Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 34

1
2
3

Shannon Seibert (CBN 240317)
seibert@ssjblaw.com
Joe Bautista (CBN 255708)
joebau@ssjblaw.com

SEIBERT & BAUTISTA

6

22 Battery Street, Ste. 888
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: 415.954.9455
Fax: 415.494.8115

7

Attorneys for Plaintiff

4
5

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
12
13

DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC., d/b/a
FLYWHEEL TAXI,

14

Plaintiff,
15
16
17
18
19
20

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-06385
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

vs.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; UBER USA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; RASIER, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; RASIER-CA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

21

Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
-1-

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 34

1

Plaintiff DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC., d/b/a FLYWHEEL TAXI, complains against

2

Defendants, and each of them, demands a trial by jury of all issues and for all causes of action for

3

which it is entitled, and hereby alleges on information and belief as follows.

4
5

INTRODUCTION
1.

This is an action that stems from the anticompetitive and illegal conduct of Uber,

6

which promotes itself as a “disrupter” of the transportation industry through its use of “innovative”

7

practices. In reality, Uber has done little more than implement a business strategy that openly flouts

8

the law while shifting many of the costs and nearly all of the risks of providing ride-hail services

9

from itself to its drivers and passengers while forcing a race to the bottom through predatory pricing

10

tactics – where, propped up by billions of dollars in venture capital funding, Uber will remain until

11

its illegal strategy has forced all other competitors from the market.
PARTIES

12
13

2.

Plaintiff DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC., d/b/a FLYWHEEL TAXI

14

(“FLYWHEEL TAXI”) is a California corporation. FLYWHEEL TAXI is a San Francisco taxicab

15

company that maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in the City and County of

16

San Francisco, California.

17

3.

Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. is a Delaware corporation. UBER

18

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in the City and

19

County of San Francisco, California.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

4.

Defendant UBER USA, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. UBER USA

maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in the City and County of San Francisco,
California.
5.

Defendant RASIER, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. RASIER, LLC

maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in the City and County of San Francisco,
California.
6.

Defendant RASIER-CA, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. RASIER-CA,

LLC maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in the City and County of San
Francisco, California.

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
-2-

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 34

1
2

7.

Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., UBER USA, LLC, RASIER, LLC, and

RASIER-CA, LLC are collectively referred to herein as “UBER” or “Defendants.”

3

8.

FLYWHEEL TAXI is unaware of the identity of those Defendants sued as DOES 1

4

through 100, inclusive, and they are therefore sued under those fictitious names. FLYWHEEL TAXI

5

is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that it is entitled to the relief requested in this

6

complaint from these Doe defendants and will seek leave of this Court to amend this complaint to

7

reflect these defendants’ true names and identities when ascertained.

8
9

9.

FLYWHEEL TAXI is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the

defendants named herein was the agent, alter ego, employee or representative of each of the

10

remaining defendants and in doing the things mentioned herein, was acting in the course and scope

11

of such relationship. FLYWHEEL TAXI further alleges that in doing the acts or omissions

12

complained of herein, Defendants, and each of them, acted or omitted to act in concert as agents of

13

and/or on behalf of the other defendants named herein.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION

14

10.

15
16

1331 and 1337.
11.

17
18

Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26 and 28 U.S.C. §§

Supplemental jurisdiction over the California state law claims alleged herein is

invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The claims that arise under state law are so related to claims
within the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form a part of the same case and controversy

19

under Article III of the United States Constitution.
20

12.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 22 and 26 and 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 1391 because Defendants transact business and maintain their principal corporate offices in this
22
23

district. Additionally, a substantial part of the interstate trade and commerce involved and affected
by the violation of the antitrust laws alleged herein was and is carried on within this district, and the

24

acts complained of have had, and will have, substantial anticompetitive effects in this district.

25

////

26

////

27

////

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
-3-

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 4 of 34

1

INCORPORATION OF ALLEGATIONS

2

13.

All of the allegations in this Complaint are hereby incorporated into each cause of

3

action to the extent necessary or useful to clarify and complete each stated cause of action, to avoid

4

repetition and redundancy.
TRADE AND COMMERCE

5

14.

6
7

Defendants market and sell ride-hail ground transportation services through the

internet and smartphone applications within the flow and using means of interstate commerce.
RELEVANT MARKET

8

15.

9

The product market relevant to the antitrust, unfair practices, and unfair competition

10

causes of action is ride-hail ground transportation service provided in private vehicles that are not

11

licensed as “TCP” or “PSC” and that originate in the City and County of San Francisco. The

12

geographic market is the City and County of San Francisco, including San Francisco International

13

Airport. This market is referred to herein as the “San Francisco Ride-Hail Market.”
16.

14
15

Hail Market.
FACTS COMMON TO MORE THAN ONE CAUSE OF ACTION

16

Ground Transportation in San Francisco

17

17.

18
19
20
21

24

In San Francisco, three types of private for-hire ground transportation existed prior to

July 2012: Passenger stage corporations (“PSCs”), which are shuttles driven by commercially
licensed drivers; charter-party carriers (“TCPs”), which are limousines and luxury sedans driven by
commercially licensed drivers; and taxicabs, which are driven by specially permitted drivers.
18.

22
23

Defendants currently control approximately 70 percent of the San Francisco Ride-

PSCs and TCPs are licensed and regulated by the California Public Utilities

Commission (“CPUC”). PSCs provide shuttle transportation service to the general public on fixed
routes or through scheduled service. TCPs are hired on a prearranged basis through a TCP-permitted
company for the exclusive use of an individual or group. There is no limit on the number of PSCs or

25

TCPs that may operate in the City of San Francisco, and no limit is set on the fees that PSCs or
26

TCPs may charge to passengers.
27

////
28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
-4-

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 5 of 34

1

19.

Taxicabs are permitted and regulated by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation

2

Agency (“SFMTA”). Working within the confines of the regulations established by the SFMTA and

3

the San Francisco Transportation Code, the taxicab industry provides ride-hail ground transportation

4

services originating in the City and County of San Francisco through smartphone applications,

5

telephone dispatch, and street hails.

6
7

20.

Francisco Ride-Hail Market since the 1930s.

8
9

FLYWHEEL TAXI is a taxicab company that has been operating in the San

21.

Prior to July 2012, UBER offered transportation services in San Francisco by

commercially licensed drivers in TCP-licensed vehicles.
22.

10

On July 4, 2012, UBER entered the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market with the launch

11

of “UberX,” which offered transportation in non-TCP-licensed vehicles. With the launch of UberX,

12

UBER entered into direct competition with taxicab companies, including FLYWHEEL TAXI, for

13

drivers and consumers of ride-hail transportation services in San Francisco.
23.

14
15

with the launch of “UberXL.”
24.

16
17
18

UBER expanded its presence in the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market on May 12, 2014

From July 2012 through the present date, the taxicab industry has experienced an

approximately 65 percent decline in ridership and has lost more than 30 percent of its drivers as a
result of UBER’s illegal actions as explained below.
25.

19

As a result of the decline in ridership and loss of drivers caused by UBER’s illegal

actions as explained below, FLYWHEEL TAXI has suffered substantial monetary losses between
20

July 2012 and the present date.
21

UBER’s History in San Francisco
22

26.

UBER began operations in San Francisco in approximately June 2010 as “UberCab.”

23

UberCab provided ride-hail transportation service in full-size luxury vehicles. The luxury vehicles
24
25
26
27

were TCP-licensed and driven by commercially licensed drivers. UBER conceived of its luxury
vehicle service as one that would be used as a status symbol for people who wanted to be “ballers” in
San Francisco.
////

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
-5-

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 6 of 34

1

27.

