Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AT KANSAS CITY
JANE DOE,
YAHKHAHNAHN AMMI,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Jane Doe (Plaintiff), by and through her counsel Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
and in support of her First Amended Petition, hereby alleges as follows against Defendants Uber
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
graduate program at a university in Kansas City, Missouri, was raped by her Uber driver
Yahkhahnahn Ammi.
with intent to kill based on his participation in the beating of a 15-year-old boy, which led to the
victims reduction to a permanent vegetative state. Ammi was sentenced to 16 years in prison in
3. After serving his prison term, Defendant Uber Technologies Inc. authorized
assaulted a woman in St. Louis, Missouri (referred to herein as the St. Louis victim).
5. The St. Louis victim submitted a Serious Incident Report through Ubers
website in order to warn the company that Ammi posed a serious risk to Uber riders. The St.
Louis victims report provided Uber with Ammis full name and date of birth, birth name, a
description and date of the assault, and the fact Ammi had a warrant out for this arrest. The
report also included a stark warning to Uber: it is not safe to allow your riders to ride with
him!!
6. The following day, Uber held a telephone conference with the St. Louis victim to
discuss the incident. Uber then confirmed with the St. Louis victim by email that it had launched
an internal investigation and someone would be in contact as soon as possible regarding this
matter. Uber never conducted an investigation, never followed up with the St. Louis victim, and
7. Several weeks later, after Uber failed to take any steps to protect the public from
Ammi, Plaintiff summoned an Uber through the Uber App, which paired Plaintiff with Ammi.
Once connected through the Uber App, Ammi provided several rides to Plaintiff, which resulted
PARTIES
place of business at 1455 Market Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California 94103. Uber
operates throughout the United States and internationally in approximately 581 cities including
2
10. Defendant Yahkhahnahn Ammi is a resident and citizen of Jackson County,
11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Uber pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat.
506.500 because Uber regularly conducts business in Missouri, purposefully avails itself of the
privilege of conducting activities within Missouri, and the wrongful acts giving rise to Plaintiffs
12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Ammi because he is a resident and
13. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 508.010.4 because
Plaintiff was injured in Jackson County, Missouri and the facts giving rise to the cause of action
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
California. Uber is the creator and provider of a downloadable software application known as the
Uber application that allows customers to request a ride comparable to a taxi with the push of a
15. The purpose of the Uber App is to connect Uber approved drivers with members
of the public in need of transportation. Once a consumer requests a ride through the Uber App,
an approved Uber driver in the vicinity accepts the request and the App displays an estimated
time of arrival for the Uber driver to arrive at the consumers pickup location. The Uber App
notifies the consumer when the driver is about to arrive and it provides general information about
the driver, including the drivers first name, vehicle type, license plate number, and driver rating.
3
The rider then enters the preferred destination, which the rider can do before or during the ride.
Upon arriving at a destination, the fare is automatically calculated and charged to the payment
16. Uber offers a variety of transportation options that are differentiated by the size
and type of the vehicle or number of riders. This includes a standard option called UberX, as
well as higher cost options such as UberXL, UberSelect, and UberBlack. Uber charges different
fares depending on the type of option a consumer orders. For all of these options, Uber
represents that its drivers are thoroughly screened through a rigorous process weve developed
17. Ubers business model requires an enormous pool of drivers in order to provide
rides to customers quickly and efficiently. To accomplish this, Uber solicits and retains hundreds
of thousands of drivers. Uber markets to potential drivers: Uber makes it easy to earn money
driving your car on your schedule. With so many riders in every city, theres opportunity at every
turn.
18. Ubers business model also depends on willing riders. Since its inception in 2010,
Uber has aggressively marketed itself as a more efficient and safer alternative to public
transportation and traditional taxis. Uber has also targeted specific groups of vulnerable riders
who place a premium on safety, including women and intoxicated late-night riders.
19. These efforts have proved wildly successful. Uber has grown rapidly into a multi-
billion dollar enterprise with operations worldwide. In October 2016, Ubers CEO indicated that
the company provides its services to over 40 million active riders monthly, and Uber riders spend
$50 on average on the service every month. Uber has recently been valued at approximately $70
billion.
4
Ubers Business Model Requires a Large Pool of Drivers
20. Ubers business model depends on having a large pool of drivers so that
customers can secure rides in a matter of minutes. As such, the application process to become an
Uber driver is simple, fast, and designed to allow Uber to hire as many drivers as possible while
21. There are no specialized skills needed to drive for Uber. By Ubers own
admission, anybody can drive for Uber if they meet the minimum requirements of being over
21 years of age with a valid U.S. driver license, at least one year of driving experience in the
U.S., and an eligible four-door vehicle. Uber does not charge a fee for driver applications.
22. In order to become a driver for Uber, individuals apply through Ubers website.
The application process is entirely online and involves filling out a few short forms and
uploading photos of a drivers license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. Uber does not
verify that the documents submitted are accurate or actually pertain to the applicant.
23. Uber does not verify vehicle ownership. Rather, it only requires that the vehicle is
24. Uber does not require driver applicants to attend training classes on driving skills
or using mobile applications while driving. Uber drivers are not required to pass road vehicle
become drivers by advertising and marketing the earning potential of its drivers. Uber has
publicized high annual and hourly earnings for its drivers on Craigslist, its company website, and
5
26. Ubers efforts recruiting drivers has been a success. In 2015, the number of active
Uber drivers grew from 160,000 to 400,000. By mid-2016, that figure had grown to over 650,000
drivers.
27. Uber offers to carry and transport members of the general public, and holds itself
out to the public as an on-demand form of transportation available to anyone who wants to use it.
28. Uber provides a similar service to taxis and competes with taxi services in
29. As of June of 2016, Uber had provided two billion rides to members of the public.
Because of Ubers rapid expansion, one billion of those rides had occurred in the first six months
of 2016, meaning the company was providing an average of 5.5 million rides a day, or 230,000
30. Uber is available to the general public through the Uber App available for anyone
to download with a smartphone. Neither drivers nor riders are charged a fee to download the
Uber App. Ubers primary source of revenue is from charging its customers for transportation.
31. By its own admission, Uber wants to be available for everyone. Uber policy
prohibits drivers from refusing to provide services based on race, religion, national origin,
disability, sexual orientation, sex, marital status, gender identity, age or any other characteristic
protected under relevant federal, state or local law. Uber has held itself out as Everyones
Private Driver.
32. Uber policy prohibits drivers from refusing to provide services based on the
riders destination. By its own admission, Uber provides safe, affordable rides around the
clockregardless of where you live, where youre going, or what you look like.
6
33. Uber has further advertised: No discrimination. No ride is too long or too short.
All requests are blindly matched based on the closest available driver-partner, meaning that there
is no discrimination based on race, gender, or pick-up or drop-off location. Day or night, people
34. Uber charges customers standardized fees for car rides, setting its fare prices
35. In 2015, Ubers CEO stated that in San Francisco alone, its most mature market,
Ubers revenue was three times larger than that of the local taxi market, in excess of $500
million per year. The revenue generated through Ubers activities substantially contributes to the
36. Uber requires drivers to accept all ride requests when logged into its App or else
face potential discipline. Uber expects its drivers to comply with all relevant state, federal and
local laws governing the transportation of riders with disabilities, including transporting service
animals. Uber specially instructs its drivers on accessibility for riders with disabilities.
37. The general public recognizes Uber as a common carrier. The phrase Ubering
has become a term-of-art meaning summoning an Uber vehicle to get from point A to B.1
1
Multiple courts and state regulatory agencies have recognized Ubers status as a common
carrier, even though Uber has attempted to disclaim itself as such. In Maryland, the Maryland
Public Service Commission ruled that Uber is a common carrier and subject to regulation like
other for-hire car services. See In the Matter of an Investigation to Consider the Nature & Extent
of Regulation over the Operations of Uber Techs., Inc. & Other Similar Companies, 86528, 2014
WL 4163861, at *1 (Aug. 6, 2014) (When viewed in their totality, the undisputed facts and
circumstances in this case make it clear that Uber is engaged in the public transportation of
persons for hire. Thus, Uber is a common carrier and a public service company over whom the
Commission has jurisdiction). Likewise, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California held that Uber is a common carrier in Ubers home jurisdiction of California. See Doe
v. Uber Techs., Inc., 184 F. Supp. 3d 774, 786 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (Plaintiffs allegations support
the claim that Uber offers to the public to carry persons, thereby bringing it within Californias
definition of common carrier for tort purposes.).
7
Uber Exercises Significant Control Over its Drivers
38. Uber drivers are required to follow numerous detailed requirements imposed on
them by Uber. Uber drivers are graded, and are subject to termination, based on their failure to
adhere to these requirements. These include rules regarding their conduct with customers, the
cleanliness of their vehicles, their timeliness in picking up customers and taking them to their
39. Ubers fare prices for rides are set exclusively by Uber. Drivers have no input on
who they are picking up or the fares charged to customers. Drivers are not permitted to choose
customers or negotiate with customers on fares charged. Uber retains the right and the ability to
adjust charges to riders if Uber determines that a driver took a circuitous route to a destination.
40. Uber processes the fare for each ride and then pays a fixed portion of the fare to
the drivers directly. Uber drivers are not allowed to accept tips.
41. Uber provides auto insurance for drivers that do not maintain sufficient insurance
on their own. Insurance provided by Uber covers incidents occurring while a driver is connected
online with the Uber App, with coverage increasing when a rider is in the vehicle.
