued as DOES
20
1-50, and therefore sues these defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this
21
Complaint when and if the true identities of these DOE defendants are discovered. Plaintiff is
22
informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants designated as a DOE is
23
responsible in some manner for the acts and occurrences alleged herein, whether such acts or
24
occurrences were committed intentionally, negligently, recklessly or otherwise, and that each said
25
DOE defendant thereby proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff as herein alleged, and is
26
thus liable for the damages suffered by Plaintiff.
27
28
13.
On information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, each named Defendant and
DOES 1-50 were the employees, agents, or representatives of each other and were acting with the
2
Filed12/16/14Page4
Page28
of 18
of 55
knowledge and consent of each other Defendant and within the purpose and scope of such
employment, agency or representation in doing or failing to do the acts alleged in this Complaint.
Each Defendant has ratified and approved the acts of its agents.
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
4
5
14.
To protect employees, FCRA, CCRAA, and MCRA impose certain strictures on
employers use of consumer background reports as a factor in their decisions to hire, promote,
reassign, or terminate employees. Specifically, the statutes require that an employer first disclose its
intent to use a background report in its hiring decision and must obtain the prospective employees
written authorization to do so, and the employers disclosure must be in a document that consists
10
11
12
13
solely of the disclosure. 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2)(A); see also Cal. Civ. Code 1785.20.5(a).
15.
Hirease contracts with Uber and Rasier to provide background screening services, and
Uber and Rasier make use of such information in hiring decisions.

16.
Misreported information can and does often lead to grave consequences for the job
14
seeker. Thus, Congress enacted the FCRA to insure consumer information is furnished and used in a
15
manner that is fair and equitable to the consumer . . . 15 U.S.C. 1681(b).
16
17.
Accordingly, under the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3)(A), before taking any adverse
17
employment action based in whole or in part on a consumer report, the employer must provide to the
18
job applicant:
19
a.
A copy of the consumer report;
20
b.
A description in writing of the rights of the consumer under the FCRA; and
21
c.
A reasonable opportunity to dispute the information before rendering the

adverse employment decision.
22
23
18.
The MCRA contains similar strictures, but adds certain language protecting and
24
advising consumers of their rights that employers must include in their notices at the varying stages.
25
See MCRA, M.G.L. c. 93 62.
26
19.
The MCRA also requires that companies such as Hirease provide a copy of any
27
consumer report procured by Uber or Raiser to Plaintiff and to other similarly situated applicants or
28
employee at the time it provides any such report to Uber or Rasier. M.G.L. c. 93 60.
3
Filed12/16/14Page5
Page29
of 18
of 55
20.
Similarly, the CCRAA requires that: Prior to requesting a consumer credit report for
employment purposes, the user of the report shall provide written notice to the person involved. The
notice shall inform the person that a report will be used, and shall identify the specific basis under
subdivision (a) of Section 1024.5 of the Labor Code for use of the report. The notice shall also inform
the person of the source of the report, and shall contain a box that the person may check off to receive
a copy of the credit report. If the consumer indicates that he or she wishes to receive a copy of the
report, the user shall request that a copy be provided to the person when the user requests its copy
from the credit reporting agency. The report to the user and to the subject person shall be provided
contemporaneously and at no charge to the subject person. Cal. Civ. Code 1785.20(a)
10
21.
The FCRA also requires that, after any adverse action occurs, the employee or job
11
applicant must receive a second notice, mandated by 15 U.S.C. 1681m(a). (Hereinafter, the pre-
12
adverse action notice and the adverse action notice.)
13
22.
The pre-adverse action notice requirement is unqualified. Employers must comply
14
with the pre-adverse action disclosure requirement even where the information contained in the
15
consumer report (such as a criminal record) would automatically disqualify the individual from
16
employment or lead to an adverse employment action. FTC, 40 years of Experience with the Fair
17
Credit Reporting Act (July 2011) p. 53.
18
23.
The FCRA further requires that before any consumer reporting agency may provide
19
consumer reports on an applicant, the reporting agency must obtain a certification from the employer
20
that the employer has given the required pre-adverse action disclosure and will give the required
21
adverse action notice, if required (i.e., the employer ultimately takes an adverse employment action).
22
15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(1)(A).
23
24.
The Federal Trade Commission has issued guidance that when an employer enters into
24
a bona fide independent contractor relationship with an individual, it must comply with the applicable
25
provisions of the FCRA pertaining to consumer reports obtained for employment practices. FTC,
26
Advisory Opinion to Allison (02-23-98) available at www.http://www.ftc.gov/policy/advisory-
27
opinions/advisory-opinion-allison-02-23-98 (last viewed Oct. 25, 2014).
28
4
Filed12/16/14Page6
Page30
of 18
of 55
1
2
3
25.
Uber and Rasier are employers and are users of consumer reports for the purposes
of the FCRA and therefore are regulated entities under the FCRA.
26.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Uber and Rasier knowingly,
voluntarily, and with the assistance of its counsel, executed a certification providing that it would
comply with various provisions of the FCRA, including by providing the required pre-adverse and
adverse action notices.
27.
Despite its certification, Defendants knowingly violated 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3) and
15 U.S.C. 1681m(a) and similar California and Massachusetts law by failing to provide job
applicants and employees with compliant pre-adverse action notices and adverse action notices in
10
accordance with state and Federal law.