In October 2010, UberCab was ordered to cease and desist operations by local and

2

state agencies due, in part, to the agencies’ findings that UBER was using limousines, town cars, and

3

other luxury vehicles to provide taxi services in violation of San Francisco’s Transportation Code and

4

California law.
28.

5

UBER responded by dropping the name “Cab” from the company name and

6

continuing to provide luxury car services known as “UberBlack.” UBER charged a base rate of $8.00

7

plus $4.90 per mile and $1.25 per idle minute for UberBlack service.
29.

8
9
10

UberX service as its lower cost alternative to UberBlack. UberX prices were initially set higher than
those charged by taxicabs but lower than UberBlack.
30.

11
12
13
14

On July 4, 2012, UBER launched “UberX” in San Francisco. UBER promoted its

On July 4, 2012, UBER also launched “UberSUV” in San Francisco as a premium

service for larger groups. UberSUV services are provided by commercially licensed drivers in TCPlicensed luxury vehicles. UberSUV rates are higher than those charged for UberBlack due to the
additional passenger capacity offered by UberSUV vehicles.
31.

15

On October 17, 2012, UBER launched UberTaxi, which allows users to request a

licensed taxicab through UBER’s smartphone application. UBER charged the taximeter rates, plus a
16

$1.00 booking fee and added an automatic 20 percent gratuity to the total fare.
17

32.

On May 12, 2014, UBER launched “UberXL,” which was promoted as its “Low-Cost

18

SUV Option.” UberXL drivers are not commercially licensed, and UberXL vehicles are not TCP19

licensed. UberXL is approximately 50 percent less expensive than UberSUV.

20

UBER’s Business Model

21
22

33.

UBER formed in 2009 with seed funding of approximately $200,000. Since then,

UBER has raised more than $15 billion in private venture capital funding.

23

34.

UBER’s revenue is generated by taking a percentage of the money paid by passengers

24

for rides booked through the UBER smartphone application. The amount charged to the passenger for

25

each ride is determined by a GPS-based system that, just like a meter in a taxicab, measures the time

26

and distance traveled during each trip.

27

////

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
-6-

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 7 of 34

1

35.

At the conclusion of each trip, the passenger’s credit card is charged by UBER. UBER

2

withholds its percentage as commission and deposits the remainder into each driver’s bank account

3

on a weekly basis. The standard percentage currently taken by UBER is 25 percent of the total

4

amount charged to the passenger, though the amount may vary from 0 percent to 30 percent.
36.

5

In October 2011, UBER implemented a new policy called “surge pricing,” which

6

results in an automatic price increase during times of actual or anticipated increases in demand. Surge

7

pricing has resulted in passengers being charged up to eight (8) times the advertised fare during times

8

of natural and national emergencies and has led to numerous accusations of price gouging.
37.

9

From the time of its founding until July 2012, UBER’s service was promoted as a

10

luxury service, and its business model was centered on the premise that passengers were willing to

11

pay more for an Uber than for a taxi because UBER offered higher quality transportation services.
38.

12
13

transportation service and entered the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market with UberX.
39.

14
15

Beginning in July 2012, UBER shifted its focus from providing luxury TCP-licensed

UBER drivers must provide their own personal vehicles and personal liability

insurance to be approved to drive for UBER. UBER requires that driver applicants submit a picture of
their vehicle – which must be an UBER-approved make and model, must carry at least four

16

passengers, must not be more than 10 to 15 years old, and must not have any scratches or dents in the
17

body – as well as proof of personal insurance on the vehicle at the time of application.
18

40.
19
20
21
22

By requiring drivers to maintain personal insurance, UBER pushes many of the

liability risks inherent in providing ride-hail transportation to UBER drivers. The risk is also
transferred to UBER passengers and third-parties such as pedestrians, who may be left without any or
sufficient recourse if they are injured as a result of an UBER driver’s actions due to the absence of an
adequate insurance policy to provide coverage.

23

41.

Additional costs associated with driving a vehicle include maintenance, cleaning, and

24

depreciation of the vehicle. Depending on the amount of time and number of miles driven, the cost of

25

maintenance, cleaning, and service of the vehicle can range from $500 per month to more than

26

$1,500 per month.

27

////

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
-7-

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 8 of 34

1

42.

Additional costs include data usage rates for streaming music UBER offers to

2

passengers through the driver’s personal cell phone, $10 a week for use of UBER’s iPhone

3

containing the UBER application, toll charges incurred when transporting UBER passengers, and

4

tickets and citations issued for operating UBER as an unauthorized taxi service.
43.

5

Beginning in November 2013, UBER implemented a plan to push additional costs to

6

drivers while ensuring drivers would be unable to stop driving for UBER through the “Vehicle

7

Solutions Program.” Through the program, UBER “connects drivers with any kind of credit history to

8

the best financing options available” from subprime lenders in order to purchase an UBER-approved

9

vehicle. At least one of UBER’s “partner” lenders is currently under federal investigation for its auto

10

lending and underwriting practices.
44.

11
12
13
14
15

To enroll in the Vehicle Solutions Program, the driver makes an initial cash deposit of

approximately $2,000. The driver’s car payments are then automatically deducted from his or her
weekly earnings before UBER deposits them in the driver’s bank account. At interest rates as high as
25 percent, UberX drivers pay between $700 and $1,000.00 per month until the loan is paid in full,
resulting in drivers often paying nearly double the sticker price of the car. The program works,
according to UBER CEO Travis Kalanick, to ensure that UberX drivers continue driving for UBER.

16

45.

Beginning in July 2015, UBER added a new program, Xchange Leasing, through

17

which UBER offers subprime automobile leases to UBER drivers with poor credit. UBER markets
18

Xchange Leasing as offering “low” car payments that are deducted from the driver’s weekly earnings
19
20
21

and a leasing program that is “flexible.” In reality, the subprime rates charged to UBER drivers with
poor credit are two to three times the amount charged by car dealerships and include hidden fees and
cancellation penalties.

22

46.

Despite a business model that unabashedly shifts the risks of doing business to its

23

drivers and lures drivers to a modern-day form of indentured servitude, UBER has yet to turn a profit.

24

Propped up by billions of dollars in venture capital, UBER has lost and continues to lose hundreds of

25

millions of dollars each year due to its predatory pricing practices.

26

////

27

////

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
-8-

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 9 of 34

1

Beyond “Disruption” – UBER’s Anticompetitive Conduct

2

47.

In 2010 and 2011, UBER advertised the prices for its luxury-vehicle transportation

3

service as the premium charged for a better service than that offered by the taxicab industry. In a

4

lengthy 2011 blog post, UBER explained: “We do cost more than a cab. But we offer more than a

5

cab: reliability, user support, and of course style and comfort … Uber may cost more, but … Uber’s

6

benefits far outweigh the extra costs.” (emphasis in original UBER website posting.) At the time,

7

UBER charged a base rate of $8.00 plus $4.90 per mile and $1.25 per idle minute for UberBlack

8

luxury vehicles.
48.

9

In July 2012, UBER launched UberX in San Francisco at prices higher than taxicab

10

rates but lower than UberBlack rates. UBER promoted UberX as its lower cost alternative to

11

UberBlack. In July 2012, UberX cost $5.00 for the base rate, $3.25 per mile, and $.75 for each idle

12

minute in San Francisco.
49.

13
14
15

As demand for UberX increased between July 2012 and June 2013, UBER increased

the base rate for UberX services in San Francisco to $5.75, the per-mile rate to $3.75, and the perminute rate to $.85.
50.

In June 2013, UBER drastically lowered the price of its UberX service in San

16

Francisco and incorrectly announced that “effective today, uberX prices are 10 percent lower than
17

taxi prices.” (emphasis in original UBER website posting.) UBER promoted UberX as the “new
18

UberX” that offered “cheaper-than-taxi pricing.”
19

51.
20
21

industry’s 2013 prices: $3.50 for the base fare, $2.75 for each additional mile, and $.55 for each
minute of waiting or traffic delay time.