42. Uber controls its drivers contacts with its customer base and considers its
43. Uber attempts to impose uniformity in the conduct of its drivers. Uber policy
a. Dress professionally;
b. Send the customers requesting rides a test message when the driver is 1-2
minutes away from the pickup location;
8
e. Pick up customers on the correct side of the street where the customer is
standing;
f. In some cities, Uber requires drivers to display an Uber sign in the windshield;
44. In some locations, Uber rewards active drivers that maintain a high acceptance
rate for ride requests, total number of hours online, total number of completed trips, and
customer rating by providing a gross fare guarantee that sets a specific hourly pay that drivers
45. Uber at times also incentivizes drivers to continue driving by paying a minimum
rate of $10-26 to log into the App, accept 90% of ride requests, complete one trip per hour, and
be online 50 out of 60 minutes. The result of such incentive programs is that drivers are
guaranteed a minimum amount of pay from Uber regardless of actual work performed,
tantamount to a salary.
46. Uber can deactivate its drivers and make the Uber App inaccessible with the push
of a button. For example, Uber retains the right to terminate drivers at will, with or without
cause, and relies in part on rider feedback to discipline or terminate drivers. Once deactivated,
drivers cannot be paired with riders seeking rides through the Uber App.
47. Uber processes and deals with customer complaints regarding drivers, and
maintains a driver rating system a rating system used by customers whereby riders rate their
48. In 2014, Uber sent a guide to all of its drivers explaining how the driver-rating
system works, and how drivers can improve their scores. The document explains that drivers
with an average score of 4.6 or lower are at risk of being deactivated if they do not make
9
improvements. The document says that only 2-3% of drivers are in the danger zone below a 4.6
average rating and that deactivating the accounts of the drivers who provide consistently poor
49. Uber drivers are sent an email newsletter every week by Uber which covers fares,
surge pricing, and other relevant information. If a rider is underperforming, the communication
includes a line of red text to let them know that their average rating is low:
50. Uber also created a diagram intended to remind drivers to keep their rating high:
51. Uber maintains deactivation guidelines that grant Uber the right deactivate a
complaints of prohibited conduct. For example, Ubers website states that Actions that threaten
the safety of drivers and riders will be investigated and, if confirmed, lead to permanent
deactivation of your account . . . Depending on the nature of the concern, we may put a hold on
your account during our investigation. If the issues raised are serious or a repeat offense, or you
refuse to cooperate, you may lose access to Uber. Any behavior involving violence, sexual
misconduct, harassment, discrimination, or illegal activity while using Uber can result in the
10
immediate loss of your account. Uber will also deactivate the account of any driver who receives
several or serious complaints of poor, unsafe, or distracted driving while using the Uber app.2
52. Uber also tracks a statistic known as acceptance rate. When a rider requests a
trip through Uber, the nearest driver gets a ping telling the driver that someone wants a ride.
The driver then has 15 seconds to tap on the screen of their phone and accept the ping, otherwise
it goes to another driver. The percentage of pings accepted is the acceptance rate. Uber tells
drivers that they should keep above an 80% acceptance rate, but the closer to 100% the better.
Drivers who reject too many ride requests risk face discipline, including temporary deactivation
or termination.
53. Uber also has specific regulations about where its drivers can pick up riders. Uber
does not permit drivers to drive outside their home city, even temporarily. In some instances, if a
driver attempts to use the Uber App in an unauthorized location, the App will inform the driver
that your account is not authorized in this market and prohibit the driver from picking up
customers.3
2
https://www.uber.com/legal/community-guidelines/us-en/.
3
Although Uber classifies its drivers as independent contractors, multiple courts have held that
Ubers significant exercise of control over its drivers plausibly creates an employer/employee
relationship. See, e.g., Doe v. Uber Techs., Inc., 184 F. Supp. 3d 774, 782 (N.D. Cal. 2016)
(plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to claim plausibly that an employment relationship
exists); Razak v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. CV 16-573, 2016 WL 5874822, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 7,
2016) (holding held that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that they are properly classified as
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania state law); Search v. Uber
Techs., Inc., 128 F. Supp. 3d 222, 233 (D.D.C. 2015) (a reasonable factfinder could conclude
that Uber exercised control over [plaintiff] in a manner evincing an employer-employee
relationship); OConnor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2013 WL 6354534, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013)
(the Complaint contains sufficient allegations about control to make the existence of an
employment relationship plausible on its face.); cf., Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 60 F. Supp. 3d 1067,
1078 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (making same finding in context of Ubers primary competitor Lyft).
11
Uber Aggressively Markets its Safety to Increase its Customer Base and Ridership
54. Ubers business model is contingent on convincing its customers it is safe to get
into a strangers vehicle. To do this, Uber makes a number of representations on its webpages, in
communications with customers, and in the media designed to create the impression that Uber
55. In or about April 2014, after a wave of bad press concerning the credentials of
Uber drivers, Uber created a specific webpage dedicated to touting the safety of riding with
Uber (the Safety webpage).4 Ubers website prominently displayed the slogan SAFEST RIDE
ON THE ROAD Going the Distance to Put People First with a picture of a young girl riding
4
Uber used and continues to use the URL: www.uber.com/safety.
12
56. The paragraph below the depiction provides that:
Wherever you are around the world, Uber is committed to connecting you to the
safest ride on the road. That means setting the strictest standards possible, and
then working hard to improve them every day. The specifics vary depending what
local governments allow, but within each city we operate, we aim to go above and
beyond local requirements to ensure your comfort and security what we are
doing in the US is an example of our standards around the world.
57. Uber represented on the same webpage under the tagline RIDER SAFETY that
Every ridesharing and livery driver is thoroughly screened through a rigorous process weve
screening for the U.S. with country, federal and multi-state checks that go back as far as the
law allows and ongoing reviews of drivers motor vehicle records throughout their time on
Uber.
13
58. The read more link on the BACKGROUND CHECKS YOU CAN TRUST
segment of Ubers Safety webpage connected readers to an entry dated April 25, 2014 on the
Uber blog.5 In the blog, Lane Kasselman, the former head of communications for Uber, made a
number of representations touting the rigorous background checks Uber conducts compared to
We apply this comprehensive and new industry standard consistently across all
Uber products, including uberX. Screening for safe drivers is just the beginning of
our safety efforts. Our process includes prospective and regular checks of drivers
motor vehicle records to ensure ongoing safe driving. Unlike the taxi industry,
our background checking process and standards are consistent across the
United States and often more rigorous than what is required to become a taxi
driver. (Emphasis added)
59. Kasselmans blog entry ended: The bottom line: Uber works hard to ensure that
we are connecting riders with the safest rides on the road. The current efforts we are undertaking
to protect riders, drivers and cities are just the beginning. Well continue innovating, refining,
and working diligently to ensure were doing everything we can to make Uber the safest
60. In June 2014, Lane Kasselman was quoted in the media stating: Were confident
that every ride on the Uber platform is safer than a taxi.6 Uber has also represented that its
5
Formerly available at http://blog.uber.com/driverscreening.
6
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/SF-DA-Wants-Stricter-Rules-for-Rideshare-
Companies-261754071.html.
14
61. In late 2014, the district attorneys for San Francisco and Los Angeles, California
filed a lawsuit against Uber for its misleading statements regarding the safety of its services,
including claims that Uber was setting the strictest safety standards possible with background
checks that used industry-leading standards. The complaint provided 25 specific examples of
individuals approved to drive for Uber who had previously been convicted of major felonies,
including: second degree murder, lewd and lascivious acts against a child under the age of 14,
sexual exploitation of children, kidnapping for ransom with a firearm, assault with a firearm,
grand theft robbery, identity theft, burglary, and taking a vehicle without consent, which Uber
failed to uncover. They were discovered to be driving for Uber only after being cited for an
62. At the time the suit was filed, Los Angeles district attorney Jackie Lacey said that
Uber put consumers at risk by misleading the public about the background checks of its
drivers. San Francisco district attorney George Gascon called Ubers background checks
63. Following these revelations, Uber removed the Kasselman blog from its website
and replaced it with a new blog entry written by Joe Sullivan, Ubers new Chief Security
64. Sullivans blog entry dated July 2, 2015 (the Sullivan blog), stated that Ubers
background check process consists of running an applicants name and address through
databases identified as the National Sex Offender Registry, National Criminal Search, and
several different databases used to flag suspected terrorists. The blog goes on to explain that if
7
In April 2016, Uber agreed to pay $10 million to settle the case, along with a guarantee of an
additional $15 million if Uber failed to comply with the terms of the settlement. As part of the
settlement, Uber agreed that it would no longer advertise using phrases such as safest ride on
the road and describing its background checks as the gold standard.
15
the database search identifies a criminal record, then Ubers background check provider will
send someone to the relevant local courthouse to gather the records. Gathering records at the
courthouse, Sullivan claims, helps ensure the records match the identity of the potential driver.
65. The Sullivan blog added driver disqualification criteria that were missing from
Ubers earlier representations, including convictions for fraud, theft-related offenses, and any
other felony conviction. Uber also began promoting its Incident Response Team team and
zero tolerance policies for dangerous behavior, including that: In the event of dangerous
behavior by a rider or driver-partner, Ubers response team can deactivate that persons account,
immediately preventing him or her from accessing the platform again. This removes incentive
for bad behavior and prevents it from being repeated on the platform.