Plaintiffs Experience
11
12
13
28.
After previously working for Uber as an Uber Black driver, Plaintiff applied to Uber
for employment as an Uber X driver using his own car.
14
29.
Plaintiff was told he needed to get a new car for the position.
15
30.
Plaintiff therefore purchased a new car at a cost of approximately $25,000, in late
16
September of 2014.
17
31.
18
own car.
19
32.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
In early October 2014, Plaintiff in fact began working as an Uber X driver using his
Thereafter, on or about October 28, 2014, Plaintiff received an email from
uberreports@hirease.com stating, inter alia:

In reference to your proposal to enter an independent contractor relationship, Rasier
Boston, MA regrets to inform you that they are unable to further consider your proposal
at this time. The decision, in part, is the result of information obtained through the
Consumer Reporting Agency identified below.
33.
At approximately the same time, Plaintiffs access to the Uber app on his phone, which
previously enabled him to work as an Uber driver, was turned off.

34.
While the above-referenced October 28 email also stated indicates that, [i]n
27
accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Plaintiff had previously received a copy of this
28
information and a copy of [his] rights under the Act, Plaintiff did not receive such materials.
5
Filed12/16/14Page7
Page31
of 18
of 55
35.
Plaintiff was deprived of any meaningful opportunity to review the information in the
consumer report and discuss it with Defendants before they made the decision not to hire him,
including because the above-referenced email came at 1:26 a.m., and because Plaintiff never received
any pre-adverse action notice. Defendants did not give meaningful consideration to Plaintiffs
position on any such matter.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
36.
Plaintiff never received a compliant pre-adverse action notice either from Uber, Rasier,
Hirease or any other party contracted by Ubern or Rasier to provide such notice.
37.
On information and belief, Defendants terminated Plaintiff because Hireases consumer
report concerning Plaintiff indicated he had a minor criminal record that, in fact, stems from his seven
children receiving much-needed Medicaid benefits.
38.
Defendants termination of Plaintiff deprived him of his livelihood and left him without
an alternative means of providing for his family, including his seven children.
39.
Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with a copy of any Criminal Offender Record
14
Information (CORI), nor with any CORI or other background check policy. See M.G.L. c. 6
15
171A.
16
40.
17
correcting a criminal record.

Defendants Acted Willfully
18
19
Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with information regarding the process for
41.
Defendants knew or should have known their duties under M.G.L. c. 93 50 et seq. to
20
maintain a CORI policy and to provide a copy of such policy to Plaintiff upon an adverse employment
21
decision.
22
42.
Defendants knew or should have known their duties under the FCRA to provide pre-
23
adverse and adverse action notices compliant with 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3) and 15 U.S.C. 1681m(a).
24
Nevertheless, Defendants intentionally, recklessly, or grossly negligently failed to provide the same to
25
Plaintiff.
26
43.
Defendants knew or should have known their duties to include in the adverse action
27
notice the statutorily-prescribed language under M.G.L. c. 93 62 requiring the Defendants to inform
28
the consumer of his rights in substantially the manner mandated by the statute.
6
Filed12/16/14Page8
Page32
of 18
of 55
44.
Defendants knew or should have known their duties to provide pre-adverse action
notices in compliance with Cal. Civ. Code 1785.20.5(a), but intentionally, recklessly, or grossly
negligently failed to provide the same to Plaintiff.
45.
During the relevant period, Hirease provided and continues to provide consumer reports
to Uber and Rasier under a service agreement. On information and belief, under the service agreement,
Uber and Rasier certified to Hirease that they would comply with the FCRA, including provisions
specifically and directly relating to their duties to provide pre-adverse action and adverse action
notices to its job applicants and employees.
46.
On information and belief, Defendants Uber and Rasier knowingly, voluntarily, and
10
with the assistance of counsel signed the service agreement including the above-mentioned
11
certification.
12
47.
In direct violation of the FCRA, CCRAA, and MCRA, whenever adverse action is
13
taken against an applicant on the basis of information disclosed on a consumer report, Defendants fail
14
to afford the applicants the procedural safeguards mandated by law as described above, including by
15
failing to provide pre-adverse action notices and a reasonable opportunity to dispute information in
16
such reports before taking adverse action.
17
48.
On information and belief, among its service offerings, Hirease provides a package of
18
services which purport to assist the employer in complying with the FCRA by automatically
19
generating and emailing pre-adverse action and adverse action notices to the consumer along with a
20
copy of the consumer report under the employers letterhead whenever there has been an adverse
21
action adjudication by Hirease based on pre-determined criteria supplied by Uber and Rasier.
22
49.
Consumer reporting agencies routinely provide a similar service and many employers
23
purchase it. Uber and Rasier could have easily and cost-effectively complied with the mandates of the
24
FCRA, CCRAA, and MCRA by purchasing such services, but failed to do so.
25
50.
Uber knew or had reason to know that its conduct was inconsistent with published FTC
26
guidance interpreting the FCRA and the plain language of the statute as applicable to independent
27
contractors. Advisory Opinion to Allison (02-23-98) available at <http://www.ftc.gov/policy/advisory-
28
opinions/advisory-opinion-allison-02-23-98> (last viewed November 19, 2014).