22
23

In reality, the June 2013 price cut brought UberX prices into parity with the taxicab

52.

UBER lost money on each and every UberX ride provided in the San Francisco Ride-

Hail Market after reducing prices in June 2013.

24

53.

Six months later, in January 2014, UBER “temporarily” slashed UberX prices in San

25

Francisco by an additional 20 percent explaining that “we’re going all-in on being the cheapest ride

26

in town” and claiming to offer fares 26 percent cheaper than taxicabs.

27

////

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
-9-

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 10 of 34

1
2

54.

The new rates charged for UberX after the January 2014 price cuts were $3.00 for the

base fare, $1.50 per mile, and $.30 per idle minute.

3

55.

At the same time it lowered UberX rates in January 2014, UBER reduced its

4

commission on each UberX ride by 75 percent (from 20 percent to 5 percent) to subsidize the income

5

lost by UberX drivers due to the price cuts.
56.

6
7

UBER lost money on each and every UberX ride under the pricing structure

implemented in January 2014.
57.

8

In April 2014, UBER restored its commission on UberX rides to 20 percent but did

9

not return UberX prices to pre-January levels, leading the drivers to suffer a 15 percent reduction in

10

income compared to three months earlier. Though it claimed the January 2014 price cuts would be

11

“temporary,” UberX prices never returned to pre-January 2014 levels.
58.

12
13
14
15

In May 2014, UBER launched UberXL, which it advertised as its “low-cost SUV

option.” UberXL prices were: $5.00 for the base fare, $2.15 per mile, and $.45 per idle minute.
UBER lost money on each and every UberXL ride under the pricing structure implemented in May
2014.
59.

In June 2014, UBER further reduced UberX prices by 25 percent. UBER emailed its

16

San Francisco users and advertised through its San Francisco blog: “We just dropped uberX fares by
17

25 percent, making it 45 percent cheaper than a taxi. In San Francisco … and everywhere else in the
18

Bay Area, uberX is the most affordable ride on the road.”
19
20
21

////
////
////

22

////

23

////

24

////

25

////

26

////

27

////

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 10 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 11 of 34

1
2

60.

To ensure the public would not miss the drastic, if overrepresented, undercutting of

the prices charged by the taxicab industry, UBER included the following graphic:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

61.

UBER subsidized the June 2014 round of price cuts by paying its drivers more than

22

UBER charged passengers under the new pricing program. Though UberX passengers paid only 75

23

percent of the January 2014 rates due to the 25 percent price-reduction, UBER continued to pay

24

UberX drivers 80 percent of the January 2014 rates – meaning UBER paid the entire amount

25

collected from the passenger plus an additional 5 percent for each UberX ride.
62.

26

When UBER stopped subsidizing UberX drivers’ income in the San Francisco Ride-

27

Hail Market in September 2014, drivers lost an additional 25 percent of their income due to the price

28

cuts.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 11 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 12 of 34

1

63.

The June 2014 price cuts lowered UberX prices to $2.20 for the base fare, $1.30 per

2

mile, and $.26 per idle minute. UBER lost money on each and every UberX ride under the pricing

3

structure implemented in June 2014.

4

64.

UBER further reduced prices of UberX in January 2016 to $2 for the base fare, $1.15

5

per mile, and $.22 per idle minute. UBER has experienced and continues to experience a loss on each

6

and every UberX ride under the pricing structure implemented in January 2016.

7

65.

In January 2016, UBER reduced UberXL prices to: $3 for the base fare, $2 per mile,

8

and $.30 per idle minute. UBER has experienced and continues to experience a loss on each and

9

every UberXL ride provided in the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market.

10

66.

In August 2016, UBER instituted a program called Uber Plus. In San Francisco, Uber

11

Plus passengers pay $30 per month in return for 40 UberX rides per month at the flat rate of $8 per

12

ride, resulting in a total fare of $8.75 for each UberX ride provided by UBER.

13
14
15

67.

UBER subsidizes the difference between the flat rate charged to passengers and the

normal rates earned by drivers by paying drivers more than UBER receives from the passengers,
resulting in additional losses for UBER for each and every ride taken.
68.

Beginning in at least January 2014 and continuing through the present date, UBER has

16

lost and continues to lose money on each and every UberX and UberXL ride provided in the San
17

Francisco Ride-Hail Market.
18

69.
19
20
21
22

Throughout this time, UBER has also artificially increased prices of taxicabs through

its UberTaxi application, which allows a user to hail a taxicab but only at rates higher than those
allowed by the SFMTA. Despite UBER’s assertion that the service was offered to provide customers
more “choice,” the service has improperly inflated taxicab fares.
70.

UBER has been able to maintain below-cost pricing for its UberX and UberXL

23

services in the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market due to vast reserves of capital invested with the

24

expectation of reaping extraordinary future returns.

25
26

71.

In adopting this approach, UBER has veered from free market principles and

artificially deflated fares of UberX and UberXL to prices below cost in an effort to drive competitors

27
28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 12 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 13 of 34

1

of UberX and UberXL from the market in the hope of recouping its losses once UBER’s competition

2

has been destroyed.

3

72.

UBER’s intent to monopolize the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market and injure

4

competitors has been made clear through the statements of its CEO Travis Kalanick and UBER’s

5

advertising highlighting its unilateral price war in the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market.
73.

6

UberX is advertised as “everyday cars for everyday use” that are “better, faster, and

7

cheaper than a taxi,” and UBER’s San Francisco website advertises that its “fares are usually cheaper

8

than a taxi.” UBER’s San Francisco webpage links to the SFMTA website, where San Francisco

9

taxicab rates are published so consumers can compare UberX and UberXL prices to San Francisco

10

taxicab prices.
74.

11
12
13

intends to “destroy” all of its competitors and has made clear that UBER is doing so through belowcost pricing of UberX and UberXL services.
75.

14
15

UBER CEO Travis Kalanick has repeatedly stated in public speeches that UBER

Propped up by billions of dollars in venture capital that allow it to operate at enormous

losses due to below-cost pricing, UBER has captured more than 70 percent of the San Francisco
Ride-Hail Market. Left unchecked, UBER is likely to succeed in establishing complete domination of

16

the market by forcing out all competitors through its predatory pricing practices. Once its competitors
17

have been removed, UBER, free of the constraints of competition, will be free to implement
18

unfettered price increases for its services, and consumers will be left with no choice but to pay the
19

prices – however exorbitant – demanded by UBER.

20

UBER’s Wrongful, Illegal & Unfair Practices

21

UBER’s Misrepresentations to Drivers

22

False Statements about Uber Drivers’ Hourly Income

23

76.

In June 2013, UBER represented to current and prospective UberX drivers that they

24

would earn more money per hour as a result of UBER’s June 2013 price reduction for UberX

25

services.

26

////

27

////

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 13 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 14 of 34

1

77.

In January 2014, UBER represented to current and prospective UberX drivers that

2

they would earn more money per hour as a result of UBER’s January 2014 price reduction for UberX

3

services.

4

78.

In June 2014, UBER represented to current and prospective UberX drivers that they

5

would earn more money per hour as a result of UBER’s June 2014 price reduction for UberX

6

services.
79.

7
8

In reality, UberX drivers earned less money on a per-hour basis despite performing

more work after each of UBER’s price cuts than they earned before each of UBER’s price cuts.
80.

9

In reliance on UBER’s misrepresentations, thousands of former and potential San

10

Francisco taxicab drivers have quit or foregone driving taxicabs and assumed monthly car payments

11

with the expectation of earning increased amounts of income on a per-hour basis. Having incurred the

12

costs and long-term financial commitments required to become an UberX driver, the drivers are left

13

with no choice but to continue driving for UBER despite a decreasing rate of return.
False Statements about Uber Drivers’ Annual Income

14

81.