66. In April 2014, Uber continued to reinforce its safety message with the
implementation of Safe Rides Fee added to every UberX fare in order to support Ubers
efforts to always connect [riders] to the safest rides on the road. The fee was originally $1.00,
16
67. A question mark next to the words Safe Rides Fee contained a hyperlink that
provided a more in depth explanation of the Safe Rides Fee. It stated that the fee is used to
support, among other things, continued efforts to ensure the safest possible platform for Uber
68. In just two years, Uber generated nearly $450 million from its implementation of
Uber specifically targets females and intoxicated late night riders. Uber claims its rush hour
70. In 2015, Uber released a report with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).
The report states: The Uber app was created to ensure reliable access to safe rides whenever,
8
A class of riders filed suit against Uber alleging that the company misled its customers about its
safety practices in its consumer advertising when it represented Uber was safer than a taxi and
had industry-leading background checks. In August 2016, the court overseeing the case
rejected a proposed $28.5 million settlement relating to the fees. The court held that the
settlement was inadequate given that Uber generated close to half a billion dollars in revenue
from the false and misleading fees. The case is still pending. See Philliben et al v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-05615 (N.D. Cal.).
9
https://www.uber.com/helping-cities/.
17
wherever. . . . Uber is more than just a convenient transportation option. The choice, reliability
and flexibility [Uber] affords also make Uber a powerful tool in the quest to protect families
from drunk driving. The report goes on to state that with Uber, intoxicated persons can find a
safe, reliable ride home that is always within reach. (Emphasis added).
71. In particular, Uber markets itself as a safer transportation alternative for women.
Ubers website and marketing contains numerous images of smiling women entering and exiting
18
19
72. Uber has also advertised that it allows for safe pickups and no more waiting
73. By marketing heavily to women, especially those who have been drinking, Uber
is consistently reinforcing its message that summoning an Uber will result in a safe, reliable ride
home.
74. Uber does not, and has never, provided customers with an industry-leading
background check process. Instead, Uber has adopted a quick, name-based background check,
75. Ubers background check process relies upon drivers to submit personal
identifiers (name, address, drivers license number and state, and social security number) through
an online webpage. Uber, in turn, provides this information to third party vendors, such as
20
76. Neither Uber nor the third party vendors it uses for background checks verifies
that the information provided by applicants is accurate or complete. The turnaround time for an
applicants reported name against various databases and compares records that have the same
name, a fingerprint-based background check (or biometric check) uses the fingerprints of the
individual to match against a law enforcement database, comparing records that have the same
78. For example, most prospective taxi drivers are required to undergo criminal
background checks that require the driver to submit fingerprints through a technology called
Live Scan. The fingerprint images are used to automatically search against all other fingerprint
images in government criminal record databases, including databases maintained by state law
enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBIs database includes
criminal record information from all 50 states, including sex offender registries. If a person has a
79. Fingerprints are not only a highly accurate way to confirm an individuals
identity, they are also universally used among state and federal government agencies. This
allows for the highest levels of information-sharing among all relevant agencies an element
80. Fingerprint background checks through local, state, and federal criminal files are
the gold standard for public and private employers who wish to determine if a prospective
employee or contractor has engaged in disqualifying criminal activity. A wide range of job
21
applicants are required by local public safety statutes to undergo fingerprint background checks,
including taxi drivers, airport workers, teachers, real estate professionals, mortgage brokers,
security guards, day care workers, home health aides, nurses, government employees, and even
81. Because of the unique identifying characteristics of fingerprints, the Live Scan
process provides assurance that the person whose criminal history has been run is, in fact, the
applicant. This would ensure that a convicted murderer could not use a false identification to
82. Name-based background checks, on the other hand, are limited and not easily
shared among the appropriate authorities. These criminal background checks are performed on
publicly-available databases and records from county courthouses, which are not linked to each
other and typically do not go back past seven years. Because the FBI database is not accessed,
there is no true national search performed, making these searches incomplete, limited and
inaccurate.
there is no way to positively identify a person via a biometric indicator, increasing the likelihood
of fraud. Uber itself recognizes the vulnerability of name-based checks, noting on its website
that: Of course, the background check system that Uber [uses] is not 100% accurate either . . .
For example, a potential driver may have a stolen or fraudulent identity, an illegally obtained but
valid social security number that conceals his or her true identity, or he or she may have been
convicted of a crime outside the background lookback limits permitted by state law.
84. Likewise, because names, addresses and birthdays are not unique, the likelihood
of false positives (a person linked in error with anothers record) and false negatives (someone
22
getting cleared when they should not) are greatly increased. For example, if an individual
changes her name, or for some other reason has a criminal history under a different name, such
as a maiden name, the name-based checks can miss the individuals criminal history.
85. Ubers other safety measures also fall well short of established industry
standards. For example, Uber does not conduct in-person interviews with prospective drivers,
require references, require any training, or even verify the actual identity of the driver. Likewise,
instead of performing actual inspections of drivers vehicles, Uber allows prospective drivers to
simply send photographs of their vehicles and the inspection form to the company.
86. Despite consistently marketing its driver background check process as industry-
leading and more rigorous than what is required to become a taxi driver in reality Ubers
application process is designed for speed, not safety. At no time during the application process
does Uber or its third party background check vendor, acting on Ubers behalf, do any of the
following:
f. Verify that social security numbers and other personal identification numbers
submitted in the application process in fact belong to the applicants;
23
j. Require applicants to pass written examinations beyond basic city
knowledge tests;
87. Moreover, Uber limits its background check to criminal convictions going back
seven years. On Ubers Safety webpage and in subsequent blog posts, Uber has misrepresented
that seven years is the maximum amount of time Uber is permitted to look back under state
88. Federal law allows criminal convictions to be reported indefinitely. The Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), cited by Uber, does not have time limitations on reporting
criminal convictions for hiring purposes. Indeed, the FCRA bars reporting agencies from
reporting [a]ny other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes
which antedates the report by more than seven years. 15 U.S.C. 168lc(a)(5). This means Uber
can access convictions in a background check report regardless of the age of the conviction.
89. Uber has spent millions of dollars opposing city and municipality initiatives that
would require Uber to adopt enhanced safety measures like fingerprint-based background
checks.
90. The New York Times reported in a 2014 article that Uber champions its
industry-leading standards for vetting its drivers. On its website, it describes its background
checks as often more rigorous than those in the traditional taxi industry. But in statehouses
24
across the country, Uber has fought against legislation requiring background checks as strong as
91. The article continued: In Colorado, Uber helped persuade lawmakers to ease
drivers background checks in a bill that legalized ride-sharing companies. In Illinois, after a
lobbying push, Gov. Pat Quinn vetoed a bill that would have forced Uber to strengthen those
checks. And in California, Uber and other companies like it helped kill a law that would have
required drivers to undergo a background check by the states Justice Department, as is required
of taxi drivers.11
92. Over the past year alone, state and local governments in Austin, Boston, Chicago,
San Antonio, Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island have debated the issue of requiring
93. For example, in Austin, Texas, the city council insisted that ridesharing
companies such as Uber must comply with existing law requiring taxi drivers to be fingerprinted
as part of a criminal background check. In May 2016, the City held a referendum vote on
Proposition 1, which would have exempted ride-sharing companies from the law and allowed
Uber to continue using its own background check systems. In the weeks before the election,
Uber (along with its primary competitor Lyft) spent nearly $9 million bombarding voters with
mailers, ads, phone calls and text messages to support Proposition 1. When Uber lost the
referendum 56% to 44%, it made good on its threat to stop offering rides in Austin and left the
market.
10
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/technology/ubers-system-for-screening-drivers-comes-
under-scrutiny.html?_r=0.
11
Id.
25
94. Uber has also abandoned service in Galveston and Corpus Christi, Texas, and has
threatened to leave Maryland, Miami, Houston, and other service areas if full background checks
are mandated. In 2016, Uber tripled its lobbying efforts, spending millions of dollars fighting
rider safety. Quite the opposite, Uber has acknowledged that requiring fingerprint-based
background checks is inconsistent with its business objectives because it would impose
additional time and cost to the driver application process and deter potential drivers from
applying. This, of course, would come at the expense of Ubers ability to retain a large pool of
on-demand drivers.
96. Uber has placed profits over safety by deliberately lowering the bar for drivers in
order to rapidly expand its network of drivers and thus its profits. This is a calculated decision by
senior executives to allow Uber to dominate the emerging rideshare market at the expense of
public safety.
97. Ubers safety representations outlined above are false and misleading. Although
in the wake of multiple lawsuits Uber has backed away from certain, specific safety
misrepresentations,12 Ubers safety narrative as a whole continues create the false impression
Uber drivers have been rigorously vetted before a rider gets in the car.
12
For example, in September of 2014, after California district attorneys notified Uber that
representing its background check process as industry-leading is false and misleading, Uber
changed the words industry-leading under the heading BACKGROUND CHECKS YOU
CAN TRUST to constantly improving. In October of 2014, Uber changed the description of
the background check hyperlinked to the Safe Rides Fee on every UberX receipt by replacing
the words industry-leading with Federal, state, and local. Sometime in December 2014, Uber
dropped the claim that its background check leads the industry from the first sentence of the
26
98. Since the debut of Ubers Safety webpage in April of 2014, Uber has
consistently reaffirmed its message that it does everything it can to ensure customer safety by
implementing industry-leading background checks and disqualifying drivers that pose a threat to
representatives of Uber in the media, include, but are not limited to, Ubers representations that:
a. All Uber [drivers] must go through a rigorous background check that leads the
industry;
c. Uber has Background Checks that Exceed any Local or National Standard;
d. Ubers background check process is often more rigorous than what is required to
become a taxi driver;
e. Ubers safety measures always exceed what is required of local taxi companies;
g. Ubers background checks go back the maximum allowable by the Fair Credit
Reporting Act;
h. The Uber app was created to ensure reliable access to safe rides whenever,
wherever; and
i. Intoxicated individuals can tap a button to request a safe, reliable ride home and
that with Uber, a safe, reliable ride home is always within reach.