7
Filed12/16/14Page9
Page33
of 18
of 55
Defendants Application Process
1
2
3
4
51.
Defendants accept applications for employment as drivers via their website at
<partners.uber.com/drive>.
52.
In the course of its application, Uber presents drivers with the provision By signing
up, I agree to the Privacy Policy and understand that Uber is a request tool, not a transportation
carrier. <https://partners.uber.com/signup/boston/p2p/>.
7
8
9
53.
Ubers application process comprises three steps. Step One requires that the applicant
Complete the FREE online background check: http://t.uber.com/bosxbc.

54.
The document contains language purporting to grant Defendants authorization on an
10
ongoing and continual basis to access and reaccess consumer reports at any time without further
11
authorization of the applicant.
12
55.
Step Two of the application process requires that the applicant upload certain personal
13
information such as a drivers license, car registration, personal insurance documentation, and
14
information about the applicants vehicle.
15
56.
Step Three requires that the applicant complete a 20-minute online quiz.
16
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
17
18
19
57.
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and
23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and Classes initially defined as follows:
20
21
a.
Nationwide FCRA Disclosure Class: All persons in the United States who applied for
22
employment with, or were employed by, Defendants Uber and/or Rasier on or after
23
November 24, 2009, and concerning whom Defendants procured a consumer report
24
and who: (1) received no disclosure regarding the possibility of consumer report
25
procurement; or (2) received a disclosure regarding the possibility of consumer report
26
procurement that was not contained in a document consisting solely of such
27
disclosure.
28
8
Filed12/16/14Page10
Page34
of 18
of 55
b.
Nationwide FCRA Adverse Action Class: All persons in the United States who (1)
were subject to adverse employment action on or after November 24, 2009 based in
whole or in part on any consumer report procured by Defendants Uber and/or Rasier;
and (2) to whom Defendants did not provide the written materials required under 15
U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3) prior to Defendants taking such adverse employment action.
6
7
c.
Nationwide CCRAA Class: All persons in the United States who (1) applied for
November 24, 2012; (2) who were the subject of a consumer report procured by
10
Defendant; and (3) who were not provided with prior notice meeting the requirements
11
of Cal. Civ. Code 1785.20.5(a).
12
13
d.
Massachusetts MCRA Class: All persons in Massachusetts who applied for
14
15
November 24, 2012, and (1) received an adverse action notice failing to inform them
16
of their rights as required under M.G.L. c. 93 62; and/or (2) did not receive a copy
17
of the consumer report(s) on which Defendants relied to take adverse action, as
18
required by M.G.L. c. 93 60
19
20
e.
Massachusetts CORI Class: All persons in Massachusetts against whom Defendants
21
Uber and/or Rasier took adverse employment action on or after _____, 2012, and
22
about whom Defendants procured Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI)
23
and (1) to whom such CORI was not provided; (2) to whom no CORI policy was
24
provided; and/or (3) to whom no information was provided concerning the process for
25
correcting a criminal record.
26
27
28
58.
Excluded from each of the above Classes are Defendants, including any entity in which
Defendants have a controlling interest, is a parent or subsidiary, or which is controlled by Defendants,

9
Filed12/16/14Page11
Page35
of 18
of 55
as well as the officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, predecessors, successors, and assigns
of Defendants. Also excluded are the judges and court personnel in this case and any members of their
immediate families.
4
5
6
59.
Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the Class definitions with greater
specificity or division into subclasses after having had an opportunity to conduct discovery.
60.
Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Each Class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is unfeasible. The precise number of members of each Class cannot be determined without
discovery, but clearly each has numerous members.
61.
Commonality and Predominance. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and (b)(3). There are
10
questions of law and fact common to each Class, which predominate over any questions affecting
11
only individual members of each respective Class. These common questions of law and fact include,
12
without limitation:
13
d.
Whether Defendants conduct described herein violated the FCRA;
14
e.
Whether Defendants procured or caused to be procured consumer reports to

investigate prospective and/or current employees;
15
16
f.
Whether Defendants Uber and Rasier violated the FCRA by failing to provide notice
17
to members of the FCRA Classes with a clear and conspicuous disclosure that
18
Defendants would procure a consumer report for employment purposes,
19
g.
disclosure;
20
21
h.
Whether Defendants procured the written authorization of Plaintiff and other Class
members prior to obtaining consumer reports concerning them;
22
23
Whether Defendants provide such disclosure in a document that consists solely of that
i.
Whether Defendants have taken adverse employment action based upon information
24
contained within an applicants or employees consumer report without providing a
25
copy of such report to the applicant or employee;
26
j.
Whether Defendants violated the FCRA by failing to provide Plaintiff and other
27
putative Class members, prior to taking adverse action, with notice that adverse action
28
would be taken in whole or in part based on a consumer report;