15

Beginning in May 2014 and continuing through the present date, UBER has

represented to current and potential UberX drivers that half of UberX drivers in the San Francisco
16

Ride-Hail Market earn more than $74,000 per year driving for UBER.
17

82.

In reality, more than half of full-time UberX drivers in the San Francisco Ride-Hail

18

Market make less than approximately $35,000 in gross earnings per year and incur costs exceeding
19

approximately $15,000 per year.

20
21

83.

In reliance on UBER’s representations, thousands of former and potential San

Francisco taxicab drivers have quit or foregone driving taxicabs and assumed monthly car payments

22

with the expectation of earning approximately $74,000 per year driving an UberX vehicle. Having

23

incurred the costs and long-term financial commitments required to become an UberX driver, drivers

24

are left with no choice but to continue driving for UBER despite the paltry annual income actually

25

earned.

26

////

27

////

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 14 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 15 of 34

1
2

False Statements about Uber Drivers’ Proportional Income
84.

Beginning in June 2013 and continuing through the present date, UBER has

3

represented to current and potential UberX and UberXL drivers in San Francisco that they would earn

4

80 percent of all fares collected from their passengers and that UBER would provide free

5

smartphones to them.

6

85.

In reality, UBER began deducting $10.00 per week from drivers’ earnings in

7

September 2014 for the use of its smartphone and began confiscating a $1.00 “safe rides” fee that

8

was previously paid to UberX and UberXL drivers. As a result, UberX and UberXL drivers receive

9

far less than 80 percent of the total fares collected from their passengers.

10

86.

In reliance on UBER’s misrepresentations, thousands of former and potential San

11

Francisco taxicab drivers have quit or foregone driving taxicabs and assumed monthly car payments

12

with the expectation of earning 80 percent of all fares collected from their passengers. Having

13
14
15

incurred the costs and long-term financial commitments required to become an UberX or UberXL
driver, drivers are left with no choice but to continue driving for UBER despite the reduced
proportional income actually earned.
False Statements about Taxicab Drivers’ Income

16

87.

UBER represents to current and potential UberX and UberXL drivers that taxicab

17

drivers live below the poverty line and are required to spend $3,500 per month to lease their taxicab.
18

88.
19
20
21

In reality, full-time taxicab drivers in the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market made

approximately $6,000.00 per month in gross earnings before UBER began engaging in
anticompetitive conduct and paid approximately $1,900.00 per month to lease the vehicles.
89.

Relying on UBER’s misrepresentations, thousands of potential San Francisco taxicab

22

drivers assumed the financial responsibilities, risks, and commitments associated with driving for

23

UBER rather than choosing to drive a taxicab.

24

90.

In reliance on UBER’s misrepresentations, thousands of potential San Francisco

25

taxicab drivers have foregone driving taxicabs and assumed monthly car payments with the

26

expectation of making more money driving for UBER than would be made driving a taxicab. Having

27

incurred the costs and long-term financial commitments required to become an UberX or UberXL

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 15 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 16 of 34

1

driver, drivers are left with no choice but to continue driving for UBER despite the paltry annual

2

income actually earned.

3

UBER’s Misrepresentations to the Public

4

False Statements about UberX Prices Relative to Taxi Prices
91.

5

In June 2013, UBER falsely stated to the public that UberX prices were “10 percent

6

lower than taxi prices.” In reality, UberX prices were not lower than taxicab vehicle prices but were

7

exactly equal to taxicab prices in the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market after UBER’s June 2013 price

8

cuts.
92.

9

In January 2014, UBER falsely stated to the public that UberX prices were 26 percent

10

lower than taxi prices. In reality, UberX prices were 15 percent lower than taxicab prices in the San

11

Francisco Ride-Hail Market after UBER’s January 2014 price cuts.
93.

12
13
14
15

In June 2014, UBER falsely stated to the public that it dropped UberX prices by 25

percent and that the price reduction made UberX prices 45 percent lower than taxi prices. In reality,
UberX prices were decreased by 18 percent, making them 38 percent lower than taxicab prices in the
San Francisco Ride-Hail Market after UBER’s June 2014 price cuts.
94.

Throughout this time and continuing through the present date, purchasers of ride-hail

16

services in San Francisco have relied on and have been deceived by UBER’s representations
17

regarding UberX prices relative to San Francisco taxicab prices when selecting UberX instead of
18

UBER’s taxicab competitors.
19

False Statements about Surge Pricing

20
21
22

95.

Beginning in June 2013 and continuing through December 2013, UBER advertised

UberX prices in San Francisco as $3.50 for the base fare, $2.75 per additional mile, and $.55 per idle
minute.

23

96.

Beginning in January 2014 and continuing through June 2014, UBER advertised

24

UberX prices in San Francisco as $3.00 for the base fare, $1.50 per additional mile, and $.30 per idle

25

minute.

26

////

27

////

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 16 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 17 of 34

1

97.

Beginning in July 2014 and continuing through December 2015, UBER advertised

2

UberX prices in San Francisco as $2.20 for the base fare, $1.30 per additional mile, and $.26 per idle

3

minute.

4

98.

Beginning in January 2016 and continuing through the present date, UBER advertised

5

UberX prices in San Francisco as $2.00 for the base fare, $1.15 per additional mile, and $.22 per idle

6

minute.
99.

7

In reality, beginning in June 2013 and continuing through the present date, UBER has

8

charged UberX customers “surge” rates at amounts not included in the advertised rates. UBER’s

9

“surge” pricing results in passengers being charged up to eight (8) times the rates advertised by

10
11
12
13

UBER.
100.

hail services in San Francisco have relied on and have been deceived by the advertised rates when
selecting UberX instead of UBER’s competitors.
False Statements about Tipping & Total Fares Charged to Passengers

14
15

Beginning in June 2013 and continuing through the present date, purchasers of ride-

101.

Beginning in at least November 2011 and continuing through April 2016, UBER

consistently and repeatedly falsely stated that the fare charged to the customer through the UBER
16

smartphone application for UberX and UberXL services “includes the tip.”
17

102.

In reality, the fare charged to passengers never included a tip and UBER did not

18

provide the driver with a tip despite the fact that tipping is a common and expected practice in the
19
20
21
22

San Francisco ride-hail industry.
103.

and have been deceived by UBER’s misrepresentations when comparing the prices of UberX and
UberXL to those of UBER’s taxicab competitors.

23
24

Continuing through at least June 2016, purchasers of ride-hail services have relied on

False Statements about Vehicle Locations & Response Times
104.

Through its smartphone application, UBER provides a visual depiction of nearby

25

UberX and UberXL vehicles currently available to accept requests from passengers. The application

26

also provides an estimate of the time it will take for a driver to reach the passenger when the

27

passenger requests a ride. From June 2012 and continuing through the present date, UBER advertised

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 17 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 18 of 34

1

this function as real-time tracking of UberX vehicles available for hire. From May 2014 and

2

continuing through the present date, UBER advertised this function as real-time tracking of UberXL

3

vehicles available for hire.

4

105.

In reality, the UBER application did not and does not accurately represent the UberX

5

and UberXL vehicles available to pick up passengers. The application overstates the number and

6

understates the proximity of available vehicles. When an order is placed through the application, the

7

application significantly underestimates the time it will take for an UberX or UberXL driver to reach

8

the passenger, leading to longer wait times than represented.
106.

9

Throughout this time and continuing through the present date, purchasers of ride-hail

10

services in San Francisco have relied on and have been deceived by UBER’s false statements

11

regarding the number and proximity of available vehicles and estimated wait times when selecting an

12

UberX or UberXL vehicle over those of UBER’s taxicab competitors.
False Statements about Safety

13

107.