99. Multiple courts have recognized that these and similar representations are more
than mere pufferythey constitute literally false statements and statements that are likely to
Kasselman blog. Three months later, on or about March 26, 2015, Uber eliminated its claim to be
the Safest Ride on the Road and modified the banner over the picture of the little girl on its
Safety Page to read, Safety By Design, and then Safe Rides Safer Cities Putting People
First. In late 2016, Uber renamed its Safe Rides Fee to a Booking Fee.
27
mislead or confuse consumers.13 As stated by the district attorney of San Francisco: You are not
using an industry-leading background check process if you are not fingerprinting your drivers.
100. Concerns about the threats Uber drivers pose to their riders are not merely
hypothetical. As a result of Ubers deficient and lax application process, individuals who have
been convicted of felonies and violent crimes have successfully registered as Uber drivers time
and again, exposing riders to dangerous and potentially violent situations without their
knowledge or consent.
101. In the last year alone, hundreds of crimes were reported by individuals against
their Uber drivers, ranging from driving drunk to theft, sexual assault, kidnapping, and rape.
102. Whos Driving You?, a public safety initiative of the Taxicab, Limousine &
Paratransit Association, tracks news articles across the country discussing serious incidents
involving Uber drivers, including Uber drivers causing deaths, committing assaults, sexual
13
See, e.g., Delux Cab, LLC v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 16CV3057-CAB-JMA, 2017 WL
1354791, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2017) (Ubers safety representations likely to induce
consumer reliance); Doe v. Uber Techs., Inc., 184 F. Supp. 3d 774, 789 (N.D. Cal. 2016)
(upholding fraudulent misrepresentation claim where Uber riders alleged that transportation
service made false statements that customers would be safe taking rides while knowing that it did
not adequately screen its drivers, that it misrepresented its ability to track its drivers, and
customers described in detail the process by which the service screened its applicants for
drivers); L.A. Taxi Coop., Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 852, 861 (N.D. Cal. 2015)
(A reasonable consumer reading these statements in the context of Ubers advertising campaign
could conclude that an Uber ride is objectively and measurably safer than a ride provided by a
taxi or other competitor service).
14
http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents.
28
103. In just the last eight months, Uber drivers have been accused of a shocking
number of serious sexual offenses involving their passengers. A small sampling of the chilling
b. Los Angeles, California customer sues after Uber driver allegedly stuck hand up
her dress (6/22/17);16
c. Allentown, Pennsylvania Uber driver offered minor money and rides for sex,
cops say (6/21/17);17
h. Palm Beach County, Florida Uber driver accused of kidnapping, sexual battery
and burglary (5/9/17);22
15
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sex-crime-uber-20170626-story,amp.html.
16
http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20170622/uber-customer-says-la-driver-shot-his-
hand-up-her-loose-dress-and-shes-suing.
17
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2017/06/man_who_texted_minor_for_se
x_f.html.
18
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/260704029-story.
19
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Uber-driver-arrested-in-sexual-battery-of-
11200757.php#item-39786.
20
http://ktla.com/2017/05/24/uber-driver-wanted-in-connection-with-sexual-assault-of-
university-student-in-riverside/.
21
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/florida-uber-driver-sex-assault-teen-422121384.html.
22
https://www.local10.com/news/crime/uber-driver-accused-of-raping-woman-after-taking-her-
home-from-sunfest.
29
i. University of Kentucky Police Department: student reports sexual abuse on
campus by Uber driver (4/27/17);23
j. Uber driver in Orange County, California charged with raping his passenger
(4/26/17);24
p. Toronto Police make arrest in alleged sexual assault of woman by Uber driver
(2/14/17);30
23
http://www.wtvq.com/2017/04/27/ukpd-student-reports-sexual-abuse-campus-uber-driver/.
24
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-uber-oc-charged-20170426-story.html.
25
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/04/25/uber-driver-accused-sexually-assaulting-female-
passenger-boston-college/.
26
http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2017/04/akron_police_looking_for_uber.html.
27
http://pilotonline.com/news/local/crime/uber-driver-charged-with-raping-passenger-in-
virginia-beach/article_1e5017ff-ce21-5ea6-b725-c38bd3c1c2bf.html.
28
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/02/woman-sues-uber-claims-driver-with-prior-
record-attempted-to-rape-her/.
29
http://pilotonline.com/news/local/crime/uber-driver-charged-with-raping-passenger-in-
virginia-beach/article_1e5017ff-ce21-5ea6-b725-c38bd3c1c2bf.html.
30
http://www.cp24.com/news/police-make-arrest-in-alleged-sexual-assault-of-woman-by-uber-
driver-1.3284458.
31
http://www.kens5.com/news/sa-uber-driver-accused-of-raping-22-year-old-
woman/386607930.
30
r. Former Uber Driver charged with sexually assaulting passenger in Houston,
Texas (12/9/16);32
t. Woman claims Uber driver sexually assaulted her, Ross, Pennsylvania police
investigating (11/23/16);34
u. Ohio woman says Uber driver sexually assaulted her inside her home: Mayfield
Heights police blotter (11/9/16);35
v. Uber driver charged with sexually assaulting teenage girl in Laguna Beach,
California (11/8/16);36
x. Palo Alto, California police arrest Uber driver on suspicion of sexual battery,
stalking (11/1/16);38
104. Ubers primary defense to these crimes is that Uber had no reason to know the
assailant driver posed a safety risk to riders because the drivers background check came back
clean. For example, on February 20, 2016, an Uber driver in Kalamazoo, Michigan named Jason
32
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Former-Uber-driver-charged-with-
sexually-10785443.php.
33
http://fox40.com/2016/11/24/uber-driver-under-investigation-after-womans-creepy-ride/.
34
http://www.wtae.com/article/woman-reports-being-sexually-assaulted-in-an-uber-to-shaler-
police/8355709.
35
http://www.cleveland.com/hillcrest/index.ssf/2016/11/woman_says_uber_driver_sexuall.html.
36
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/uber-734716-mahran-beach.html.
37
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/11/uber-can-be-held-liable-for-its-drivers-sexual-
misconduct.html.
38
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Palo-Alto-Police-Arrest-Uber-Driver-on-Suspicion-
of-Sexual-Battery-Stalking-399557541.html.
39
https://www.local10.com/news/crime/uber-driver-accused-of-raping-passenger-in-miami-
dade-county.
31
Dalton went on a shooting rampage, killing six people and wounding two others. After the
incident, Ubers chief security officer Joe Sullivan defended Ubers background check process
and emphasized that no background check would have flagged and anticipated this situation
105. Uber was also criticized after the Kalamazoo incident for permitting Dalton to
continue picking up riders even after a rider complained of his erratic driving approximately
four hours before the first victim was killed. An Uber spokesperson stated that because the
complaint was not about violence, it was not prioritized by Ubers response team. Joe Sullivan
held a conference call further clarifying that Uber will deactivate drivers within minutes when
it receives a report of driver violence, but if the report involves driver performance, Uber will
first get in touch with the driver to get both sides of the story before the driver is deactivated.
Ubers Public Safety Representations Are Inconsistent with its Corporate Behavior
106. In March 2016, BuzzFeed News published an article entitled Contracts And
Chaos: Inside Ubers Customer Service Struggles that provided an inside account of the turmoil
surrounding Ubers customer support response team. Specifically, the article discussed Ubers
decision to move a significant portion of its customer support team to overseas contractors in
places like Manila where there were high quotas and language barriers that caused serious
complaints and reports about Uber drivers to fall through the cracks.40
107. For example, one Uber customer support representative (referred to internally by
Uber as a CSR) reported that in September 2015, a female rider filed a late-night ticket
complaining about her driver. The driver told the rider that if she performed a sexual act on him,
she wouldnt have to pay for the ride. The Manila agent just sent it up to regular escalation to
40
https://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/contracts-and-chaos-inside-ubers-customer-service-
struggles?utm_term=.hf67vV1Qw#.sedpj7yE9.
32
level 2 instead of advanced because the sense of urgency was lost in translation. According to the
CSR, the ticket in question should have escalated immediately, but instead it sat in the level 2
108. The article also described how many CSRs questioned Ubers commitment to
safety, and published screenshots of Ubers customer support logic matrix, which reveals
escalation protocols explicitly tied to media interest and real threat of media/LE (law
enforcement) interest. For example, some protocols include language where a level 2 ticket for
level 3 ticket only if media or law enforcement interest has been confirmed. The protocol also
states, If rider does not wish to escalate, follow strike system, issue warning, and resolve
without escalating.42
109. Other CSRs interviewed in the article noted a lack of guidance from Uber team
leads who managed them. One CSR said she had five different managers in a single year and
never had a meeting with any of them. According to the article, this created an environment that
wasnt just unpleasant for the people who worked in it, but that also sometimes left Ubers CSRs
the first line of defense and support for the companys customers worldwide unequipped to
110. BuzzFeed News followed up with a second article in March 2016 entitled
Internal Data Offers Glimpse at Uber Sex Assault Complaints that included screenshots from
41
Id.
42
Id.
43
Id.