10
Filed12/16/14Page12
Page36
of 18
of 55
k.
Whether Defendants have taken adverse employment action based upon information
contained within an applicants or employees consumer report without providing the
applicant or employee with a written description of their rights under 15 U.S.C.
1681;
l.
Whether Defendants violated the CCRAA;
m.
Whether Defendants violated the MCRA;
n.
Whether Defendants acted in deliberate or reckless disregard of their obligations and
the rights of Plaintiff and other Class members under the FCRA, the CCRAA, and/or
the MCRA; and
10
o.
members are entitled.
11
12
The nature of the relief, including equitable relief, to which Plaintiff and other Class
62.
Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the
13
Classes he seeks to represent. Plaintiff and all Class members were exposed to uniform practices and
14
sustained injuries arising out of and caused by Defendants unlawful conduct.
15
63.
Adequacy of Representation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiff will fairly and
16
adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the Classes. Further, Plaintiffs
17
counsel is competent and experienced in litigating class actions.
18
64.
Superiority of Class Action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). A class action is superior to
19
other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this action since joinder of all Class
20
members is impracticable and will waste judicial resources. Moreover, the adjudication of this
21
controversy through a class action will avoid the possibility of inconsistent and potentially conflicting
22
outcomes. Finally, there will be no difficulty in managing this action as a class action.
23
65.
Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Defendants actions have
24
been uniform as to all members of each Class. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that
25
apply generally to each Class, so that final injunctive relief or declaratory relief is appropriate with
26
respect to each Class as a whole.
27
28
11
Filed12/16/14Page13
Page37
of 18
of 55
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)
(Against Uber and Rasier on behalf of Plaintiff and the FCRA Classes)
66.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs.
67.
Defendants used a consumer report, as defined by the FCRA, to take adverse
6
7
employment action against Plaintiff and other members of the putative FCRA Classes.
68.
Defendants violated the FCRA by failing to acquire from Plaintiff and Class members
proper authorization prior to conducting the background check and/or did not utilize an authorization
with the requisite statutory requirements.
10
69.
Defendants violated the FCRA by failing to provide notice to Plaintiff and other Class
11
members with a conspicuous disclosure that Defendants would procure a consumer report for
12
employment purposes, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, as required by 15 U.S.C.
13
1681b(b)(2)(A).
14
70.
Defendants further violated the FCRA by failing to provide Plaintiff and other
15
putative Class members, prior to taking adverse action, with notice that adverse action would be
16
taken in whole or in part based on a consumer report.
17
71.
Defendants violated the FCRA by taking adverse employment action based upon
18
information contained within applicants and/or employees consumer reports without providing
19
copies of such report to the applicants or employees.
20
72.
The foregoing violations were willful. Defendants acted in deliberate or reckless
21
disregard of their obligations and the rights of Plaintiff and other Class members under 15 U.S.C.
22
1681b(b)(3)(A). The willfulness of Defendants conduct is reflected by, among other things, the
23
following facts:
24
a.
Based on the plain language of the statute, legal advice provided by its own general
25
counsel, or outside employment counsel, and published FTC guidance, Defendants
26
knew or should have known that its failure to provide compliant pre-adverse actions
27
notice was unlawful;
28
12
Filed12/16/14Page14
Page38
of 18
of 55
b.
Based on published FTC guidance, Defendants knew or should have known that its
choice to consider itself exempt from the provisions of the FCRA because they
believe themselves to utilize independent contractors and not employees was
unlawful;
c.
Defendants could have complied with the statutory duty to provide a pre-adverse
action notice either by sending the notice directly to the affected consumer job
applicant, or by contracting with Hirease to do so on its behalf;
d.
so, Defendants failed to adopt any measure or mechanism which would have provided
the required notice to Plaintiff and the Class.
10
11
Despite the clear notice of the law, full ability to comply, and ample opportunity to do
73.
Plaintiff and other members of the FCRA Classes are entitled to actual damages or
12
statutory damages of not less than $100.00 and not more than $1,000.00 for each and every one of
13
these violations, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a)(1)(A).
14
15
74.
Plaintiff and other members of the FCRA Classes are entitled to recover their costs
and attorneys fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a)(3).
16
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
17
18
Violation of the CCRAA, Cal. Civ. Code 1785.1 et seq.
19
(Against Uber and Rasier by Plaintiff and the CCRAA Class)
20
75.
21
76.
Defendants used a consumer credit report as defined in Cal. Civ. Code 1785.3 to
22
23
take adverse employment action against Plaintiff and other members of the CCRAA Class.
77.
Defendants violated the CCRAA by failing to provide written notice to Plaintiff and
24
other members of the CCRAA Class, prior to requesting such consumer credit reports, that complied
25
with Cal. Civ. Code 1785.20.5 by informing Plaintiff and other members of the CCRAA Class of the
26
specific basis under subdivision (a) of Section 1024.5 of the Labor Code for use of the reports,
27
informing them of the source of the reports, and including a box that such persons could check off to
28
receive copies of such reports.

13
Filed12/16/14Page15
Page39
of 18
of 55
1
2
78.
disregard of their obligations and the rights of Plaintiff and other Class members under the CCRAA.
79.
a.
Plaintiff and other members of the CCRAA Class are entitled to:
Any actual damages sustained by Plaintiff and other Class members as a result of the
failure;
5
6
b.
Punitive damages of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five
thousand dollars ($5,000) for each violation as the Court deems proper;
7
8
c.
Injunctive relief requiring Defendants to comply with the FCRA and CCRAA; and
d.
Costs and reasonable attorneys fees.
10
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
11
12
Violation of the MCRA M.G.L c. 93 50 et seq.
13
(Against all Defendants by Plaintiff and the Massachusetts MCRA Class)
14
80.
15
81.
Defendants used a consumer report as defined by the MCRA to take adverse
16
17
employment action against Plaintiff and other members of the Putative Class.
82.
Defendants violated the MCRA by failing to advise Plaintiff and the Members of the
18
MCRA Class of the statutorily required rights in M.G.L. c. 93 62 in their adverse action notice,
19
including the right to assistance interpreting consumer reports.
20
21
22
83.
Hirease failed to deliver a copy of the Report to Plaintiff and other members of the
MCRA Class as required by M.G.L. c. 93 60.