14
15

Beginning in at least June 2013 and continuing through April 2016, UBER falsely

stated that it conducted “rigorous” background checks on UBER drivers that “set a new standard” to
ensure the safety of passengers. UBER represented its drivers “provide[d] the safest ride on the road”

16

and were “the gold standard” of safety practices.
17

108.

In reality, UBER’s background checks were and are inferior to those required for

18

taxicab drivers, who are required to submit to fingerprinting and LiveScan, which searches a national
19
20
21

database of records. UBER’s deficient background check process has allowed registered sex
offenders, identity thieves, and a convicted murderer drive for UberX and led to numerous assaults
and injuries of UberX passengers.

22

109.

Throughout this time and continuing through the present date, purchasers of ride-hail

23

services in San Francisco have been deceived by and have relied on UBER’s misrepresentations

24

regarding safety when choosing UberX and UberXL services over those of UBER’s taxicab

25

competitors.

26

////

27

////

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 18 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 19 of 34

1

UBER’s Illegal & Unfair Conduct

2

UBER’s Violations of Federal Law

3

110.

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits private for-hire transportation

4

companies from discriminating against any individual with a disability and requires that private for-

5

hire transportation companies provide readily accessible vehicles for individuals with disabilities,

6

train personnel to provide proficient service to disabled individuals, assist with the stowing of

7

mobility devices, and allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities. In contravention

8

of federal law and continuing from UBER’s inception through the present date, UBER has

9

discriminated against individuals with disabilities by providing services only through smart-phone

10

applications that require credit card payment, thereby excluding from UBER services all disabled

11

individuals of limited financial means, and has further refused to provide readily accessible vehicles

12

for disabled individuals, refused to train personnel to provide proficient service to disabled

13
14

individuals, refused to assist with the stowing of mobility devices, and, until April 2016, refused to
allow service animals to accompany disabled individuals.
UBER’s Violations of California State Law

15

111.

The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits business establishments from discriminating on

16

the basis of race and requires that all businesses in California provide full and equal accommodations,
17

advantages, facilities, privileges and services without regard to race. In contravention of state law and
18

continuing from UBER’s inception through the present date, UBER has discriminated against non19
20
21

white passengers by refusing, and allowing its agents to refuse, to offer non-white passengers free
and full access to UBER vehicles.
112.

From September 2013 through July 2015, UBER was required to maintain commercial

22

insurance that provided a minimum of $1 million per incident in liability coverage. In contravention

23

of California law, UBER forced its drivers to maintain their own insurance policies to provide

24

primary coverage while offering a “contingent” policy that did not provide full coverage at all times

25

the vehicle was in use.

26
27

113.

California regulatory authorities require that for-hire vehicles be registered as

commercial vehicles. UBER refuses to allow drivers to register UberX and UberXL vehicles as

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 19 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 20 of 34

1

commercial vehicles and has deactivated the UBER accounts of UberX and UberXL drivers who

2

registered their vehicles as commercial vehicles in defiance of UBER’s instruction. By mandating

3

that UberX and UberXL vehicles be registered as personal rather than commercial vehicles, UBER is

4

operating, and requires that its drivers operate, in direct violation of California law.

5

114.

UBER is required by California regulatory authorities and statute to ensure that all

6

drivers are safely operating UberX and UberX vehicles by establishing a driver training program.

7

UBER has failed and refused to establish or provide a driver training program for UberX and

8

UberXL drivers. Instead, UBER offers a 16-minute YouTube video that demonstrates how to operate

9

the UBER smartphone application and refers potential drivers to an optional $65.00 course offered by

10

a third party.
UBER’s Violations of San Francisco Municipal Law

11
12
13
14
15

115.

San Francisco municipal law requires that private vehicles providing ride-hail services

in the City and County of San Francisco must comply with the SFMTA’s rules regarding taxicab
vehicles contained in sections 300 and 1100 of the San Francisco Transportation Code. Beginning in
July 2012 and continuing through the present date, UBER has refused and continues to refuse to
abide by San Francisco municipal law regulating taxicab vehicles.

16

116.

San Francisco’s municipal law requires private vehicles providing ride-hail services in

17

the City and County of San Francisco must comply with the regulations adopted by San Francisco
18

International Airport. San Francisco International Airport requires all vehicles providing ride-hail
19
20
21
22

services to register with and be permitted by the airport. Beginning in at least July 2012 and
continuing through October 2014, UBER failed and refused to register its vehicles or apply for
permits with the San Francisco International Airport.
117.

San Francisco’s Transportation Code requires private vehicles providing ride-hail

23

services in the City and County of San Francisco to provide liability insurance of no less than $1

24

million per incident that covers property damages as well as personal injury for the driver,

25

passengers, and third parties caused any time the vehicle is in use. In contravention of San Francisco

26

municipal law, beginning in July 2012 and continuing through the present date, UBER refused and

27

continues to provide liability insurance of at least $1 million to protect drivers, passengers, and third

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 20 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 21 of 34

1

parties from injuries caused by a driver of an UberX or UberXL vehicle at all times the vehicle is in

2

use.

3

118.

San Francisco’s Transportation Code requires private vehicles providing ride-hail

4

services in the City and County of San Francisco to participate in the city’s Paratransit program and

5

remain in compliance with the regulations of the SFMTA’s Paratransit program. In contravention of

6

San Francisco municipal law beginning in at least July 2012 and continuing through the present date,

7

UBER has refused and continues to refuse to participate in the Paratransit program and is not and has

8

not been in compliance with the regulations of the Paratransit program.

9

119.

San Francisco’s Transportation Code prohibits private vehicles providing ride-hail

10

services in the City and County of San Francisco from charging passengers more than SFMTA-

11

approved “meter rates,” which cap the amount a taxicab may charge a passenger for the base fare,

12

distance driven, and wait time. Beginning in at least July 2012 and continuing through the present

13

date, UBER has charged passengers in excess of SFMTA-approved rates through a practice referred

14

to by UBER as “surge pricing.”

15

120.

San Francisco’s Transportation Code requires all private vehicles providing ride-hail

16

services in the City and County of San Francisco to be associated with a medallion issued by the

17

SFMTA. Beginning in at least July 2012 and continuing through the present date, UBER has refused

18

and failed to associate any of its UberX or UberXL vehicles with a city-issued medallion.

19
20
21

121.

San Francisco’s Transportation Code caps the amount ride-hail services in the City

and County of San Francisco may charge drivers for daily lease fees. Beginning in July 2015 and
continuing through the present date, UBER has charged drivers far in excess of the maximum daily
lease fee that may is authorized under the Transportation Code.

22

122.

San Francisco’s Transportation Code requires private vehicles providing ride-hail

23

services in the City and County of San Francisco to be equipped with a two-way communication
24

device, paratransit debit card processing system, high speed printer, decals indicating the taxicab
25
26
27

company name, and a light attached to the vehicle indicating the vehicle is a taxicab. Beginning in
July 2012 and continuing through the present date, UBER has failed and continues to fail to equip its
vehicles with a two-way communication device, paratransit debit card processing system, high speed

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 21 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 22 of 34

1

printer, decals indicating UBER’s company name, and a light attached to each vehicle in its fleet

2

indicating the vehicle is a taxicab.

3

123.

San Francisco’s Transportation Code requires ride-hail companies to provide a

4

telephone dispatch service and advertise a phone number that can be called by passengers to request

5

transportation. In contravention of San Francisco municipal law, beginning in at least July 2012 and

6

continuing through the present date, UBER has failed and continues to fail to provide a telephone

7

dispatch service or advertise a phone number that can be called by passengers to request

8

transportation.
124.