33
Ubers internal database tracking driver complaints.44 In one screenshot, a search query for
sexual assault returned 6,160 Uber customer support tickets. A search for rape returned
5,827 individual tickets. Other variations of the terms yield similarly high returns: A search for
assaulted showed 3,524 tickets, while sexually assaulted returned 382 results.
111. Uber conducted a review and concluded that the rape ticket counts were
significantly overstated due to various forms of false positives. Uber representatives then
penned an open letter to the BuzzFeed editors entitled Safety at Uber. The letter stated in
pertinent part:
We have worked with your team over the last week to answer questions about safety at
Uber, but the story you have just posted fails to take into account the many facts we have
provided to Buzzfeed. Given that our business depends on accountability and
transparency, we are now sharing that information publicly so that our riders and drivers
have the facts and can judge for themselves.
Getting people from point A to B safely and reliably is the single most important thing
Uber does. Its why we have a dedicated Trust and Safety team, overseen by Joe Sullivan
(whose entire career has been focused in this field, first as a federal prosecutor and then
at eBay, Facebook, and now Uber) and run by Phil Cardenas (the former head of Trust
and Safety at Airbnb).
This team exists to reduce safety incidents, and its success is judged on that one metric.
Because even one incident is too many. Its why Uber has invested heavily in technology
to improve safety for everyone before, during, and after each ride. Every Uber trip is
GPS-tracked and passengers can share their route in real time with family or friends, as
well as rate their drivers at the end of each trip (and vice versa). This is on top of a robust
system of background checks.
Sadly, no means of transportation is 100 percent safe today. Accidents and incidents do
happen. Its why we are working to build an exceptional customer support team that
can handle problems when they occur, including working with law enforcement.
***
When serious incidents are reported to us, we always reach out to the person who
filed the report and, where appropriate, engage with law enforcement. We also
temporarily suspend the driver or rider (if it is a question of violence by a
passenger) during the investigation.
44
https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/internal-data-offers-glimpse-at-uber-sex-assault-
complaints?utm_term=.rjx5MzqR6#.dwGqM4yEB.
34
***
Uber is a relatively young company and were the first to admit that we havent always
gotten things right. But we are working hard to ensure passengers everywhere can get a
safe, reliable ride, as well as to provide great customer service when things go wrong. Its
a shame that your article does not reflect much of the substance we have provided.
Sincerely,
112. But Ubers public representations regarding safety are demonstrably at odds with
its internal corporate behavior. Many independent accounts have detailed how Ubers company
culture promotes aggressive expansion and profits over safety, especially with respect to women.
In February 2017, Susan Fowler, a former Uber engineer, wrote in a blog post that she was
sexually harassed by her supervisor at Uber and that the human resources department ignored the
claims. Thereafter, other employees came forward reporting systemic issues in the company,
saying that a premium was placed on workers who delivered strong performance and aggressive
growth, and that their behavioral transgressions were often overlooked. The New York Times
reported that Ubers focus on pushing for the best result has also fueled what current and former
Uber employees describe as a Hobbesian environment at the company, in which workers are
sometimes pitted against one another and where a blind eye is turned to infractions from top
performers.46
113. On June 6, 2017, the New York Times reported that Uber fired 20 employees over
environment. The article noted that: The firings were aimed at tackling what many at Uber say
45
https://medium.com/uber-under-the-hood/safety-at-uber-6e638616bd4a (emphasis added).
46
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace-culture.html.
35
are deep-seated management and cultural issues, which have made the company a cautionary tale
for what can go wrong with Silicon Valleys often freewheeling corporate culture. Uber has been
a lightning rod because of its aggressive chief executive, Travis Kalanick, who has flouted rules
and regulations to turn the company into a nearly $70 billion behemoth. Ubers difficulties have
revived questions about how the tech industry treats women and employees in general. 47
114. Perhaps the most troubling revelation that surfaced during the firings related to a
top Uber executive named Eric Alexander, Ubers former president of business in Asia, who
obtained unauthorized medical records of a woman raped by her Uber driver in India in an
115. In December 2014, a 26-year-old woman in New Delhi, India was raped and
assaulted by her Uber driver after she fell asleep on the ride home. As a result of the incident,
Uber came under significant scrutiny from the Indian government. Law enforcement in New
Delhi considered whether to criminally charge Uber over its lax background checks and Uber
was even temporarily banned from operating in New Delhi. In response, Uber was publicly
apologetic and introduced increased safety measures in its vehicles, including a panic button
for Indian passengers who felt unsafe. Uber eventually settled a lawsuit the woman filed against
116. According to the New York Times, Alexander and other top Uber executives,
while publicly apologetic, were convinced that the rape charges were part of a plan devised by
Ola, the leading ride-hailing company in India and one of Ubers largest Asian competitors.49
47
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/technology/uber-fired.html?_r=0.
48
https://www.recode.net/2017/6/7/15754316/uber-executive-india-assault-rape-medical-
records.
49
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/technology/uber-fires-executive.html.
36
Alexander spent months in India conducting his own investigation and in the process, obtained
the victims medical records, possibly through bribes, which were then shared with Uber CEO
Travis Kalanick. According to the article, Kalanick and Alexander had long telephone
conversations about what they believed to be subterfuge on the womans part, trying to figure out
how to rectify the situation, according to two people familiar with those talks. Mr. Alexander
carried the womans records, which he believed were at odds with her account, with him. The
117. Alexander was not fired until journalists began asking questions about his actions
relating to the New Delhi incident in June 2017. The rape victim has subsequently sued Uber for
118. On June 21, 2017, Travis Kalanick resigned as CEO of Uber amid a growing
storm of reports alleging rampant sexism and misconduct under his leadership.
119. As explained below, the facts of this case demonstrate that Ubers representations
regarding its safety are false. Uber permitted Ammi, a convicted felon sentenced to 16 years in
prison for attempted first degree murder, to drive for Uber without so much as an interview. Prior
to the assault on Plaintiff, Uber was given actual notice that Ammi violently assaulted another
woman, that he had a warrant out for his arrest, and that it was dangerous to continue letting
passengers ride with him. Rather than deactivate Ammi within minutes or at least temporarily
suspend Ammi while Uber conducted an investigation, Ubers CSRs and dedicated Trust and
Safety team did nothing and continued pairing Ammi with Uber riders. As a result of Ubers
50
Id.
51
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/technology/uber-india-rape-lawsuit.html.
37
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO PLAINTIFF
120. Plaintiff is a young woman residing in Kansas City, Missouri. Plaintiff recently
121. On the evening of January 27, 2017, Plaintiff planned to attend a social function
hosted by a graduate school fraternity associated with Plaintiffs professional program. The event
took place at an event space less than two miles from Plaintiffs apartment, with a post-event
gathering to be held at a lounge in the Power & Light district in downtown Kansas City.
122. At approximately 7:16 p.m., Plaintiff used the Uber App to summon a ride from
her apartment in downtown Kansas City to take her to the event. Uber paired Plaintiff with a
driver with the first name of Yah on the Uber App (later confirmed to be Ammi). The Uber
123. When Plaintiff got in the Uber vehicle, Ammi told Plaintiff his name was
Malik. During the ride, Ammi represented that he was a professional driver from St. Louis
and that he was only visiting Kansas City temporarily while considering a permanent move.
124. Ammi asked Plaintiff a series of questions about her personal life, including
details about the event she was attending. Plaintiff told Ammi where she attended school and
details about the event. Plaintiff informed Ammi she used the Uber App because she and her
friends would be drinking and would need a safe ride home after the event.
125. Ammi capitalized on this opportunity and insisted that because he had an SUV,
Ammi would pick up Plaintiff and her friends after the event. Ammi suggested they exchange
numbers and that once he was in the vicinity, they could coordinate their subsequent rides
38
126. According to the Uber App, Plaintiffs ride with Ammi was 1.83 miles and lasted
approximately nine minutes. Uber charged Plaintiff $5.96 in connection with the ride.
127. Plaintiff attended the event with her classmates. At 9:52 p.m., Ammi texted
Plaintiff: Having fun? and asked whether Plaintiff and her friends were ready to be picked up.
128. At approximately 11:00 p.m., Ammi pulled up to the event location and texted
Plaintiff: Request Uber XLin attempt to coordinate their second ride through the Uber App.
Plaintiff and her classmate (referred to herein as M.B.) got in Ammis car and requested that he
take Plaintiff by her apartment to change her shoes, before dropping them off in the Power &
Light district. Plaintiff was visibly intoxicated at this time, which was known and obvious to
Ammi.
129. While Plaintiff was in her apartment changing shoes, Ammi requested that M.B.
coordinate acceptance of their ride through the Uber App on M.B.s phone. M.B. attempted to do
so. Because Uber drivers and riders have no control over who they pair with, however, M.B. was
paired with another Uber driver in the vicinity and had to cancel the request. At all relevant times
Ammi held himself out as an Uber driver and was providing rides to Plaintiff and M.B. in that
capacity.
130. Ammi then dropped Plaintiff and M.B. at the Power & Light district in downtown
Kansas City, again insisting that he pick them up after the event.
131. At approximately 12:30 a.m., Ammi called M.B. to see if she was ready for a ride
home. Although M.B. had already summoned an Uber to take her home, Ammi instructed her to
cancel it and that he would pick her up shortly. After picking her up, Ammi again suggested that
they coordinate acceptance of their ride through the Uber App. After this attempt failed,
39
however, Ammi suggested that M.B. pay him for all the rides he provided to Plaintiff and M.B.
that evening through the Square application, which allows customers to make payments to
vendors via credit card. Ammi calculated that Uber would have charged $28.75 for the unpaid
rides, which would also include a ride home for Plaintiff. Relying on Ammis representations,
132. Ammi told M.B. that he would pick up Plaintiff after dropping off M.B. Ammi
was adamant on this point and requested that M.B. contact Plaintiff to let her know Ammi was
on his way.
