INIT IAATA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Feb-01-2016 3:46 pm Case Number: CGC-16-550198 Filing Date: Feb-01-2016 3:33 Filed by: ARLENE RAMOS Juke Box: 001 Image: 05256620 COMPLAINT MARTIN BARAJAS ET AL VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., LP ET AL 001005256620 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.SUMMONS cena = (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: i (AVISO AL DEMANDADO) | UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., LP AND DOES 1-20, inclusive | YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): MARTIN BARAJAS, MARC BORGENS, REICHARD BRUNELLE, DANIEL BURGER, "Additional Parties Attachment form is attached! | WOTTGE? Vou nave bean sued: The cour may doce agaiel you wheat your Bang heard unde yoUTespond “You nave 90 CALENDAR DAYS afte is surons and egal papers ar cerved on you lea rien response a this court and havea copy served on he pain Altar or phone cal wilt pote! you Your ren esporsa must ben rope egal frm ¥ you want he eau to hes your ‘See: there may bes cout form ha yeu can use for your responge. You can find Neve cout forms and mote nfo atonal ne Carma Coutts | Gnine Settiip Gener sew coutno.c gown). your county lw rary, ote coutouse nearest you. you canret pay he fing fe. ash | iho cour len foro foe wai’ form Ityou donot a your responce on ne. you may lose he case by Setaul. and your wepeS, money. and provety ‘hay be tae wine frthar warning fom the cour "ine ate ater lgel egareens You may nant 0 cl a atorney right away, you do ot knew an aterny, you may want a call an altorrey ‘eterfal sonics ityou cannot atord an atarney, you may be eile fot tee agal eres fom a nonprofit legal services program. You can Wocate these nonprot gicups ate Calflora cagal Sehaces Web at (i lofpnutrna og), te Calforia Courts Onie Sef Help Center {ian coorins Go gewsethop. erty contacting you lea cout or county bar sesocaton NOTE: The cou has tutor en fr waved fees and oat on any setloment or abit ward of $10,000 or mare n a Gul case. The cous len must be paid before fe cout will isms the case | sAwGo1 han nando So resend cota ce 30 is not pace cara Scones ers. Les ma a itn days Fe _ypnocles egaes gare prasentar una respuesta por asco en esta de tonica ne worctogon Su respuesta por asta tare qe ost" 0 an soe Es paste due heya un formula avo usted puede Usa Devs su respvests Bade ancantar cuts fomularioe Gla corey nds nermesn anal Carte Ge 4yeda de ns Cartes da Calo (wwe sucotecagow). on | bblorece ce tyes de au conaade ot la cane qn la quae mBs cerca Sno p¥sae Pagar fa cvota Uo presenizc, pda al sector ue 0b un formulora Ge exencén de page de btes Sno procenta ms respueia& tempo, ade eorder el caso por murimmento y's care Bods quer su sulda, snare y bonas sm mds adverts "fay Sos requistoslgaies E= acomendabio que ma aut 2003900 imedataments jo conde a un sbogade, puede amar 9 un servicio de | romaion'9 aponades Si puede pegara un abagado, es posbie ue cumpla cn os equstos para oblono” services gales gratutoe de un rogram de senncies laine on hs oo her. Puede encontrar esos grupos on Ines de 00 en sto mab de Calfora Legal Services, | ‘nae ahepcaioria or) ef Corto do Ajuda Gens Corts da Caroma, fam sveorte ca gow © ponindeee an contacto conta cre a! | [depo de aboyocos cass AVISO Poriy. a cate tana cares a reciamr los cual os cstes nents por imponar un grevamen sotre [lstuiarracoseracsn do 416000 4 ms covalrreciga modante un aevers una cancosan Go arisaj on un caso Ue derecho cv Tene que ‘ore puede Qosaanar caso | core yhacer que se enregve uaa cana rtermata ogo! correct 8 desen gue pocesen 3 ron cba cate arias do gv C=16-550193) | poser gra The name and address ofthe cout is (Elnombre y dieccién de le corte es) Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 ‘The name, address, and telephone eumber of paints attorney, or piintif without an attorney, {Ei nombre la direcoisn yal mero de lelerons de! abogado Jel demandarta, o del demandarte que no tne abogado, es) Mark E, Burton, Jr., Audet & Partners, LLP, 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500, Sap Francisco, CA 94102 Fr COURT — ces lan st mar 86 ren os 2H OF HECORT cen hl eee (For proof of service ofthis summons. use Pve0f of Service of Summons (frm POS-070)) (Para prueba de entrega de osta cation use el formularo Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-070)) 7 rane ie YOTME aREON SVE sone —- au 1 ‘as an individual defendant. 7 kp SSRI tionenectioen ES Fak 3, (J onbehatfot(speciy under, C=) CoP 416 10 (corporation) (J cer 41660 (minor [J cor 416.20 (datint corporation) C=]. CCP 41670 conseratee) [J CoP 416.40 (assocaton or partners) [==] CCP 416 60 (authorized person) oatner pea: -- 4 ( pypersonal delivery on (cae) “camera ate” - ‘SUMMONS Saaremaa__SUM-200(8) | Barajas, et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., LP INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE + This form may be used as an attachment lo any summons if space does not permit the listing of ali partes onthe summons. > if this attachment is used, insert the folowing statement inthe plaintiff or defendant box onthe summons: "Aditional Partes ‘tachment form is atacned." List additional parties (Check only one box. Use a separate page foreach type of party) [Z Plain’ — [J] Detendant [7] cross-Complainant [] Cross-Oetendant KWANGWOOK CHOI, MICHAEL COUPLAND, CHARLETTA FAIRRER, ROBERT GOLLNICK, CHRISTAAN HALL, ERIC KAUSCHEN, RAM KUMAR LAMA, ANGEL LOPEZ, KALILA LUI. CHRISTIAN MALASPINA, NICK MILETAK, RANDY NAM, SAMER NASSER, FATEH PERLESCHI, GLENN PICKETT, VISHMA RAI, ABDOURAHMAN SALEH, MOHAMMAND SALEH, STEPHEN SIEGEL, LAWRENCE SUMPTER, SALIM SURTI, ERIC SWENSON, and CHARLES WHEELER Page o "datemeacaee "ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHMENT suites Rev soy 27) ‘Attachment to SummonsMARK E. BURTON, JR. (SBN 178400) THOM E. SMITH (SBN 203362) AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco CA 94105 Telephone: 415.568.2555 Facsimile: 415.568.2556 mburton@audetlaw.com tsmith@audetlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs MARTIN BARAJAS, MARC BORGENS, | RICHARD BRUNELLE, DANIEL BURGER, KWANGWOOK CHOI, MICHAEL COUPLAND, CHARLETTA, FAIRRER, ROBERT GOLLNICK, CHRISTAAN HALL, ERIC KAUSCHEN, RAM KUMAR LAMA, ANGEL LOPEZ, | KALILA LUJA, CHRISTIAN MALASPINA, NICK MILETAK, RANDY NAM, SAMER NASSER, FATEH PERLESCHI, GLENN PICKETT, VISHMA RAI, ABDOURAHMAN SALEH, MOHAMMAD SALEH, STEPHEN SIEGEL, LAWRENCE SUMPTER, SALIM SURTI, ERIC SWENSON, and CHARLES WHEELER Plaintiffs, vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., LP AND DOES 1-20, inclusive Defendants, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, UNLIM Syptior Cott Calon Sunty of San Faneseo: FEB 012016 CLERKOF THE COURT By Deputy Gier SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ‘ED JURISDICTION Case No. COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §§ 200-203, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512, 517, 1194, 1198, INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMISSION WAGE, ORDER No. 4, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §17200 et seq., AND CCP § 1021.5 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL RY FAM WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, PROFESSIONS CODE §§ ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL "ALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND 17200, et seq., and CCP § 1021.523 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants, UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., and DOES 1-20 (collectively “DEFENDANTS” or “Defendants”) on behalf of themselves and allege on information and belief as follows’ INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs Martin Barajas, Mare Borgens, Richard Brunelle, Daniel Burger, Kwangwook Choi, Michael Coupland, Charletta Fairrer, Robert Gollnick, Christan Hall, Eric Kauschen, Ram Kumar Lama, Angel Lopez, Kalila Luja, Christian Malaspina, Nick Miletak, Randy Nam, ‘Samer Nasser, Fateh Perleschi, Glenn Pickett, Vishma Rai, Abdourahman Saleh, Mohammad Saleh, Stephen Siegel, Lawrence Sumpter, Salim Surti, Eric Swenson, and Charles Wheeler are current and former drivers working for Defendants’ by providing transportation for users of | Defendants’ phone application. Defendants misclassify Plaintiffs as independent contractors, when in fact they are employees and/or agents of Defendants. They bring this action for violations of the California Labor Code §§ 200-203, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 510, 512, 517, 1194, 1198, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4, Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq., and CCP § 1021.5, Defendants advertise jobs described as Uber Drivers requiring no skills or experience beyond a commercial driver’s license, vehicle, and insurance. A typical posting for the job explains “Using your own car to drive with Uber, is a newer opportunity that has only been around since 2012. Despite this, it’s growing the fastest because of the great earning potential and flexible schedule.” 3. Defendants’ develop, market and operate the Uber mobile app, which allows consumers with smartphones to submit a trip request. This request is then routed to nearby Uber drivers one of whom accepts the ride request. After accepting a request the driver then uses the driver’s own vehicle to meet a passenger at a designated pick up point and transports that passenger to the designated drop-off point. The driver is paid weekly through the app described herein and typically these services are delivered through agreements with auto insurers or other companies that pay a set fee each time a motorist is assisted. While customers are able to tip through the <2. ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL, WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, e seg, and CCP § 1021.5app if they so choose, tipping is not commonplace: “Our current policy is that there is no tip] with Uber. The Uber experience means not having to reach for a wallet at the end of a ride. As a result, we message to riders that tipping is not required — we never want riders to feel! obligated to pay extra at the end of Uber trips. Ifa client offers a tip, please remind them that’ tipping is not necessary with Uber. New riders may not know about the tipping policy, and' could feel cheated if they later learn that tipping was not required.” 