9

UBER has employed these unfair and illegal methods to obtain an unfair advantage

10

over FLYWHEEL TAXI and the ride-hail industry as a whole, leaving FLYWHEEL TAXI and the

11

ride-hail industry unable to fairly compete for customers in the San Francisco market.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
MONOPOLIZATION
(SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 2)
(Against all Defendants)

12
13
14

125.

15
16

The purpose of this country’s antitrust laws is to preserve and advance our system of

free and open competition and to secure to everyone an equal opportunity to engage in business,
trade, and commerce for the purpose of ensuring that the consuming public may receive better goods

17

and services at lower cost.
18

126.

The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits the acquisition or maintenance of monopoly

19

power within any part of interstate or foreign trade or commerce where such power harms
20

competition and injures consumers.

21
22

127.

The San Francisco Ride-Hail Market is a valid antitrust market.

128.

Through the actions described in paragraphs 47 to 75, UBER has willfully acquired

23

and maintained monopoly power in the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market. UBER’s anticompetitive

24

conduct has harmed competition in the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market and has caused and will

25

cause injury to consumers in the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market by allowing UBER to charge

26

supracompetitive prices for ride-hail services after its competition is eliminated.

27

////

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 22 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 23 of 34

1
2
3
4
5

129.

UBER’s anticompetitive conduct is in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the

injuries caused by UBER’s anticompetitive conduct are the type intended to be prevented by the Act.
130.

There is no appropriate or legitimate business justification for UBER’s

anticompetitive conduct.
131.

As a direct and proximate result of UBER’s anticompetitive conduct, FLYWHEEL

6

TAXI has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

7

WHEREFORE, FLYWHEEL TAXI prays for relief as set forth herein.

8

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
ATTEMPTED MONOPOLIZATION
(SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 2)
(Against all Defendants)

9
10
11

132.

The purpose of this country’s antitrust laws is to preserve and advance our system of

12

free and open competition and to secure to everyone an equal opportunity to engage in business,

13

trade, and commerce for the purpose of ensuring that the consuming public may receive better goods

14
15
16

and services at lower cost.
133.

The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits anticompetitive conduct carried out for the

purpose of achieving monopoly power in any part of interstate or foreign trade or commerce.
134.

The San Francisco Ride-Hail Market is a valid antitrust market.

135.

Through the actions described in paragraphs 47 to 75, UBER has engaged in

17
18

exclusionary conduct through below-cost pricing carried out with the specific intent of achieving
19

monopoly power in the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market and of obstructing, restraining and excluding
20
21
22

competition.
136.

There is a dangerous probability that UBER will achieve its goal of obtaining

monopoly power in the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market if it continues to engage in the conduct

23

described herein because UBER has sufficient market power to and actually does exclude its

24

competitors through the use of below-cost pricing.

25
26

137.

There is a dangerous probability that UBER will recoup the losses it has incurred due

to below-cost pricing by charging supracompetitive prices once it has achieved its goal of excluding

27
28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 23 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 24 of 34

1

and driving out competitors from the San Francisco Ride-Hail Market because significant barriers to

2

entry into the Ride-Hail Market exist.

3
4
5

138.

There is no appropriate or legitimate business justification for UBER’s

anticompetitive conduct.
139.

The anticompetitive conduct described herein is in violation of the Sherman Antitrust

6

Act, and the injuries caused by UBER’s anticompetitive conduct are the type intended to be

7

prevented by the Sherman Antitrust Act.

8
9
10
11

140.

As a direct and proximate result of UBER’s attempt to achieve monopoly power

through anticompetitive conduct, FLYWHEEL TAXI has suffered and continues to suffer damages in
an amount to be proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, FLYWHEEL TAXI prays for relief as set forth herein.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT – SALES BELOW COST
(Bus. & Prof. Code § 17043)
(Against all Defendants)

12
13
14

141.

Pursuant to section 17043 of the California Business and Professions Code, it is

15

unlawful for a business to sell any article or product at less than the cost thereof, or to give away any
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

article or product, for the purpose of injuring competitors or destroying competition.
142.

Transportation service is an “article or product” pursuant to Business and Professions

Code section 17024.
143.

From June 2013 through December 2013, UBER charged $3.50 for the base fare,

$2.75 for each additional mile, and $.55 for each idle minute for UberX services in San Francisco.
144.

From January 2014 through June 2014, UBER charged $3.00 base fare, $1.50 per

mile, and $.30 per idle minute for UberX services in San Francisco.
145.

From July 2014 through December 2015, UBER charged $2.20 for the base fare,

$1.30 per mile, and $.26 per idle minute for UberX services in San Francisco.
146.

From January 2016 and continuing through the present date, UBER charged and has

26

continued to charge $2.00 for the base fare, $1.15 per mile, and $.22 per idle minute for UberX

27

services in San Francisco.

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 24 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 25 of 34

1
2

147.

From May 2014 through December 2015, UBER charged $5.00 for the base fare,

$2.15 per mile, and $.45 per idle minute for UberXL services in San Francisco.

3

148.

From January 2016 and continuing through the present date, UBER charged and has

4

continued to charge $3.00 for the base fare, $2.00 per mile, and $.30 per idle minute for UberXL

5

services in San Francisco.
149.

6
7

below UBER’s cost in providing the service.
150.

8
9

151.

14
15

152.

As a direct and proximate result of the purposeful actions taken by UBER as described

herein, FLYWHEEL TAXI has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be proven
at trial.
WHEREFORE, FLYWHEEL TAXI prays for relief as set forth herein.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT – LOSS LEADER PRACTICES
(Bus. & Prof. Code § 17044)
(Against all Defendants)

16
17
18

UBER engaged and continues to engage in this activity for the express purpose of

injuring competitors and destroying competition.

12
13

From May 2014 through the present date, UBER has sold each UberXL service at a

cost below UBER’s cost in providing the service.

10
11

From June 2013 through the present date, UBER has sold each UberX service at a cost

153.

Pursuant to section 17044 of California’s Business and Professions Code, a business

19

may not offer to sell or sell a service at a price that is below the cost of providing the service for the

20

purpose of injuring competitors or destroying competition when the effect of the loss-leader is to

21

divert trade from or otherwise injure competitors.

22

154.

23

Code section 17024.

24

155.

25
26
27

Transportation service is an “article or product” pursuant to Business and Professions

From June 2013 through December 2013, UBER charged $3.50 for the base fare,

$2.75 for each additional mile, and $.55 for each idle minute for UberX services in San Francisco.
156.

From January 2014 through June 2014, UBER charged $3.00 base fare, $1.50 per

mile, and $.30 per idle minute for UberX services in San Francisco.

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 25 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 26 of 34

1
2

157.

From July 2014 through December 2015, UBER charged $2.20 for the base fare,

$1.30 per mile, and $.26 per idle minute for UberX services in San Francisco.

3

158.

From January 2016 and continuing through the present date, UBER charged and has

4

continued to charge $2.00 for the base fare, $1.15 per mile, and $.22 per idle minute for UberX

5

services in San Francisco.
159.

6
7

$2.15 per mile, and $.45 per idle minute for UberXL services in San Francisco.
160.

8
9
10

services in San Francisco.
161.

Beginning in June 2013 and continuing through the present date, UBER has offered to

sell and has sold UberX services at a cost below UBER’s cost in providing the service.
162.

13
14

From January 2016 and continuing through the present date, UBER charged and has

continued to charge $3.00 for the base fare, $2.00 per mile, and $.30 per idle minute for UberXL

11
12

From May 2014 through December 2015, UBER charged $5.00 for the base fare,

From May 2014 through the present date, UBER has offered to sell and sold UberXL

services at a cost below UBER’s cost in providing the service.
163.