84.
23
disregard of their obligations and the rights of Plaintiff and other Class members under M.G.L. c. 93
24
50 et seq.
25
85.
26
a.
Any actual damages sustained by Plaintiff and other Class members as a result of the
failure;
27
28
Plaintiff and the MCRA Class Members are entitled to:
b.
Such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow;

14
Filed12/16/14Page16
Page40
of 18
of 55
c.
court; and
2
3
The costs of this action together with reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the
d.
Treble damages and attorney fees pursuant to M.G.L. c.93 68, which incorporates
M.G.L. c.93A 2 and 11.
4
5
6
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Massachusetts CORI Requirements, M.G.L. c. 6 171A et seq.
(Against Uber and Rasier by Plaintiff and the Massachusetts CORI Class)
86.
10
87.
On information and belief, Defendants Uber and Raiser annually conduct 5 or more
11
criminal background investigations, and therefore are required to maintain a written criminal
12
offender record information policy providing that . . . [they] will: (i) notify the applicant of the
13
potential adverse decision based on the criminal offender record information; (ii) provide a copy of
14
the criminal offender record information and the policy to the applicant; and (iii) provide information
15
concerning the process for correcting a criminal record. M.G.L. c.6 171A.
16
17
18
19
20
88.
Defendants Uber and Rasier violated Massachusetts law by failing to maintain and to
provide a CORI policy.

89.
Defendants Uber and Rasier violated Massachusetts law by failing to provide to
applicants information concerning the process for correcting a criminal record.

90.
Defendants Uber and Rasier violated Massachusetts law by failing to provide Plaintiff
21
and other members of the CORI Class with CORI in Defendants possession on which they relied to
22
take adverse employment actions against Plaintiff and other members of the CORI Class.
23
91.
24
a.
b.
exemplary damages of not less than one hundred and not more than one thousand
dollars for each violation; and
27
28
Any actual damages sustained by Plaintiff and other Class members as a result of
Defendants failures;
25
26
Plaintiff and the CORI Class Members are entitled to:
c.
costs and reasonable attorneys fees.

15
Filed12/16/14Page17
Page41
of 18
of 55
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Class members, prays for relief as follows:
A.
For an order that this action may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that each of the above-described classes be certified, that
Plaintiff be appointed Class representative, and that Plaintiffs counsel be appointed as counsel for the
Class;
B.
6
7
determined at trial;
C.
8
9
For an order requiring Defendants to pay actual damages in an amount to be
For an award of statutory damages on the First Cause of Action in an amount not
less than $100 and not more than $1,000 per violation;
D.
10
For an award of punitive damages of not less than $100 nor more than $5,000 per
11
violation on the Second Cause of Action, and in an amount to be determined at trial on the Third
12
Cause of Action;
13
E.
14
For an award of exemplary damages in an amount of not less than $100 and not
more than $1,000 per violation on the Fourth Cause of Action;

F.
15
For an order prohibiting Defendant from engaging in the misconduct described
16
herein and requiring Defendants to provide proper disclosures and information as required under 15
17
U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2) and 1681b(b)(3) and under the CCRAA and MCRA;
18
G.
For an award of attorneys fees;
19
H.
For an award of the costs of suit incurred herein, including expert witness fees;
20
I.
For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate; and
21
J.
For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
22
///
23
24
///
25
26
///
27
28
///
16
Filed12/16/14Page18
Page42
of 18
of 55
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all claims so triable.
3
4
5
Dated: November 24, 2014
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Tina Wolfson
Robert Ahdoot
Theodore W. Maya
Bradley K. King
16 Palm Ave.,
West Hollywood, California 90069
Tel: 310-474-9111
Facsimile: 310-474-8585
Counsel for Plaintiff
ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
Document1-1 Filed11/24/14
Filed12/16/14 Page1
Page43ofof2 55
CIVIL COVER SHEET
JS 44 (Rev 12/12) cand rev (1/15/13)
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RASIER, LLC; HIREASE, LLC; and

DOES 1-50
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
Suffolk County, MA
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

NOTE:
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED
Attorneys (If Known)
Tina Wolfson, AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC

1016 Palm Avenue, West Hollywood, CA 90069
T: 310-474-9111; F: 310-474-8585; E: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only)

1
U S Government
Plaintiff
Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
U S Government
Defendant
Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)

CONTRACT
DEF
1
Citizen of Another State
Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
Foreign Nation
TORTS
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
(For Diversity Cases Only)

PTF
Citizen of This State
1
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer w/Disabilities Other
448 Education
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
4
of Business In This State
BANKRUPTCY
625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881
690 Other
422 Appeal 28 USC 158