4. Previously, Uber stated that its drivers made $6 per hour more than an average taxi| Griver. Uber stated that median driver in New York City was making $90,000 a year in “business income,” but this number is misleading as it fails to include basic costs like gasoline, ‘maintenance, car insurance, health insurance, and, the car itself. Further such an estimate’ neglects to mention how many hours one has to drive in order to make the stated $90k 5. Uber extracts a large commission from its drivers. This percentage is increasing. In a new pilot program in San Francisco, a small percentage of new UberX drivers will pay a 30%: commission on their first 20 rides in a week, 25% on their next 20 rides, and then 20% on any rides beyond that. 6. Plaintiffs operate no distinct business of their own, have no specialized skills, and are supervised by defendants through regional managers, 7. Defendants failed to keep records of the hours Plaintiffs actually worked and failed to record meal and rest breaks. 8. Defendants also failed to pay full wages when due, pay full wages on discharge, provide accurate, itemized wage stubs, and pay minimum wages as required by law. 9. Defendants saved vast sums of money by not paying for Plaintiffs’ overtime labor, expenses and payroll taxes, allowing them to reap enormous profits to expand their business nationwide. 10, In fact and pursuant to California law, all Plaintiffs are properly considered employees: for the following reasons: -3- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, et seg, and CCP § 1021.5.1 a, Pursuant to defendants’ uniform business model, Plaintiffs provide a service (i.e., 2 transportation) that benefits defendants; 3 b. Pursuant to defendants’ uniform policy, they retain the right to terminate 4 PlaintiffS for any or no reason, without explanation, at any time; 5 ©. Pursuant to defendants’ uniform policy, they retain the right to terminate 6 Plaintiffs if, in defendants’ discretion, the Driver behaved in a way that could be a regarded as inappropriate; 8 d. Defendants hire Plaintiffs to fulfil its contractual obligations with riders, who 9 maintain particular requirements for customer service. Pursuant to defendants’ 10 uniform policy, Defendants retain much of the fee paid for each trip request. Wl Accordingly, defendants have an incentive to control the means and manner of : ee | 13 € Pursuant to defendants? uniform policy, Drivers do not engage in a business| 4 istinet from defendants’ business; rather, Plaintiffs’ services are the primary or Is sole source of income for defendants; 16 £ Pursuant to defendants’ uniform policy, defendants does not require Drivers to 7 possess any skill above and beyond that necessary to obtain a normal driver’s 18 license; 9 & Pursuant to defendants’ uniform policy, Plaintiffs tenure was for an indefinite 20 period of time; 21 h. Pursuant to defendants’ uniform policy, defendant rents Plaintiffs the cellular 2 phones that are necessary to communicate with customers (if PlaintifiS do not 23 already own the required cellular device); | 4 i. Pursuant to defendants’ uniform policy, defendant does not require Drivers to 25 invest in any equipment or materials required for his or her services; rather all 26 Drivers must already own or have the legal right to operate a vehicle in good 27 operating condition before he or she can work. All Drivers must also already be 28 4. ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, et seg., and CCP § 10215Sow rae named on an insurance policy covering the Driver's vehicle before he or she can work; j. Pursuant to defendants’ uniform policy, defendants prohibit Plaintiffs from setting rates of pay for their ervices; rather, pursuant to defendants? uniform policy; k. Pursuant to defendants’ uniform policy, defendants require Plaintiffs to inform Uber, through its app, of their scheduled availability; 1. Pursuant to defendants’ uniform policy, Drivers must undergo a training session during which they make roadside assistance calls with a trainer: m, Pursuant to defendants’ uniform practice, defendants have regional managers that| supervise PlaintiffS, including by reviewing their on call performance on occasion, ensuring that contractual obligations with motorist clubs are fulfilled, and turning in paper work to the manager. 11, Plaintiffs seek compensation for all hours worked; all penalties, liquidated damages, and other damages permitted by law; restitution and or disgorgement of all benefits obtained by Defendants from their unlawful business practices; injunctive and declaratory relief; punitive: damages, all forms of equitable relief permitted by law; and reasonable attorneys’ fees and’ costs. PLA u 12. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as a driver in California, DEFENDANTS: 13. Plaintiffs do not know the true names and/or capacities, whether individual, partners, or corporate, of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1-20, inclusive, and for that reason sue said Defendants under fictitious names and prays leave to amend the complaint to insert said true names and capacities in the appropriate paragraphs herein, when Plaintiffs ascertain said true names and capacities. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that said ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, e seg., and CCP § 1021.5| e e Defendants and each of them are responsible in whole or in part for Plaintiffs’ damages as alleged herein, 14, Atall times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, alter egos, joint venturers, or employees for each other, and acted with the consent of his/her said Co-Defendants, and acted within the course, purpose and scope of said agency, service or| employment and said conduct was ratified by Defendants, and each of them. 15, Defendants are a covered entity or employer within the meaning of the California Labor Code. 16. Defendants, in acting as set forth herein, acted with fraud, malice, oppression and a conscious disregard for the Plaintiffs, who accordingly request that the trier of fact, in the| exercise of sound discretion, award additional damages for the sake of example and for the! purpose of punishing the Defendants, and each of them, for their conduct, in an amount] sufficiently large to be an example to others and deter the Defendants, and each of them, and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future, The aforesaid wrongful conduct was done with the advance knowledge, authorization, and/or ratification of an officer, director, and/or: ‘managing agent of Defendants. CLA! ON ALL! AT 17, Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of themselves and all other! similarly situated members of the Class defined below pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure: §382. This action satisfies the ascertainability, numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority requirements of class actions. The Class is defined as follows: All Uber Drivers that worked for defendants in the State of California, 18. Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendants, any entity or division in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and its/their legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns and successors; (2) the judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of the judge's immediate family; and (3) claims for personal injury, wrongful death, worker's compensation, ‘emotional distress and claims of consequential property damage and loss. -6- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL, WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, et sez, and CCP § 1021.5NUMEROSITY & ASCERTAINABILITY 19. The Class is comprised of hundreds of individuals making joinder impracticable and not all of the identities of the class members are known to Plaintiff. 20. The Class is composed of an easily ascertainable set of persons who were misclassified as independent contractors, worked overtime and for less than minimum wage. Class members are easily identifiable from records maintained by, and in the possession and control of, the Defendants or otherwise readily obtained from third parties. com NITY OF INTER! EST 21, There is a well-defined community of interes jong Class members, and the disposition of the claims of these Class members in a single action will provide substantial benefits to all parties and to the Court. TYPICALITY, 22, The claims of the representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class in that the representative Plaintiff, like all Class members, was misclassified and not paid overtime and other labor code violations described herein and has suffered damages as a result. 23. Moreover, the factual bases of Defendants’ misconduct are common to all Class members, and Defendants’ actions resulted in damages to all members of the Class. PREDOMINAN OF COMMON IS ES 24. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to all Class members and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect only individual Class members, including, but not limited to the following a, Whether Defendant conduct violated California Wage Order 4 and various Labor Code violations pled herein; b. Whether Defendant violated Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4; c. Whether Defendant conduct violated Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq.s 7. ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§'17200, et seg., and CCP § 1021.54. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to equitable relief, and, if so, the nature of such relief; and e. Whether compensatory and other damages should be awarded to Plaintiff and Class members, ADEQUACY 25. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel highly experienced in prosecuting class actions. 26. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of Class members and have the resources to do so, Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has any: interests adverse to those of the Class. SUPERIORITY 27. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Because of the relatively small size of the individual Class members’ claims, absent a class action most Class members would likely find the cost of| litigating their claims against Defendants to be prohibitive. The class treatment of common questions of law and fact is also superior to multiple individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that it conserves the resources of the courts and the litigants, and promotes consistency and efficiency of adjudication, Further, many class member remain employed by defendants making it difficult for them to bring claims for fear of retaliation. 28. The consideration of common questions of fact and law will conserve judicial resources ‘and promote a fair and consistent resolution of this labor problem. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIE] (Failure to Pay Overtime Cal. Wage Order No. 4; Cal. Labor Code §§510, 1194, 1197) 29. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully alleged herein. 30. California law, including Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 4-2001 (Wage Order No, 4-201) of the California Industrial Welfare Commission and the California Labor -8- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL, WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND. PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, e seg, and CCP § 1021.5Code Sections 510, 1194, and 1197, as well as Sections 200, et seq., 1174, 1174.5 require Defendants to pay at least the legal minimum wage for all hours actually worked and to pay overtime compensation when due to all non-exempt employees for all hours worked over forty| (40) per week, or over eight per day. 31. Plaintiff are non-exempt employees and are entitled to be paid proper compensation for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked 32. Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs for time worked, including but not limited to, compensation for all hours worked over forty (40) per week or over eight per day in carrying out their duties as roadside technicians 33. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, as set forth herein, Plaintiffs have sustained damages, including loss of earnings for hours worked and for overtime hours worked on behalf of Defendants in an amount to be established at trial, prejudgment interest, and costs and attomeys” fees, pursuant to statute and other applicable law. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Failure to Pay Full Wages When Due Under Labor Code §200 et seg., §§1194, 1198, 1199) 34. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully alleged herein. 35. By failing to compensate Plaintiffs for all time worked, Defendants have and continue to violate Labor Code Section 204, which requires employers, including Defendants, to pay their employees their full wages when due. 36. Some members of the class are no longer working for Defendants. By failing to compensate Plaintiffs as required by California law at any time during the previous four or more years pursuant the applicable statute of limitation and tolling provisions, Defendants also have’ willfully failed to make timely payment of the full wages due, at the time they terminated: employment with Defendants; and thereby Defendants have violated Labor Code Sections 201 and 202. 9. ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, er seg,, and CCP § 1021.5.aueun 37. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1194, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants all unpaid wages to which they are entitled, plus pre- and post-judgment interest thereon and reasonable attomeys” fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action. 38. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 203, Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover waiting time| penalties. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (California Record-Keeping Provisions, Cal. Labor Code §§226, 1174, 1174.5, Cal Wage Order No. 5) 39, PlaintiffSre-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding| paragraphs as if fully alleged herein 40. Defendants knowingly and intentionally failed to provide timely, accurate, itemized wage statements including, inter alia, hours worked, to Plaintiffs as required by Labor Code’ Section 226(a) and the IWC Wage Order. Such failure caused injury to Plaintiffs by, among. other things, impeding them from knowing the amount of wages to which they are and were entitled. At all times relevant herein, Defendants have failed to maintain records of hours: ‘worked by Plaintiffs as required under Labor Code Section 1174(d). 41. Plaintiffs are not “exempt” employees under the California Labor Code or Wage Order 4 42. Plaintiffs are entitled to and seek injunctive relief requiring Defendants to comply with Labor Code Sections 226(a) and 1174(d), and further seek all actual and statutory damages: available for these violations under Labor Code Sections 226(e) and 1174.5. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Failure to Provide Meal & Rest Breaks in Violation of Cal. Labor Code §226.7) 43. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. -10- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, et seg., and CCP § 1021.5,44. Atall relevant times, Plaintiff were compelled to work longer than eight (8) hours in a. day and more than forty hours ina week and were deprived of rest and meal breaks, in violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7. 45. Plaintiffs were not “exempt” employees under the California Labor Code or Wage Order 4 46. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs were working without lunch and rest breaks and were not compensated for this time, Defendants’ failure to compensate Plaintiffs for rest and lunch breaks was systematic, willful, knowing and intentional 47. Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendants’ intentional and knowing refusal to compensate them for work performed during their rest and lunch breaks and seek compensation and penalties for all missed breaks in accordance with California Labor Code Section 226.7, fees and costs. along with appropriate damages, injunctive relief and attorne FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELEIF (Failure to Pay Minimum Wage in Violation of Cal. Labor Code §1197) 48, Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding ‘and paragraphs of this complaint as if fully set forth herein, 49, During the relevant employment period, Defendants required Plaintiffs to work at rates: that fell below the applicable minimum wage. 50. California Labor Code Section 1197 and Industrial Welfare Commi ion IWC”) General Minimum Wage Order MW 9-2001 establish the right of employees to be paid ‘minimum wages for their work, in amounts set by state law. IWC Wage Order 4-2001 applied to Plaintiffs’ employment with Defendants at all times relevant to this complaint. 51. Labor Code §§ 1194(a) and 1194.2(a) provide that an employee who has not been paid the legal minimum wage may recover the unpaid balance together with attomeys’ fees and costs of suit, as well as liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wages unpaid and interest on those amounts, pursuant to California Labor Code § 218.6. =i ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, e se, and CCP § 1021.520 2 2 2B 24 28 26 ea 28 52. During the relevant period of this complaint, Defendants willfully and intentionally compensated Plaintiffs at rates so low that they fell below the state minimum wage, Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiffs minimum wages also violated California Labor Code Sections 203, 201, 201.5, 202, and 205.5, unpaid wages at termination 53. Because of Defendants’ unlawful faiture and refusal to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage as required by law, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in amounts to be proven at trial and are: entitled to all appropriate remedies provided by the Labor and IWC Wage Orders, including. liquidated damages, attomeys’ fees and costs of suit (Failure to Reimburse for Business Expenses, Cal. Labor Code §2802) 54. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein 55. The conduct of Defendants, as alleged herein, violated California Labor Code §2802 56. California Labor Code, section 2802, provides that an employers must reimburse employees for all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in carrying out the lawful directions of the employer. 57. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs incurred work related expenses. These expenses included, but were not limited to, costs of purchase and lease of their Plaintiffs’ vehicles; maintenance, fuel, insurance and other vehicle operating costs; cell phone expenses, such as text] messaging and electronic message service costs; GPS costs; uniform expenses; costs of tools| and equipment necessary to perform services; and costs of vehicle decals or other markings. ‘These costs were incurred by Plaintiffs in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties. Defendants also required Plaintiffs to pay for any damage to a customer vehicle. Plaintiffs incurred these necessary and substantial expenses and losses as a direct result performing their| job duties for Defendants. 58. Defendants have failed and fail to indemnify or in any manner reimburse Plaintiffs for’ the incurred necessary expenditures and losses. Defendants’ misclassification of Plaintiffs as; -12- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, et seg. and CCP § 1021.5.independent contractors and requiring Plaintiffs to pay expenses and costs incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of their duties for Defendants and/or in obedience of Defendants’ directions is in violation of Cal. Labor Code §2802. 59. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered losses according to proof, including prejudgment interest pursuant to Cal. Labor Code §2802, subdivision (b), and costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Cal. Labor Code §2802, subdivision (©), in the prosecution of this action 60. Plaintiffs pray for relief as requested below. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Unlawful Deduct n from Wages, Cal. Labor Code §§221, 223, 224 IWC. Wage Order No. 9) 61. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 62. Cal. Labor Code §§221 and 224 provide that an employer may only lawfully withhold’ amounts from an employee's wages when (1) required or empowered to do so by state or federal Jaw; (2) when a deduction is expressly authorized in writing by the employee to cover insurance: premiums, benefit plan contributions, or other deductions not amounting to a rebate on the employee's wages; or (3) when a deduction to cover health, welfare or pension contributions is: expressly authorized by a wage or collective bargaining agreement. 63. Cal. Labor Code §223 provides that it is unlawful for an employer to secretly pay a’ lower wage while purporting to pay the wage designated by statute or contract where any statute or contract requires the employer to maintain the designated wage scale. 64. IWC Wage Order No. 9 prohibits employers from making deductions from an cemployee’s wage due to cash shortage, breakage, or loss of equipment unless the employer can show that the shortage, breakage, or loss was the result of the employee's gross negligence or dishonest or willful act. -13- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, er seq., and CCP § 1021.5.65. Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein has violated Cal. Labor Code §§221, 223, and 224, and IWC Wage Order No. 9. Defendants have unlawfully made deductions from Plaintiffs" compensation to cover Defendants’ certain ordinary business expenses, including but not limited to, the costs of uniforms, the costs of equipment and tools necessary for rendering services, and claims for property damage. 66. Defendants took unlawful deductions from Plaintiffs’ compensation and are liable to Plaintiffs pursuant to Cal. Labor Code §§221, 223, and 224, and IWC Wage Order No. 9. for the| compensation that should have been paid but was withheld via unlawful deductions, 67. Under Cal. Labor Code §§218.5 and 1194, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for penalties, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs for their unlawful conduct. 68. Plaintiffs pray for relief as requested below (California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof, Code §17200 et seq.) 69. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the allegations in the preceding | paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 70. The conduct of Defendants, as alleged herein, violated the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. 71. Plaintiffs allege that the unfair and unlawful business practices complained of herein are and were the regular business practice of Defendants. 72. Through Defendants’ failures to pay legally required wages when due, to provide itemized statements of hours worked with payments of wages, to reimburse Plaintiffs for expenses they incurred at the direction of Defendants, to pay the employer's portion of FICA taxes that the putative class members paid, and other conduct alleged herein, Defendants have violated numerous specific provisions of state and federal Iaw and have engaged in, and continues to engage in, unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of the UCL, depriving Plaintifis of rights, benefits, and privileges guaranteed to all employees under law, and has caused Plaintiff to suffer injury in fact and to lose money. 14. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, et seg., and CCP § 1021.5.20 2 2 23 24 25 26 7 28 73. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon such information and belief allege, that by engaging in the unfair and unlawful business practices complained of herein, Defendants were able to lower their labor costs and thereby obtain a competitive advantage over law- abiding employers and businesses with which it competes. 74. The harm to Plaintiffs in being wrongfully denied lawfully earned wages, reimbursement for business expenses and paying the employer's portion of FICA taxes that the putative class members paid outweighs the utility, if any, of Defendants’ policies or practices and, therefore, Defendants’ actions described herein constitute an unfair business practice or act within the| meaning of the UCL. 75. California Business and Professions Code Section 17203 provides that the Court may’ restore to an aggrieved party any money or property acquired by means of unlawful and unfair: business practices. Under the circumstances alleged herein, it would be inequitable and result in a miscarriage of justice for Defendants to continue to retain the property of Plaintiffs. Therefore, | Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution of the unfair benefits obtained and disgorgement of Defendants’ ill-gotten gains. Plaintiffs seek restitution and damages of all unpaid wages, reimbursement for business expenses, and for the employer's portion of FICA taxes that the putative class members paid, owing to them, according to proof, as well as all other available equitable relief. 76. Injunctive relief pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 17203 is sary to prevent Defendants from continuing to engage in unfair business practices as alleged in this Complaint. Defendants and/or persons acting in concert with Defendants have done, are now doing, and will continue to do or cause to be done, the illegal acts alleged in this Complaint, unless restrained and enjoined by this Court. Unless the relief prayed for below is granted, a multiplicity of actions will result. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, for reasons which include but are not limited to the following: (a) it is difficult to measure the amount of monetary damages that would compensate Plaintiffs for Defendants’ wrongful acts; and (b) in any event, pecuniary compensation alone would not afford adequate -15- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, et seg., and CCP § 1021.5,20 and complete relief. The continuing violation of law by Defendants will cause great and irreparable damage to Plaintiffs unless Defendants are immediately restrained from committing further illegal acts 77. Plaintiffs herein take upon themselves enforcement of these laws and lawful claims. ‘There is a financial burden incurred in pursuing this action. Therefore Plaintiff seeks recovery of| attorneys’ fees and costs of this action to be paid by Defendants, as provided by the UCL and California Labor Code Section 218, 218.5, and 1194, and California Code of Civil