15

UBER’s offers to sell and sale of UberX services below-cost had a tendency or

capacity to mislead or deceive purchasers and potential purchasers of UberX services by
16

misrepresenting the percentage by which UberX prices were reduced and the difference between
17

UberX and taxicab prices beginning in June 2013 and continuing to the present date.
18

164.
19
20
21

capacity to mislead or deceive purchasers and potential purchasers of UberXL services by
misrepresenting the percentage by which UberXL prices were reduced and the difference between
UberXL and taxicab prices beginning in May 2014 and continuing to the present date.

22
23

UBER’s offers to sell and sale of UberXL services below-cost had a tendency or

165.

UBER’s offers to sell and the sale of UberX and UberXL services at below-cost prices

diverted business from or otherwise injured UBER’s competitors.

24

166.

As a direct and proximate result of the purposeful actions taken by UBER as described

25

herein, FLYWHEEL TAXI has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be proven

26

at trial.

27

WHEREFORE, FLYWHEEL TAXI prays for relief as set forth herein.

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 26 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 27 of 34

1

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
LANHAM ACT
(15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
(Against all Defendants)

2
3

167.

4
5

Pursuant to the Lanham Act, it is illegal to make false statements of fact in a

commercial advertisement about one’s own or a competitor’s products or services.

6

168.

UBER is in commercial competition with FLYWHEEL TAXI.

7

169.

UBER made false statements of fact regarding UberX drivers’ income as described in

8

paragraphs 76 to 86.

9

170.

10

paragraphs 87 to 90.
171.

11
12

UBER made false statements of fact regarding taxicab drivers’ income as described in

UBER made false statements of fact regarding UberX prices relative to taxi prices as

described in paragraphs 91 to 94.
172.

UBER made false statements of fact regarding UberX prices as described in

13

paragraphs 95 to 103.
14

173.

UBER made false statements of fact regarding UberX vehicle locations and passenger

15

wait times as described in paragraphs 104 to 106.
16
17

174.

paragraphs 107 to 109.

18
19

UBER made false statements of fact regarding passenger safety as described in

175.

UBER’s false statements have the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of

UBER’s audience, which is composed of consumers of ride-hail services in San Francisco.

20

176.

UBER’s false statements actually deceived and continue to deceive a substantial

21

segment of UBER’s audience, which is composed of consumers of ride-hail ground transportation

22

services in San Francisco.

23

177.

The deception caused by each of UBER’s false statements is likely to influence and

24

has influenced the purchasing decisions of consumers of ride-hail services in San Francisco and

25

drivers providing ride-hail services in San Francisco.

26

////

27

////

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 27 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 28 of 34

1

178.

UBER made each of the false statements of fact over the internet through its websites

2

(e.g., newsroom.uber.com, www.uber.com/cities/san-francisco), which affect and are a part of

3

interstate commerce.

4

179.

Each and every one of UBER’s false statements of fact is commercial speech, was made

5

for the purpose of influencing customers to purchase UBER’s services, and was disseminated

6

sufficiently to consumers of ride-hail services in San Francisco to constitute advertising or promotion.
180.

7

As a result of UBER’s false statements of fact as described herein, FLYWHEEL

8

TAXI has been and is likely to be injured through diversion of sales to UBER and by a lessening of

9

goodwill in amounts to be proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, FLYWHEEL TAXI prays for relief as set forth herein.

10

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS
(Against all Defendants)

11
12

181.

13

It is unlawful for an individual or business to intentionally interfere with an economic

14

relationship between two third parties when the relationship was likely to result in an economic

15

benefit to one or both of the parties.
182.

16
17
18

FLYWHEEL TAXI had established economic relationships with numerous taxicab

drivers, each of which was substantially likely to result in future economic benefit to FLYWHEEL
TAXI.

19
20

183.

UBER knew of FLYWHEEL TAXI’s economic relationships with the taxicab drivers.

184.

UBER did not have a direct, significant, or legitimate interest in FLYWHEEL TAXI’s

relationship with the taxicab drivers.
21

185.

Beginning in at least November 2014 and continuing through the present date, UBER

22

has engaged in wrongful conduct through below-cost pricing of its UberX and UberXL services as
23

described in paragraphs 47 to 75.
24

186.
25
26
27

Beginning in at least November 2014 and continuing through the present date, UBER

has engaged in wrongful conduct by making misrepresentations to current and potential UberX and
UberXL drivers as described in paragraphs 76 to 90.
////

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 28 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 29 of 34

1

187.

Beginning in at least November 2014 and continuing through the present date, UBER

2

has engaged in wrongful conduct by making misrepresentations to the public regarding UberX and

3

UberXL services as described in paragraphs 91 to 109.

4

188.

Beginning in at least November 2014 and continuing through the present date, UBER

5

has engaged in wrongful conduct by violating numerous federal, state, and local laws that regulate

6

private ride-hail services as described in paragraphs 110 to 124.
189.

7
8

between FLYWHEEL TAXI and the taxi drivers.
190.

9
10

191.

15

UBER’s wrongful conduct has disrupted and continues to disrupt the relationships

between FLYWHEEL TAXI and the taxicab drivers.
192.

13
14

UBER’s wrongful conduct was carried out with the substantial certainty that the

economic relationships between FLYWHEEL TAXI and the taxicab drivers would be disrupted.

11
12

UBER’s wrongful conduct was designed to disrupt the economic relationships

As a direct and proximate result of UBER’s intentional and wrongful acts as described

herein, FLYWHEEL TAXI has suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be proven
at trial.
193.

UBER acted with malice, oppression, and fraud when UBER intentionally and in

16

conscious disregard of FLYWHEEL TAXI’s rights, engaged in predatory pricing practices, made
17

misrepresentations to the San Francisco public and current and potential drivers, and flouted federal,
18

state, and local laws regulating the ride-hail industry. UBER’s interference with FLYWHEEL
19
20
21

TAXI’s economic relationships was intentional, willful, and calculated to cause damages to
FLYWHEEL TAXI’s lawful business. The conduct of UBER was perpetrated with actual malice and
ill will toward FLYWHEEL TAXI and the taxi industry as a whole, and with the intentional and

22

improper purpose of causing damage, thereby entitling FLYWHEEL TAXI to punitive damages in an

23

amount to be proven and determined at trial.

24

WHEREFORE, FLYWHEEL TAXI prays for relief as set forth herein.

25

////

26

////

27

////

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 29 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 30 of 34

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW – ILLEGAL & UNFAIR PRACTICES
(Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.)
(Against all Defendants)

1
2
3

194.

4

Pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.), it is

unlawful for an entity to engage in unfair or illegal business activities.
5

195.

Beginning in June 2013 and continuing through the present date, UBER has

6

committed acts of unfair competition, as defined by section 17200, et seq. of the California Business
7

and Professions Code.
8
9
10

196.

As alleged herein and in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200,

UBER, through its policies and practices described above, has committed and continues to commit
acts of unfair competition by engaging in the regular and customary practice of below-cost pricing of

11

UberX and UberXL services in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 2) and

12

California’s Unfair Practices Act (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17000, et seq.).

13

197.

As alleged herein and in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200,

14

UBER, through its policies and practices described above, has committed and continues to commit

15

acts of unfair competition by engaging in the regular and customary practice, of charging “surge”

16

prices despite advertising a base rate of $2.00, $1.15 per mile, and $.22 per minute for UberX in

17

violation of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125).
198.

18

As alleged herein and in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200,

19

UBER, through its policies and practices described above, has committed and continues to commit

20

acts of unfair competition by engaging in the regular and customary practice of charging “surge”

21

prices despite advertising a base rate of $3.00, $2.00 per mile, and $.30 per minute for UberXL

22

services in violation of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125).
199.

23
24
25
26

As alleged herein and in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200,

UBER, through its policies and practices described above, has committed and continues to commit
acts of unfair competition by engaging in the regular and customary practice of falsely advertising the
price of UberX and UberXL services relative to those of the taxicab industry in violation of the
Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125).