133. At the time, M.B. had no reason to suspect Ammi posed a threat to M.B.s safety.
To the contrary, M.B. believed Ammi would provide Plaintiff with a safe ride home given that
Ammi held himself out as a professional Uber driver, Uber had paired M.B. and Plaintiff with
Ammi through the Uber application, Ammi opened doors, seemed attentive, and generally acted
with a polite demeanor. Moreover, relying on Ubers safety representations, M.B. believed
Ammi had been thoroughly vetted by Uber and had no reason to doubt that Ammi would provide
a safe, reliable ride home for Plaintiff. Accordingly, M.B. called Plaintiff to let her know Ammi
134. At 12:54 a.m., Ammi texted Plaintiff Ill pick you up when you ready to go
home. After receiving no response, Ammi texted Plaintiff again at 1:17 a.m. Im close are you
135. Plaintiff was obviously intoxicated and had a difficult time locating Ammis
vehicle. When she arrived at Ammis vehicle at some time after 1:40 a.m., Ammi acted upset at
Plaintiff and blamed her for causing him to miss other Uber fares.
40
136. Ammi then dropped Plaintiff off at her apartment. As she was preparing to go to
bed, Plaintiff received multiple telephone calls from Ammi. Plaintiff eventually answered and
Ammi told Plaintiff that he was in front of her apartment and needed to use the restroom.
137. Plaintiff let Ammi into her apartment building, which did not have a public
restroom on the ground floor. After letting Ammi use the restroom in her apartment, Ammi
refused to leave the apartment despite multiple requests from Plaintiff to do so. Ammi then raped
Plaintiff.
138. On the morning of January 30, 2017, Plaintiff informed a school counselor about
what occurred. Later that day, Plaintiff was hospitalized and had a rape kit administered. The
hospital confirmed Plaintiff had cervical bruising and that the assailant ejaculated inside Plaintiff
139. The incident was reported to police and Plaintiff provided official statements to
detectives of the Kansas City Police Department (KCPD). The KCPD has collected evidence and
140. Following the rape, Ammi attempted to contact Plaintiff for several weeks via
different phone numbers and even scheduled an appointment for services at Plaintiffs
professional school. In order to protect herself from Ammi, Plaintiff changed phone numbers,
141. On May 30, 2017, a full order of protection was granted against Ammi in Jackson
142. In addition to the physical trauma she experienced, Plaintiff continues to suffer
severe emotional distress as a result of the rape. She has exhibited symptoms of post-traumatic
stress syndrome, was prescribed anxiety medication, and is currently in therapy as a result of the
41
rape. Plaintiff also struggled to complete the second semester of her post-graduate program and
was threatened with dismissal from the program, putting her professional career at risk.
143. Plaintiff was only introduced to Ammi through the Uber App. Plaintiff never
would have accepted a ride from Ammi had he not been an approved Uber driver. Plaintiff
believed that Ammi was trustworthy and safe because of his affiliation with Uber.
144. At all relevant times described herein, Ammi was logged in his Uber App, held
himself out as a professional driver with Uber and represented that all rides he provided were in
his capacity as an Uber driver. Even on the subsequent rides that were not scheduled through the
Uber App, Ammi sought to coordinate the rides through the Uber App and receive payment
through the Uber App. On information and belief, Ammi offered multiple rides through the Uber
145. A basic background search reveals that Ammi has a long history of violence. On
January 29, 1996, Ammi, under his birth name Perrie D. Gibson, entered an Alford plea in
Madison County, Illinois for attempted first degree murder with intent to kill.
146. The charges against Gibson (name later changed to Ammi) stemmed from his
participation in the severe beating of a 15-year-old boy. Gibson was accused of bashing the
teenagers head with a 66-pound chunk of concrete, which left the victim in a permanent
vegetative state. Gibson was sentenced to 16 years in prison, and served approximately eight
147. After his release from prison, Gibson filed an application to change his name to
Yahkhahnahn Daniell Eliezer Ammi in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The application was
42
148. Both before and after his name change, Ammi was involved in a number of civil
149. For example, in April 2010 Gibson filed a temporary restraining order against
Hope House, a domestic violence shelter, attempting to prevent the shelter from evicting him in
St. Louis City, Missouri. In May 2010, the court ruled against Gibson finding that Gibson had
violated Hope Houses rules and regulations and had no legal right to reside there.
150. After his name change, Ammi was charged January 2013 in St. Clair County,
Illinois with operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance in violation of 625 Illinois
Compiled Statutes 5/3-707. After a contempt of court hearing was held, the charges were later
dismissed.
151. On September 4, 2014, Fulton Property Management filed a forcible entry and
unlawful detainer action against Ammi in St. Clair County, Illinois. The case was later dismissed
without prejudice.
152. On July 16, 2015, Ammi was charged with driving 16-19 miles per hour over the
speed limit in St. Louis County, Missouri. A summons was recently issued in the case, indicating
153. On April 7, 2015, Apex Financial Credit Union filed suit against Ammi in the
City of St. Louis, Missouri for unpaid debt. The case was later dismissed because Ammi
154. On April 3, 2016, Patriot Investments LLC sued Ammi for refusing to vacate the
premises of an apartment in St. Louis, Missouri. A default judgment was entered against Ammi
43
155. Ammi is also involved in a number of pending family court proceedings and other
civil matters. These are all matters of public record. In many of these cases, Ammi is listed as
156. On December 25, 2016, Ammi viciously assaulted, a woman he was temporarily
residing with in St. Louis, Missouri. Shortly thereafter, Ammi was charged with third degree
157. On December 30, 2016, the St. Louis victim submitted a Serious Incident
Report through Ubers website in order to warn the company that Ammi posed a serious risk to
Uber riders. The St. Louis victims incident report stated: Your driver YAHKHAHNAHN
Yah Ammi assaulted someone badly 12/25/16!! He hurt the woman badly! He has a warrant
out for his arrest. He is a scam artist his real name is Perrie D. Gibson born 8/21/79 or 78 it is
not safe to allow your riders to ride with him!! (emphasis added).
158. Later that evening, an Uber CSR named Malynda contacted the St. Louis victim
by telephone. The St. Louis victim described the assault to Malynda, including that Ammi beat
her with closed fists in front of Ammis children and that she was pressing charges against
44
Ammi. Malynda informed the St. Louis victim that Uber was taking the incident very seriously
159. After their conversation, the St. Louis victim followed up with an email to
Malynda stating: Malynda did I tell you that your driver now has a warrant out for his arrest for
160. On the morning of December 31, 2016, Malynda sent an email to the St. Louis
victim confirming their conversation and asserting that Uber launched an internal investigation
and someone will be in contact with you as soon as possible regarding this matter:
161. Uber never followed up with the St. Louis victim again and Ammi was permitted
162. Uber acted with deliberate disregard for the safety of the public, including
Plaintiff, in failing to deactivate Ammis account immediately after allegations of violence were
reported.
163. Uber breached its own protocol for addressing allegations of violence by an Uber
driver. Ubers own chief security officer stated that the companys policy is to deactivate a driver
within minutes when it receives a report of driver violence. Likewise, Uber wrote in its open
45
letter to BuzzFeed that When serious incidents are reported to us, we always reach out to the
person who filed the report and, where appropriate, engage with law enforcement. We also
temporarily suspend the driver or rider (if it is a question of violence by a passenger) during the
investigation. This concept is reiterated in Ubers deactivation guidelines which provide that
[a]ctions that threaten the safety of drivers and riders will be investigated and, if confirmed,
lead to permanent deactivation of your account and that [d]epending on the nature of the
164. Had Uber conducted a reasonable investigation before allowing Ammi to access
the Uber App as a driver, it would have uncovered Ammis violent history and criminal charges,
165. In fact, a simple Google search of Ammis name would have directed Uber to
even more of the horrific allegations lodged against Ammi after the December 25, 2016 assault.
166. For example, the St. Louis victim posted graphic images of the assault on social
media, including her public Instagram page, in order to warn others to be careful of Ammi. The
pictures included a caption asserting that Ammi was a scam artist traveling between Illinois, St.
Louis and Kansas City, Ammi has abused multiple women without consequence, and that Ammi
was armed and dangerous. In one post, the St. Louis victim tagged Uber with a hashtag
(#Uber), meaning that anyone who searched Uber on the social media platform would see the
post:
46
This creep monster predator Yah Ammi AKA Perrie Gibson of Brooklyn, Illinois
is still roaming the streets preying on the #African #Black #Conscious
communities in the United States with his son and daughter!!
Dec. 25th 2016 he brutally assaulted me in front of his children. These are just the
bruises on my face. My whole body was bruised from his fists. He talked himself
out of being arrested by the police. Whenever you see him call 911. Then run. He
is an imposterous well-know scam artist in the #StLouis, #Illinois, #KansasCity
#Missouri areas. Wherever.
167. The post even contained a screenshot of the public record of Ammis attempted
first degree murder with intent to kill conviction in Illinois under his birth name Perrie Gibson.
168. In a second post, the St. Louis victim included links to all of Ammis accounts on
social media, including his Twitter and Facebook accounts, along with the caption: Ammi is
armed! [Ammi] punched me with his closed fists like I was a man! I knew I was gonna die!