423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS

870 Taxes (U S Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609
OTHER STATUTES
375 False Claims Act

400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

1 Original
Proceeding
2 Removed from
State Court
Remanded from
Appellate Court
4 Reinstated or
Reopened
5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)
6 Multidistrict
Litigation
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
15 U.S.C. 1681b
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Violations of Federal Consumer Reporting Agencies Act
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:
DEMAND $
5,000,000.00
DOCKET NUMBER
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
/s/ Tina Wolfson
11/24/2014
,; ',9,6,21$/ $66,*10(17 &LYLO /5
(Place an X in One Box Only)
Print
SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND
Save As...
SAN JOSE
EUREKA
Reset
JS 44 Reverse (Rev 12/12)
Document1-1 Filed11/24/14
Filed12/16/14 Page2
Page44ofof2 55
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a)
(b)
(c)
Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II.
Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III.
Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV.
Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V.
Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
VI.
Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII.
Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
EXHIBIT C
Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document216-1
Filed12/16/14 Page1
Page46ofof1055
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN, pro hac vice

(sliss@llrlaw.com)
BENJMAIN J. WEBER, pro hac vice
(bweber@llrlaw.com)
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone:
(617) 994-5800
Facsimile:
(617) 994-5801
MATTHEW CARLSON (SBN 273242)
(mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com)
Carlson Legal Services
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
Telephone:
(415) 817-1470
11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
DOUGLAS OCONNOR, THOMAS

Case No. CV 13-3826-EMC
COLOPY, MATTHEW MANAHAN, and
ELIE GURFINKEL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs,
19
v.
20
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC,
21
Defendant.
CASE FILED: AUGUST 16, 2013

BEFORE THE HON. EDWARD M. CHEN
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Filed12/16/14 Page2
Page47ofof1055
I.
INTRODUCTION1
1.
This case is brought on behalf of individuals who have worked as Uber drivers in
California. Uber is a car service that provides drivers who can be hailed and dispatched through
4
5
a mobile phone application. As set forth below, Uber has advertised to customers that gratuity is
included in the cost of its car service. However, Uber drivers do not receive the total proceeds of
any such gratuity. Instead, they receive only a portion of such gratuity, if any is charged to the
customer. Furthermore, based on Ubers communication to customers that gratuity is included in
the price of its service and so they do not need to tip, few if any customers leave tips for the
10
11
drivers. Thus, drivers do not receive the tips that are customary in the car service industry and
12
that they would otherwise receive were it not for Ubers communication to customers that they
13
do not need to tip.
14
2.
Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of other similarly
15
situated Uber drivers, for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
16
17
Code 17200 et seq. (UCL), based upon Ubers violation of the California Gratuities Law,
18
California Labor Code Section 351, and failure to remit to drivers the entire gratuity paid by
19
customers or that customers would otherwise intend to leave for them.
20
21
22
27
Plaintiffs have removed from the complaint portions of claims that the Court dismissed in
its Order of December 5, 2013 (Doc. 58), and its Order of September 4, 2014 (Doc. 136).
However, in so doing, Plaintiffs do not waive their rights to the claims that have been dismissed,
for appellate purposes, and Plaintiffs do not waive their rights to reinstitute claims against Travis
Kalanick and Ryan Graves, individually, if appropriate. Plaintiffs have also removed from the
complaint named plaintiffs from outside California, and allegations regarding a national class
brought under the statutory claims, based on the Courts Order of September 4, 2014 (Doc. 136).
In doing so, Plaintiffs do not waive their rights to assert these claims on behalf of a national class
should the Courts order be altered on reconsideration or appeal.
28
2
23
24
25
26
Filed12/16/14 Page3
Page48ofof1055
1
2
3.
In addition, Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of Uber drivers who have been
misclassified as independent contractors and thereby required to pay business expenses (such as
for their vehicles, gas, and maintenance) in violation of California Labor Code Section 2802.
4
II. PARTIES
4.
6
7
Plaintiff Douglas OConnor is an adult resident of South San Francisco,
California, where he has worked as an Uber driver.
5.
Plaintiff Thomas Colopy is an adult resident of San Francisco, California, where
he works as an Uber driver.

10
6.
11
12
he works as an Uber driver.
13
14
Plaintiff Matthew Manahan is an adult resident of Los Angeles, California, where
8.
Plaintiff Elie Gurfinkel is an adult resident of San Diego, California, where he
works as an Uber driver.
15
9.
Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
16
17
18
situated, namely all other individuals who have worked as Uber Black, Uber SUV, or UberX
drivers in California.
19
20
10.
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) is a corporation headquartered in
San Francisco, California.
21
III.
JURISDICTION
22
23
11.
This Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted here pursuant to the
24
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2), since Defendant is a California citizen and,
25
upon the original filing of this complaint, members of the putative plaintiff class resided in states
26
27
28
3
Filed12/16/14 Page4
Page49ofof1055
around the country; there are more than 100 putative class members; and the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million.
IV.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
12.
5
6
dispatch system.
7
8
Uber provides car service in cities throughout the country via an on demand
13.
Uber offers customers the ability to hail a car service driver on a mobile phone
application.
14.
Ubers website has advertised that Uber is your on-demand private driver.
15.
Uber has stated to customers, on its website, and in marketing materials, that a
10
11
12
gratuity is included in the total cost of the car service and that there is no need to tip the driver.
13
14
16.
However, Uber drivers have not received the total proceeds of this gratuity.
17.
Instead, Uber has retained a portion of the gratuity for itself.
18.
For Uber Black, Uber SUV, and UberX drivers, Uber has not specified the
15
16
17
amount of the gratuity.

