12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 i
D
EFENDANT
U
BER
T
ECHNOLOGIES
,
I
NC
.’
S
O
PPOSITION
T
O
P
LAINTIFFS
’
M
OTION
F
OR
C
LASS
C
ERTIFICATION
CV
13-03826-EMC
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page I.
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 3
A.
Uber’s Business Model .................................................................................................... 3
B.
Drivers’ Onboarding Experiences .................................................................................... 5
C.
Licensing Agreements ...................................................................................................... 6
D.
Drivers’ Star Ratings/Pro Tips/Suggestions .................................................................... 6
E.
Third Party Employment And Drivers’ Use Of Other Lead Generation Applications ..................................................................................................................... 7
F.
Expenses And Reimbursement ........................................................................................ 7
G.
Gratuities .......................................................................................................................... 8
H.
Proposed Class Representatives ....................................................................................... 9
1.
Plaintiff Thomas Colopy ...................................................................................... 9
2.
Plaintiff Elie Gurfinkel ......................................................................................... 9
3.
Plaintiff Matthew Manahan ............................................................................... 10
III.
LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................. 10
IV.
ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 11
A.
Plaintiffs Have Failed to Prove That They Satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)’s Commonality Requirement or Rule 23(b)(3)’s More Demanding Predominance Requirement .......... 11
1.
Plaintiffs’ Misclassification Claims Require Individualized Inquiries Into Each Transportation Provider’s Relationship With Uber .................................. 11
Right to Control the Manner and Means of Performance ................... 13
a.
(i)
Right To Terminate ................................................................. 16
(ii)
Control Over Schedules And Routes ...................................... 19
(iii)
Use Of Third-Party Apps ........................................................ 20
Secondary Indicia ................................................................................ 20
b.
(i)
Whether Drivers Believe They Are Employees ...................... 22
(ii)
Length Of Time Worked And Method Of Payment ............... 22
(iii)
Opportunity For Profit Or Loss ............................................... 23
(iv)
Negotiation Of Rates ............................................................... 24
(v)
Engagement In A Distinct Occupation Or Business And “Employment Of Helpers” ...................................................... 24
(vi)
Provision Of The Instrumentalities And Tools Of Work ........ 25
2.
Plaintiffs’ Tipping Claims Turn On Individualized Inquiries ............................ 25
3.
Plaintiffs’ Claim For Expense Reimbursement Under Labor Code Section 2802 Depends On A Host Of Individualized Inquiries ...................................... 27