169. By including Ammis full name in the post, as well as his birth name Perrie
Gibson, a simple Google search of Ammis (current or birth) names made this information
47
170. Ammis legal woes are ongoing. On February 22, 2017, an anonymous petitioner
moved for an order of protection against Ammi for allegations of abuse and stalking in St. Louis
City. A full order of protection was granted against Ammi on March 9, 2017.
171. Ammi was arrested in February 2017 on charges of third degree domestic assault
relating to his beating of the St. Louis victim. The criminal case is set to go to trial in August
2017.
172. Although these matters are all public record, Ammi was still driving for Uber as
whether Uber improperly allowed Ammi to access the Uber App as a driver in Kansas City.
174. On information and belief, Ammi was only authorized to operate as an Uber
175. Ubers location-based technology allows it know exactly where drivers accessing
the Uber App are located. Uber has the technology to fence drivers within a specified
geographical area making the Uber App inaccessible when the driver accesses the Uber App
176. At the time of the assault, the City Council of Kansas City, Missouri had an
ordinance in place that maintained more stringent guidelines for Uber drivers than elsewhere in
the state in order to protect Kansas City residents like Plaintiff. 52 These guidelines required all
drivers to (1) hold a drivers license in Missouri or Kansas; (2) pass a written and oral testing the
52
See Kansas City Ordinance 150203. On April 24, 2017, Missouri passed a law instituting
statewide regulations on transportation companies like Uber that effectively superseded local
regulations, but this law was not in effect at the time of the incident and Uber was still bound by
the regulations imposed by Ordinance 150203.
48
applicants knowledge of Kansas City; (3) register for a small business license and pay the
applicable fees; and (4) apply for a drivers certificate and vehicle permit from Kansas Citys
Regulated Industries Division. The Ordinance provides that a drivers certificate shall not be
issued to any person who [h]as been found guilty of, pleaded guilty to or been convicted of a
felony (federal or any state) for first degree murder, second degree murder, first degree arson,
first degree assault, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, kidnaping, first degree robbery, voluntary
177. After an applicant completes these steps, Kansas Citys Regulated Industries
appointment and present the applicants drivers license, small business license, a second form of
identification, vehicle registration, and verify that the Uber App is properly installed on the
applicants phone.
178. On information and belief, Ammi was never approved by Kansas Citys
Regulated Industries Division to drive in Kansas City, yet Uber permitted Ammi to use the Uber
App and connected Uber riders with Ammi through the Uber App within the city limits of
Kansas City. Further, based on his background, Ammi would not have been approved to
179. If this was the case, it was in direct violation of Ubers own policy prohibiting
drivers from driving for Uber outside an authorized city. As noted on Ubers website: To
permanently change the city you drive in the United States, please tell us below where youd like
to drive. Please note were currently unable to support a temporary city change. Many
cities and states have unique regulations, so well need to run a new background check and
49
review your documents to switch your city. Once you consent to a background check below,
180. Had Uber followed its own guidelines, Ammi would not have been able to go
online with his Uber App upon entering the city limits of Kansas City, and Plaintiff never
would have come into contact with Ammi on the evening of January 27, 2017.
COUNT I NEGLIGENCE
(Against Uber)
181. Plaintiff alleges and reasserts all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.
182. Uber owes a duty of care to all persons not to place others at a foreseeable risk of
harm, or create an unreasonable risk of harm for others through its actions or inactions.
183. Uber knew or should have known that its driver, Ammi, had a violent history
including a conviction for attempted first degree murder with intent to kill.
184. Uber knew that dozens of sexual assaults have occurred by Uber drivers targeting
185. Special circumstances existed in that Uber was in a unique position to protect
Plaintiff and members of the public after Uber was put on actual notice that Ammi violently
assaulted a woman in December 2016, had a warrant out for his arrest for third degree domestic
assault, and posed a serious risk to the safety of Uber riders. It was a foreseeable likelihood that
permitting Ammi to continue driving for Uber would result in harm or injury to a passenger.
186. Uber owed Plaintiff a duty of care not to subject Plaintiff to a foreseeable risk of
harm, or create an unreasonable risk of harm by connecting Plaintiff with a driver that Uber
53
https://help.uber.com/h/7b58d071-3b65-41e3-9d01-1b3b639a9671 (emphasis added).
50
187. Uber breached its duty of care by permitting Ammi to drive for Uber, and
connecting Plaintiff with Ammi on the Uber App 28 days after Uber was put on actual notice
that Ammi violently assaulted a woman, had a warrant out for his arrest for third degree
domestic assault, and posed a serious risk to the safety of Uber riders.
188. Uber further breached its duty of care by permitting Ammi to access the Uber
App and pick up riders in Kansas City, Missouri when, on information and belief, he had not
been approved by Kansas Citys Regulated Industries Division to drive for Uber in Kansas City.
189. As a direct and proximate cause of Ubers breach of its duty of care, Plaintiff was
sexually assaulted by Ammi. Plaintiff has sustained and will sustain physical injury, pain and
suffering, serious psychological and emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment and
humiliation. Plaintiff has also incurred medical expenses, professional expenses, lost future
190. Uber knew or should have known, based on the available information and
surrounding circumstances, that its conduct created a high degree of probability of injury.
191. Uber showed complete indifference to, and conscious or reckless disregard for,
the safety of Plaintiff and others that Uber paired to ride with Ammi. Plaintiff is entitled to
192. Plaintiff alleges and reasserts all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.
public safety and has a duty to hire drivers that are skilled and competent to provide safe,
reliable rides.
51
194. Uber failed to exercise reasonable care in hiring Ammi. At the time Ammi was
hired as a driver for Uber, Uber knew or should have known that Ammi was dangerous as the
result of his prior conviction for attempted first degree murder with intent to kill.
195. Uber was either unaware of Ammis prior violent felony conviction, or was made
aware, and failed to take additional precautions such as conducting an in-person interview,
determine whether he posed a risk to the safety of Uber riders prior to being hired. While Uber
may have unilaterally decided that seven years is a sufficient criminal look-back period, the law
imposes no such limit on Uber, a fact that Uber misrepresents to the public.
196. After hiring Ammi, Uber negligently retained Ammi after Uber was put on actual
notice that Ammi violently assaulted a woman in December 2016, had a warrant out for his
arrest for third degree domestic assault, and posed a serious risk to the safety of Uber riders.
197. Ammi was unskilled, unfit and incompetent to perform the work for which he was
hired, to provide safe, reliable rides. It was reasonably foreseeable to Uber that Ammi would
198. As a direct and proximate cause of Ubers failure to exercise reasonable care in its
hiring and retention of Ammi, Plaintiff was sexually assaulted by Ammi and has sustained and
will sustain physical injury, pain and suffering, serious psychological and emotional distress,
mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation. Plaintiff has also incurred medical expenses,
199. Uber knew or should have known, based on the available information and
surrounding circumstances, that its conduct created a high degree of probability of injury.
52
200. Uber showed complete indifference to, and conscious or reckless disregard for,
the safety of Plaintiff and others that Uber paired to ride with Ammi. Plaintiff is entitled to
201. Plaintiff alleges and reasserts all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.
202. Uber fraudulently concealed to Plaintiff and other riders that Ammi was a
convicted felon previously sentenced to 16 years in prison for attempted first degree murder with
intent to kill, Ammi had a warrant out for his arrest for third degree domestic assault, and that
Uber was put on actual notice in December 2016 that Ammi violently assaulted a woman and
203. Uber has a duty to disclose to its riders relevant information regarding the
dangerous proclivities of a driver with whom Uber is connecting its riders through the Uber App.
204. These facts were known only to Uber, and were not within the fair and reasonable
reach of the Plaintiff. When a rider seeks transportation through the Uber App, the driver arrives
in a matter of minutes, and the rider is only provided with the drivers first name and car make
and model. Accordingly, Plaintiff was not in a position to discover the concealed information
205. The concealment of these facts was material. Plaintiff chose to utilize Ubers
services on the evening of January 27, 2017 because Plaintiff knew she would be drinking and
wanted a safe ride home. Plaintiff would not have accepted a ride from Ammi had she been made
aware that Ammi was a convicted felon previously sentenced to 16 years in prison for attempted
first degree murder with intent to kill, Ammi had a warrant out for his arrest for third degree
53
domestic assault, and that Uber had received warnings in December 2016 that Ammi violently
assaulted a woman and posed a serious risk to the safety of Uber riders.
206. Uber knew or should have known that this information should have been
disclosed. In concealing this relevant information, Plaintiff accepted rides from Ammi under the
false pretense that she would be receiving safe, reliable rides from a driver vetted by Uber who
accepted rides from Ammi and was later sexually assaulted by Ammi. Plaintiff has sustained and
will sustain physical injury, pain and suffering, serious psychological and emotional distress,
mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation. Plaintiff has also incurred medical expenses,
208. Uber knew or should have known, based on the available information and
surrounding circumstances, that its conduct created a high degree of probability of injury.