19.
18
19
20
However, it is customary in the car service industry for customers to leave
approximately a 20% gratuity for drivers. Thus, where the amount of the gratuity is not
specified, reasonable customers would assume that the gratuity is in the range of 20% of the total
21
fare.
22
23
20.
As a result of Ubers conduct and actions in informing customers that gratuity is
24
included in the cost of its service, and that there is no need to tip the drivers, but then not
25
remitting the total proceeds of the gratuity to the drivers, Uber drivers have been deprived of
26
27
28
4
Filed12/16/14 Page5
Page50ofof1055
payments to which they are entitled, and to which reasonable customers would have expected
them to receive.
21.
Although classified as independent contractors, Uber drivers are employees.
4
5
They are required to follow a litany of detailed requirements imposed on them by Uber and they
are graded, and are subject to termination, based on their failure to adhere to these requirements
(such as rules regarding their conduct with customers, the cleanliness of their vehicles, their
timeliness in picking up customers and taking them to their destination, what they are allowed to
say to customers, etc.)

10
22.
11
In addition, Uber is in the business of providing car service to customers, and that
12
is the service that Uber drivers provide. The drivers services are fully integrated into Ubers
13
business, and without the drivers, Ubers business would not exist.
14
23.
However, based on their misclassification as independent contractors, Uber
15
drivers are required to bear many of the expenses of their employment, including expenses for
16
17
their vehicles, gas, and other expenses. California law requires employers to reimburse
18
employees for such expenses, which are for the benefit of the employer and are necessary for the
19
employees to perform their jobs.
20
V.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
21
24.
Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
22
23
24
25
26
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of Uber Black, Uber SUV, and UberX drivers who have
worked for Uber in California.
25.
Plaintiffs and other class members have uniformly been deprived of gratuities that
were not remitted to them.
27
28
5
Filed12/16/14 Page6
Page51ofof1055
1
2
26.
The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all class members is
impracticable.
27.
Common questions of law and fact regarding Ubers conduct with respect to
4
5
gratuities exist as to all members of the class and predominate over any questions affecting
solely any individual members of the class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the
class are:
a. Whether Defendant has charged customers a gratuity for class members services;
b. Whether Defendant has failed to distribute the total proceeds of those gratuities to
10
the class members;
11
c. Whether Defendant has informed customers that gratuity is included in the price
12
13
of the Uber service and so there is no need to tip their drivers;
14
d. Whether class members have suffered damages based upon Ubers representation
15
to customers that tips are included but not distributing them to the drivers.
16
17
28.
Common questions of law and fact also exist as to members of the class who have
18
been misclassified as independent contractors. Among the questions of law and fact that are
19
common to these drivers are:
20
a. Whether class members have been required to follow uniform procedures and
21
policies regarding their work for Uber;

22
23
b. Whether the work performed by class membersproviding car service to
24
customersis within Ubers usual course of business, and whether such service is
25
fully integrated into Ubers business;
26
27
28
6
Filed12/16/14 Page7
Page52ofof1055
c. Whether these class members have been required to bear the expenses of their
employment, such as expenses for their vehicles, gas, and other expenses.
29.
The named plaintiffs are members of the class, who suffered damages as a result
4
5
6
7
8
of Defendants conduct and actions alleged herein.

30.
The named plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the class, and the named
plaintiffs have the same interests as the other members of the class.
31.
The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests
of the class. The named plaintiffs have retained able counsel experienced in class action
10
11
12
13
14
litigation. The interests of the named plaintiffs are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, the
interests of the other class members.
32.
The questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual issues relating
15
to liability and damages.

16
17
33.
A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
18
adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all class members is impractical. Moreover,
19
since the damages suffered by individual members of the class may be relatively small, the
20
expense and burden of individual litigation makes it practically impossible for the members of
21
the class individually to redress the wrongs done to them. The class is readily definable and
22
23
24
prosecution of this action as a class action will eliminate the possibility of repetitive litigation.
There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.
25
26
27
28
7
Filed12/16/14 Page8
Page53ofof1055
1
2
COUNT I
Unfair Competition in Violation of California Business and Professions Code

17200 et seq.
34.
Defendants conduct, as set forth above, violates the California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et seq. (UCL). Defendants conduct
constitutes unlawful or fraudulent business acts or practices, in that Defendant has violated
7
8
9
California Labor Code Sections 351 and 2802. As a result of Defendants unlawful and
fraudulent conduct, Plaintiffs and class members suffered injury in fact and lost money and
10
property, including, but not limited to loss of gratuities to which they were entitled and
11
customers expected them to receive, and business expenses that drivers were required to pay.
12
Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code 17203, Plaintiffs and class members
13
14
seek declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendants unlawful and fraudulent conduct and to
15
recover restitution. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5, Plaintiffs and class
16
members are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and expenses incurred in
17
bringing this action.
18
19
COUNT II
20
21
22
23
Independent Contractor Misclassification and Expense Reimbursement Violation