27

////
28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 30 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 31 of 34

1
2

200.

result of Defendants’ unfair acts of competition as described herein.

3
4

FLYWHEEL TAXI has suffered injury in fact and will continue to suffer injury as a

201.

The unlawful conduct described herein is continuing and will continue unless and until

UBER is enjoined from engaging in such unfair and illegal conduct.
202.

5

FLYWHEEL is entitled to injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from engaging in

6

conduct that constitutes unfair or illegal conduct in violation of California’s Business and Professions

7

Code.
WHEREFORE, FLYWHEEL TAXI prays for relief as set forth herein.

8

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9

WHEREFORE, FLYWHEEL TAXI prays for judgment on all causes of action against all

10
11

Defendants as follows:

12

AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
1.

13
14
15

harm suffered by Plaintiff from four years before the filing of the complaint to the date of trial,
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15;
2.

16
17

20

For additional damages in an amount equal to three times Plaintiff’s compensatory

damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15;
3.

18
19

For compensatory damages in amounts according to proof at the time of trial for all

For immediate and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 26 requiring

Defendants to cease all predatory practices including offering for sale and selling UberX and UberXL
services at below-cost prices; and
4.

21

For attorneys’ fees and costs of suit pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15.

AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
22

1.

For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial for all

23

harm suffered by Plaintiff from four years before the filing of the complaint to the date of trial
24

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15;
25

2.

For additional damages in an amount equal to three times Plaintiff’s compensatory

26

damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15;
27

////
28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 31 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 32 of 34

1

3.

For immediate and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 26 requiring

2

Defendants to cease all predatory practices including offering for sale and selling UberX and UberXL

3

services at below-cost prices; and

4
5
6

4.

For attorneys’ fees and costs of suit pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15.

AS TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
1.

For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial for all

7

harm suffered by Plaintiff from three years before filing of the complaint to the date of trial pursuant

8

to California Business and Professions Code § 17070;

9

2.

For additional damages in an amount equal to three times Plaintiff’s damages suffered

10

from one year prior to filing of the complaint to the date of trial pursuant to California Business and

11

Professions Code § 17082;

12

3.

For immediate and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to California Business and

13

Professions Code § 17070 and §§ 17078 – 17081 enjoining Defendants from offering to sell and

14

selling UberX and UberXL services at below-cost prices where the purpose of such pricing practices

15

is to injure competitors and destroy competition; and

16

4.

For attorneys’ fees and costs of suit pursuant to California Business and Professions

17

Code § 17082.

18

AS TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

19

1.

For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial for all

20

past and future harm suffered by Plaintiff from three years before filing of the complaint through a

21

date to be determined pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17070;

22

2.

For additional damages in an amount equal to three times Plaintiff’s damages suffered

23

from one year prior to filing of the complaint to the date of trial pursuant to California Business and

24

Professions Code § 17082;

25

3.

For immediate and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to California Business and

26

Professions Code § 17070 and §§ 17078 – 17081 enjoining Defendants from offering to sell and

27

selling UberX and UberXL services as loss-leaders where the purpose of such pricing practices is to

28

injure competitors and destroy competition; and
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 32 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 33 of 34

1

4.

For attorneys’ fees and costs of suit pursuant to California Business and Professions

2

Code § 17082.

3

AS TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

1.

For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial for all

damages suffered by Plaintiff, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
2.

For additional damages in an amount equal to three times Plaintiff’s compensatory

damages, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
3.

For equitable relief in the form of disgorgement of profits and any additional amounts

the Court finds to be just, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
4.

For an accounting of profits Defendants have made as a result of their false and

misleading statements as alleged herein, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117;
5.

For immediate and permanent injunctive relief, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116,

13

enjoining Defendants from making false statements of fact regarding UberX prices, UberX prices

14

relative to taxi prices, and passenger safety;

15

6.

For immediate and permanent injunctive relief, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116,

16

enjoining Defendants from making false statements of fact regarding UberX and UberXL drivers’

17

annual, hourly, and proportional income and from falsely advertising the income earned and expenses

18

incurred by San Francisco taxicab drivers; and

19

7.

For attorneys’ fees and costs of suit due to the exceptional nature of this case pursuant

20

to 15 U.S.C. § 1117.

21

AS TO THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22

1.

For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial for all

23

past and future harm suffered by Plaintiff from two years before filing of the complaint through a

24

date to be determined pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1; and

25

2.

For punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294(a) in an amount

26

sufficient to punish and deter Defendants from engaging in wrongful conduct as alleged herein.

27

AS TO THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

28

1.

For disgorgement of all profits illegally obtained by Defendants through the wrongful

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 33 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 34 of 34

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

acts described above;
2.

For permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17203

enjoining Defendants from selling UberX and UberXL services below-cost;
3.

For permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17203

enjoining Defendants from charging “surge” prices while advertising lower rates;
4.

For permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17203

requiring Defendants to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act; and
5.

For permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Business & Professions Code § 17203

requiring Defendants to comply with California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
1.

For all additional forms of relief to which Plaintiff is entitled pursuant to statute or that

justice and equity demand be awarded;

13

2.

For pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate pursuant to statute;

14

3.

For costs of suit incurred herein; and

15

4.

For such other and further relief as this Court may deem fair and just.

16

Dated: November 2, 2016

SEIBERT & BAUTISTA

17
18

/s/ Joe Bautista
Shannon Seibert
Joe Bautista
Attorneys for Plaintiff

19
20
21

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
22

Plaintiff respectfully requests a jury trial on all issues so triable.
23

Dated: November 2, 2016

SEIBERT & BAUTISTA

24
25
26
27

/s/ Joe Bautista
Shannon Seibert
Joe Bautista
Attorneys for Plaintiff

28
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
- 34 -

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1-1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 2

JS 44 (Rev. 12/12)
Cand rev (1/15/13)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

(b)

DEFENDANTS

DESOTO CAB COMPANY, INC., d/b/a FLYWHEEL TAXI

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; UBER USA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; RASIER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; RASIER-CA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive

County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff San Francisco

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
NOTE:

(c)

Attorneys (If Known)

Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Shannon Seibert (CBN 240317) ; Joe Bautista (CBN 255708)
Seibert & Bautista
22 Battery Street, Suite 888
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 954-9455

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1

2

3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

U.S. Government
Defendant

4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

CONTRACT
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
160 Stockholders’ Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
1

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

IV. NATURE OF SUIT

Citizen of This State

(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
TORTS
PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers’
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities
Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities
Other
448 Education

San Francisco

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

1

Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business In This State

Citizen of Another State

2

2

Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State

5

5

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

3

3

Foreign Nation

6

6

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability

and One Box for Defendant)
PTF
DEF
4
4

DEF

625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
690 Other

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER STATUTES

422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157

375 False Claims Act
400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRS—Third Party
26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1 Original
Proceeding

2 Removed from
State Court

3 Remanded from
Appellate Court

4

Reinstated or
Reopened

5 Transferred from
Another District

6 Multidistrict
Litigation

(specify)

VI. CAUSE OF
ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
15 U.S.C. §2; 15 U.S.C. §1125
Brief description of cause:
Antitrust – monopolization and attempted monopolization; False statements in commercial advertising
DEMAND $ Greater than $5 mil. CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:

VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY

(See instructions):

JUDGE

IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil L.R. 3-2)
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)

DOCKET NUMBER

(X) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND

DATE

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

11-02-2016

/s/ Joe Bautista

( ) SAN JOSE

( ) EUREKA

Case 3:16-cv-06385 Document 1-1 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. (a)

(b)

(c)

Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at
the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In
land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment,
noting in this section "(see attachment)".

II.

Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III.

Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark
this section for each principal party.

IV.

Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more
than one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

V.

Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

VI.

Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII.

Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII.

Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.