209. Uber showed complete indifference to, and conscious or reckless disregard for,
the safety of Plaintiff and others that Uber paired to ride with Ammi. Plaintiff is entitled to
210. Plaintiff alleges and reasserts all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.
211. Uber is a person within the meaning of Mo. Rev. Stat. 407.010(5).
212. In connection with the sale and advertisement of its services, Uber used
deception, fraud, false pretense, misrepresentation, unfair practices and concealment in violation
54
213. Uber has made intentionally false representations of fact regarding its safety,
including that it is setting the strictest safety standards possible with background checks that
a. All Uber [drivers] must go through a rigorous background check that leads the
industry;
c. Uber has Background Checks that Exceed any Local or National Standard;
d. Ubers background check process is often more rigorous than what is required to
become a taxi driver;
e. Ubers safety measures always exceed what is required of local taxi companies;
f. Ubers background checks go back the maximum allowable by the Fair Credit
Reporting Act;
g. The Uber app was created to ensure reliable access to safe rides whenever,
wherever;
h. Uber will deactivate drivers within minutes when it receives a report of driver
violence; and
i. When serious incidents are reported to [Uber], [Uber will] always reach out to the
person who filed the report and . . . temporarily suspend the driver or rider (if it is a
question of violence by a passenger) during the investigation.
214. Uber also fraudulently concealed to Plaintiff and other riders that Ammi was a
convicted felon previously sentenced to 16 years in prison for attempted first degree murder with
intent to kill, Ammi had a warrant out for his arrest for third degree domestic assault, and that
Uber was put on actual notice in December 2016 that Ammi violently assaulted a woman and
215. These misrepresentations and omissions were made in connection with the
55
216. These misrepresentations and omissions were made intentionally and with a pure
profit motive to induce riders to use the Uber App and increase Ubers customer base and
ridership.
217. These misrepresentations and omissions were material. Plaintiff would not have
used the Uber App had she known the truth about Ubers background checks and safety
representations. Likewise, Plaintiff would not have accepted a ride from Ammi had she been
made aware that Ammi was a convicted felon previously sentenced to 16 years in prison for
attempted first degree murder with intent to kill, Ammi had a warrant out for his arrest for third
degree domestic assault, and that Uber had received warnings in December 2016 that Ammi
violently assaulted a woman and posed a serious risk to the safety of Uber riders.
218. As a direct and proximate result of Ubers deception, fraud, false pretense,
misrepresentation, unfair practices and concealment, Plaintiff was induced to and did purchase
services from Uber, including paying Uber $5.96 for a 1.83 mile ride on the evening of January
Merchandising Practices Act, Plaintiff accepted an Uber ride from Ammi and was later sexually
220. Plaintiff has suffered an ascertainable loss. Plaintiff seeks actual damages for the
difference in value between the services as actually received and as represented, as well as all
consequential damages suffered as the result of her extensive and ongoing injuries, including
physical injury, pain and suffering, serious psychological and emotional distress, mental anguish,
embarrassment and humiliation, and medical expenses, professional expenses, lost future
56
221. Ubers conduct as described herein was intentional and in violation of Mo. Rev.
Stat. 407.020, and the regulations of the Attorney General of Missouri promulgated thereunder.
violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. 407.020, and is liable for punitive damages in an amount to be
determined at trial.
223. Plaintiff has incurred and will incur attorneys fees in prosecuting this action, for
224. Plaintiff alleges and reasserts all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.
unreasonable risk of harm by pairing Plaintiff with a driver that Uber knew was unsafe.
226. Uber permitted Ammi to drive for Uber, and it connected Plaintiff with Ammi via
the Uber App 28 days after Uber was put on actual notice that Ammi violently assaulted a
woman in December 2016, had a warrant out for his arrest for third degree domestic assault, and
227. Uber should have realized that its conduct involved an unreasonable risk of
228. As a direct and proximate cause of Ubers negligent conduct, Plaintiff was
sexually assaulted by Ammi and has sustained and will sustain physical injury, pain and
suffering, serious psychological and emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment and
humiliation. Plaintiff has also incurred medical expenses, professional expenses, lost future
57
229. Plaintiffs emotional distress and mental injuries, including symptoms of post-
traumatic stress disorder and severe anxiety, are medically diagnosable and of sufficient severity
so as to be medically significant.
230. Uber knew or should have known, based on the available information and
surrounding circumstances, that its conduct created a high degree of probability of injury.
231. Uber showed complete indifference to, and conscious or reckless disregard for,
the safety of Plaintiff and others that Uber paired to ride with Ammi. Plaintiff is entitled to
232. Plaintiff alleges and reasserts all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.
unreasonable risk of harm by pairing Plaintiff with a driver that Uber knew or should have
234. Uber permitted Ammi to drive for Uber, and it connected Plaintiff with Ammi via
the Uber App 28 days after Uber was put on actual notice that Ammi violently assaulted a
woman in December 2016, had a warrant out for his arrest for third degree domestic assault, and
235. Uber knew or should have known that its conduct put Plaintiff at risk and created
236. As a direct and proximate cause of Ubers conduct, Plaintiff was sexually
assaulted by Ammi and has sustained and will sustain physical injury, pain and suffering, serious
psychological and emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation. Plaintiff
58
has also incurred medical expenses, professional expenses, lost future income, and other
economic damages.
237. Ubers conduct and failure to act was extreme, outrageous and utterly intolerable
in a civilized community.
238. Ubers conduct has caused Plaintiff to experience severe emotional distress that
resulted in bodily harm to Plaintiff. Plaintiffs emotional distress and mental injuries, including
symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and severe anxiety, are medically diagnosable and of
239. Uber showed complete indifference to, and conscious or reckless disregard for,
the safety of Plaintiff and others that Uber paired to ride with Ammi. Plaintiff is entitled to
240. Plaintiff alleges and reasserts all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.
241. Under Missouri law, Uber is a common carrier and has a duty to provide the
highest degree of care to its passengers. A common carrier is absolutely bound to protect a
242. Ubers duty is nondelegable. As a common carrier, Uber is liable for its agents
intentional torts, whether or not such acts were committed within the scope of employment.54
54
Plaintiff is not asserting claims under the doctrine of respondeat superior, which would
require the employees misconduct to occur within the scope of employment. Moreover,
common carrier liability does not turn on whether Uber characterizes its drivers as employees or
independent contractors. See, e.g., Lloyds Acceptance Corp. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. 4:05
CV 1934 DDN, 2013 WL 5101938, at *7 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 12, 2013) (common carriers duty is
59
243. The duty described above arises where there is a special relationship between
the parties or special circumstances exist such that an act or omission exposes someone to an
a party entrusts himself to the protection of another and relies on that person to provide a place of
safety.
245. Uber and Plaintiff had a special relationship in that Plaintiff was a passenger of
Uber and Uber was in a unique position to protect Plaintiff. Plaintiff entrusted herself to the
246. Special circumstances existed in that Uber was in a unique position to protect
Plaintiff and members of the public after Uber was put on actual notice that Ammi violently
assaulted a woman in December 2016, had a warrant out for his arrest for third degree domestic
assault, and posed a serious risk to the safety of Uber riders. It was a foreseeable likelihood that
permitting Ammi to continue driving for Uber would result in harm or injury to a passenger.
247. Uber violated its nondelegable duty by failing to provide Plaintiff with a safe ride
home. Ammi used his position as an Uber driver to case Plaintiff while in transport, and then
take advantage of her by using a ruse to get inside Plaintiffs apartment while Plaintiff was in a
person could have foreseen that injuries of the type suffered by Plaintiff would be likely to occur
248. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct, Plaintiff has
sustained and will sustain physical injury, pain and suffering, serious psychological and
nondelegable; that is, a common carrier cannot, by contract with an independent contractor,
evade the carriers liability for the contractors negligence.) (citations omitted).
60
emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation. Plaintiff has also incurred
medical expenses, professional expenses, lost future income, and other economic damages.
249. Uber showed complete indifference to, and conscious or reckless disregard for,
the safety of Plaintiff and others that Uber paired to ride with Ammi. Plaintiff is entitled to
250. Plaintiff alleges and reasserts all of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.
251. Ammi leveraged his status as an approved Uber driver to pursue Plaintiff and take
252. Ammi encouraged Plaintiff to exchange numbers under the guise of providing a
253. After Plaintiff sought a safe ride home, Ammi intentionally manipulated Plaintiff
and her classmate in order to get Plaintiff alone in his vehicle at the end of the evening while
presenting himself as someone tasked by Uber with assuring Plaintiffs safety. Ammi took
advantage of Plaintiffs trust in Uber by using a ruse to get inside Plaintiffs apartment while
Plaintiff was in a highly-intoxicated state, and then sexually assaulted Plaintiff without her
consent.
254. In so doing, Ammi attempted to injure Plaintiff and did in fact intentionally injure
256. Ammi had the ability to injure Plaintiff and did in fact injure Plaintiff.
61
257. As a direct and proximate cause of Ammis assault and battery, Plaintiff has
sustained and will sustain physical injury, pain and suffering, serious psychological and
emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation. Plaintiff has also incurred
medical expenses, professional expenses, lost future income, and other economic damages.
258. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages as the result of Ammis egregious and
unconscionable conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment in her favor and against
interest, to compensate Plaintiff for all physical, monetary and/or economic harm; for
harm to her professional and personal reputations and loss of career fulfillment; for
all non-monetary and/or compensatory harm, including, but not limited to,
compensation for mental anguish and physical injuries; all other monetary and/or
C. An award of costs that Plaintiff has incurred in this action, as well as Plaintiffs
reasonable attorneys fees and expenses to the fullest extent permitted by law; and
D. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages stated herein.
62
Dated: June 27, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 27, 2017, the foregoing document was filed
with the Clerk of the Court by using the Missouri e-filing system, which sent notification of such
filing to all counsel of record and served on Defendant Yahkhahnahn Ammi via U.S. Mail, first
63