35.
Defendants conduct, as set forth above, in misclassifying Uber drivers as
independent contractors, and failing to reimburse them for expenses they paid that
24
should have been borne by their employer, constitutes a violation of California Labor Code
25
26
Section 2802.
27
28
8
Filed12/16/14 Page9
Page54ofof1055
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs request a trial by jury on all their claims.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court certify this case as a class action,
4
5
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; award restitution for all charged gratuities which were not
remitted to the drivers; award reimbursement that the drivers who were misclassified as
independent contractors were required to bear; award pre- and post-judgment interest; award
reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and expenses; and award any other relief to which the plaintiffs
may be entitled.
10
11
DOUGLAS OCONNOR, THOMAS COLOPY,

MATTHEW MANAHAN, and
ELIE GURFINKEL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
12
13
14
By their attorneys,
15
/s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan_______________

Shannon Liss-Riordan, pro hac vice
Ben Weber, pro hac vice
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
(617) 994-5800
Email: sliss@llrlaw.com, bweber@llrlaw.com
16
17
18
19
20
21
Matthew Carlson, SBN 273242

CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
(415) 817-1470
Email: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com
22
23
24
25
Dated:
November 12, 2014
26
27
28
9
Filed12/16/14 Page10
Page55ofof10
55
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of this motion was served by electronic filing on November
12, 2014, on all counsel of record.

4
5
/s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan_______________

Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

lho@gbdhlegal.com
alee@gbdhlegal.com
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: (510) 763-9800
Fax: (510) 835-1417
osellstrom@lccr.com
Meredith Desautels (SBN 259725)
mdesautels@lccr.com
Tel: (415) 543-9444
Fax: (415) 543-0296
11
12
Attorneys for Plaintiff Gillette and the putative class in the matter
of Gillette v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05241-LB
13
14
15
16
19
DOUGLAS OCONNOR, THOMAS COLOPY, Case No.: 3:13-cv-03826-EMC

MATTHEW MANAHAN, and ELIE
GURFINKEL, individually and on behalf of all CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE RE:
others similarly situated,
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
Plaintiffs,
20
vs.
21
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
17
18
22
Defendant.
23
24
25
26
27
28
558810.1
1
2
3
4
5
ATTACHMENT - SERVICE LIST

Bradley Keith King
Robert Ahdoot
Theodore Walter Maya
Tina Wolfson
Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C.
1016 Palm Avenue
West Hollywood, CA 90069
6
7
8
Counsel for Plaintiff Abdul Kadir Mohamed in

the case Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-05200-MEJ
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
558810.1

O'Connor Et Al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Et Al 12.16.14 Plaintiffs' Motion To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

O'Connor Et Al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Et Al 12.16.14 Plaintiffs' Motion To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document216 Filed12/16/14 Page1 of 5

Laura L. Ho (SBN 173179)

DOUGLAS OCONNOR, THOMAS COLOPY, Case No.: 3:13-cv-03826-EMC

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document216 Filed12/16/14 Page2 of 5

Gillette v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document216 Filed12/16/14 Page3 of 5

Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.

(CORI) policy. Id. 86-91.

OConnor v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document216 Filed12/16/14 Page4 of 5

Labor Code section 2802. Id. 34-35.

The Actions Concern the Same Parties.

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document216 Filed12/16/14 Page5 of 5

by different judges may also lead to conflicting results.

Dated: December 16, 2014

/s/ Andrew P. Lee

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

Case3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document216-1 Filed12/16/14 Page1 of 55

Laura L. Ho (SBN 173179)

Oren Sellstrom (SBN 161074)

RONALD GILLETTE, individually, and on

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a California

Case No.: 3:14-cv-05241-LB

AM. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05241-LB

Plaintiff RONALD GILLETTE (Plaintiff), on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated

the FCRA. These actions amount to willful violations of the FCRA.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.

Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in San

Civil Code 1786.2(a).

PLAINTIFF GILLETTES FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff that it would obtain a consumer background report.

Plaintiff maintained a rating of between 4.7 and 4.8 out of 5 stars.

Uber classified Plaintiff as an independent contractor rather than as an employee. As a

Subsequently, Plaintiff through Abbey requested further information regarding

totals of any major corporation in the world.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL FCRA CLASS MEMBERS

background reports used for employment purposes:

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person may not procure a

(ii) the consumer has authorized in writing (which authorization may be

reports for employment purposes.

class prior to obtaining consumer background reports for employment purposes.

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in using a consumer report for

(i) a copy of the report; and

The purpose of 15 U.S.C. 1681b(3)(A) is to inform consumers of their rights under

before any adverse actions are taken.

employment and suspension and/or deactivation of their user accounts.

employment and suspension and/or deactivation of their user accounts.

Defendants acted willfully in violating the requirements of the FCRA. Defendants

Federal Trade Commission.

obligations under the FCRA.

for statutory damages of $100.00 to $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a)(1)(A), punitive

enjoining further violations of the FCRA.

Class and FCRA Summary of Rights Class:

and without limitation, the following:

Whether Defendant had a policy and/or practice of procuring or causing to be

procured consumer reports for its drivers and applicants;

Whether Defendant had a policy and/or practice of providing clear and