Procedure! Section 1021.5, PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: a. A declaratory judgment that the policies and practices complained of herein are, unlawful under the laws of California; b. Appropriate equitable and injunctive relief to remedy Defendants’ violations of the laws of California, including but not necessarily limited to an order enjoining, Defendants from continuing their unlawful policies and practices; c. An award of damages, statutory penalties, and restitution to be paid by Defendants according to proof, d. General damages according to proof; Pre-Judgment and Post-Judgment interest, as provided by law; f Such other injunctive and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper; g Attomeys’ fees and costs of suit, including expert fees and fees pursuant to California Labor Code Section 218.5 and 1194, California Code Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, and other applicable laws; h. Punitive damages, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all causes of action and claims to which a right to jury tral exists. -16- ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200, et seg, and CCP § 1021.5.u 2 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated this February 1, 2016 PROFES AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP Co 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 ‘Telephone: 415.568.2555 Facsimile: 415.568.2556 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE, INDUSTRIAL WELFARE COMISSION WAGE ORDER No. 4, CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE AND BUSI IONS CODE §§ 17200, et seg., and CCP § 1021.5. AND.ee = cmo10 [Mark Button Je (SBN 178460) " AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 21) Van Nese Avenue Suit $00 iF San Francisco, CA 94102 5 | ior Court Celfori | reuemenero 415-568-2555 anno 415-568-2556 Sepeiey Sea te caernta arrose ron none Plaintiffs lsupemoR couRT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF S) sreceracontss 400 McAllister Street FEB 01 2016 | SiecStecan San Francisco, CA 94102 | CLERKVOF THE COURT | 2 pee CASE NAME. ~ a ~ Deputy Clem Barajg etal. Uber Technologies In, LP.eta, | |" CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ‘Complex Case Designation ae |Z United LF Limited F ee -16-550199 (amount ren 5 counter (1 Joinder iy 2 a Se ce tems 1-6 below Mi ampictod (so0 instructions oa bags 2) [oz [Ea biesen ot convactwarranty (08) (Gal Rules of Cour ules 3.400~8.403) | Uninsured motorist (46) [1 Rute 3.740 collections (08) ‘AnttrustTrade reguiation (03) ‘other PUPOWO (Personal injury!Property |__| Ciher collections (08), Construction defect (10) | Bamagenvrongtot Oost) Tor (1 insronce coverage (18 [ass tort 40), | Er Reests 0) I omer consent) Secu tgaton (28) [rover abit 24) Real Property (5 emvonmentTose to (0) [2 ete! marae cs) (211 miner omenvese Tawar coverage aims ating tom ine | ast 1 omer Puro (23) condemnation (14) _above listed peowisionally complex case oy Non-PUPOIWD {Other Tort TE] wont eviction 20) pom £ {J usiness torvunfar businass practice (07) Other reat property (26) Enforcement of Judgment t a 1] ivi rignts (08) Untaveful Oetainer o Entorcement of judgment (20) fey les (es) fmeteeaee cy TT commerce) macalaneous Cl Compiaat | | I eaeerey TS esdent 22) (1 rico en) | { tettecat proper 16) “) onus 8) (ome compli ot pected above) 2} | Proessonlnepgence (25) Judea Review acaraaene concn Joiner non-PUPDIWNO tr (35) = assotfaetue (08) |) arineship and corporate governance (3) Employment [I Prestonse: ization ener) [=] cana pation fa pace above) 3} Wrong termination 98) [1 sent mana 02 (Zone empioyment (1) (5) one: jute row 0) 2 Thisease [ls (YTienot complex under rule 2400 of the Califia Rules of Court. Ifthe case is complex, mark the factors tequiing excepboral jxicial management : a. [_] Large number of separately represented parties 4 [__] Large number of winesses, b |. Extensive mation practice raising difficult or novel e [| Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that wil be time-consuming to resoive “im other counties, states, or countries, orn a federal court } Substantial amount of documentary evidence +. [1 Substantial pestiudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (chack all that apply): a7] monetary .CZ] nonmanetary; declaratory orinjunctve relief ©. LZ Ipunitve 4. Number of eauses of acon (speciy): EIGHT (8) 5. Thiscase [is [¥]isnot a class action suit 6. fthere are any known related cases, fie and serve a noice of related case. (You may use form CM-015) ate: 17 er GIR yg Lb fora BY AM re + Plain must fle this cover sheet with the fst paper fled in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases fled | Under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Instutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to fle may result in sanctions. + Fle ths cover sheet in adlion to any cover sheet required by local cout ule. | + iftis case fs complex under rule 3400 et seq. ofthe Caifomia Rules of Cour, you must serve a copy ofthis cover sheet on all | ‘ther partes fo the action of proceecing | + Unies this sa colestons case under rule 3.740 ora complex case, this cover sheet willbe used fr satistical puposes onl, L ° ad age seen CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET cat he harmon i918 Beso Sn matinee