You are on page 1of 30

1 Patrick J.

Mendes (SBN 181274)


Justina L. Tate (SBN 260059)
2 Katie M. Greenbaum (SBN 312379)
TYSON & MENDES, LLP
3 5661 La Jolla Boulevard
La Jolla, CA 92037
4 Telephone: (858) 459-4400

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff


Neutron Holdings, Inc. dba Lime
6

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION

10

11 NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC. dba Case No.


LIME, a Delaware corporation,
12
Assigned for All Purposes to:
Plaintiff, [Unlimited Civil Case]
13 [Complaint Filed: March 19, 2019]
v.
14 COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
15 DAMAGES
TALON AUTO, INC., a California
16 coryoration; JOHN HEINKEL, an (1) VIOLATION OF UNFAIR
individual; SCOOTER REMOVAL, COMPETITION LAW PER
17 LLC, a California limited liability BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
company; DANIEL BORELLI, as an CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.
18 individual and dba BOARDWALK (2) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
ELECTRIC RIDES; and DOES 1 VEHICLE CODE§ 22658(i)(l)
19 through 100, inclusive, (3) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
VEHICLE CODE§ 22658(l)(l)(E)(i)
20 (4) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
Defendants. VEHICLE CODE § 22658(m)(3)
21 (5) INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE
WITH PROSPECTIVE
22 ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
(6l CONVERSION
23
g i~}pl~f~1 CHATTELS
24

25

26
27

28

1
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
2 Introduction
3 1. Lime 1 has no choice but to bring this suit against Defendants, 2 who have made
4 it their business model to illegally profit from the wrongful seizure of Lime's property.
5 2. Lime is an environmentally friendly micro-mobility company that provides
6 dockless bicycle and electric scooter ("e-scooter") rentals to metropolitan areas and
7 universities around the world. Lime's mission is to provide cost-effective and accessible
8 transportation options that advance sustainability through micro-mobility solutions that do
9 not displace or occupy existing infrastructure, and can be easily moved in the case of
10 emergencies, special events, weather, or other public-space priorities. Lime's fleet produces
11 zero emissions and is entirely carbon neutral, furthering important environmental and
12 sustainability goals.
13 3. Lime's mission seeks to resolve issues so severe that the California Legislature
14 has codified them, stating that California "has severe traffic congestion and air pollution
15 problems, particularly in its cities, and finding ways to reduce these problems is of
16 paramount importance."3 Section 21220 of the California Vehicle Code, 4 which is entitled
17 "Operation of Motorized Scooters," was expressly added by the Legislature "to promote the
18 use of alternative low-emission or no-emission transportation."
19 4. In February 2018, Lime launched a fleet ofLimeBikes and Lime-Se-scooters
20 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Lime Vehicles") in San Diego, California. Lime
21 Vehicles are authorized to operate anywhere within the City of San Diego city limits.
22 5. In an attempt to improperly capitalize on Lime's service to the San Diego
23 community, Defendants have developed an unlawful scheme of illegally impounding bikes
24 and e-scooters, including Lime Vehicles, and demanding ransom for their return. Defendants
25
26 1 Plaintiff,
Neutron Holdings, Inc. db.a Lime (hereinafter "Lime").
2 Talon Auto, Inc. ("Talon"), John Heinkel ("Heinkel"), Scooter Removal, LLC ("Scooter Removal"), Boardwalk
27 Electric Rides ("Boardwalk Rides"), and Daniel Borelli ("Borelli") (hereinafter collectively referred to as
"Defendants").
28 3 Cal. Veh. Code § 21220(a)(l).
4 All Code references are to California Codes.

2
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 contend that they are not bound by California law, specifically the Vehicle Code, when
2 impounding Lime Vehicles. But the Vehicle Code expressly governs and prohibits
3 Defendants' conduct.

4 6. Defendants' illegal scheme is a lucrative one in at least two ways. Defendants


5 issue invoices to Lime, therein demanding Lim~ pay an impound fee of $15 per bicycle and
6 $30 per e-scooter. Defendants also demand a storage fee per bike ore-scooter of $2 per day
7 for summer storage and $4 per day for winter storage. As Defendants currently have
8 approximately 285 bikes and 1300 Lime e-scooters in their possession, Defendants have
9 demanded and continue to demand that Lime pay tens of thousands of dollars for the return
10 of Lime's property, with that figure increasing every day.

11 7. In addition to Defendants' absconding with Lime Vehicles and holding them


12 for ransom, Boardwalk Rides - a local San Diego business that itselfrents motorized scooters
13 - and its principals (which includes at least Borelli) get the added benefit of interfering with
14 the competition that has arisen following Lime's and other dockless micro-mobility
15 providers' launch in San Diego.

16 8. Notwithstanding Lime's efforts to reason with Defendants, those efforts have


17 been unsuccessful. Lime was left with no choice but to file this action.
18 The Parties
19 9. Lime is, and at all relevant times was, a corporation organized and existing
20 under the laws of the State of Delaware and authorized to conduct business in the State of
21 California.
22 10. Talon is, and at all relevant times was, a corporation organized and existing
23 under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business located at 9111
24 Olive Drive, Spring Valley, California 91977 (business premises hereinafter referred to as
25 "Talon Storage Facility").

26 11. Heinkel is Talon's registered chief executive officer, a director, and agent for
27 service of process. Lime is informed, believes, and thereupon alleges Heinkel is also the co-
28 owner of Scooter Removal.

3
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 12. Scooter Removal is, and at all relevant times was, a limited liability company
2 organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. Scooter Removal has
3 registered with the California Secretary of State that its principal place of business is located
4 at 1163 Thomas Avenue, San Diego, California 92109, which is also Borelli's residential
5 address. Heinkel has represented that Scooter Removal rents its storage space from Talon.
6 Heinkel has further represented Scooter Removal stores its impounds at the Talon Storage
7 Facility. Therefore, Lime is informed, believes, and thereupon alleges that Scooter
8 Removal's acting principal place of business is 9111 Olive Drive, Spring Valley, California
9 91977 (the Talon Storage Facility).
10 13. Borelli resides at 1163 Thomas Avenue, San Diego, California 92109. Borelli
11 does business as Boardwalk Electric Rides/Boardwalk Rides ("Boardwalk Rides") in
12 California, with its principal place of business located at 4150 Mission Blvd., Suite #143,
13 San Diego, CA 92109. Borelli owns Boardwalk Rides. Borelli also co-owns Scooter
14 Removal.
15 14. Lime is currently unaware of the true names and capacities of defendants sued
16 herein as DOES 1 through 100, and therefore sues these defendants by using fictitious names.
17 Lime will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
18 Upon information and belief, Lime alleges each fictitiously named defendant is responsible
19 in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Lime's rights against such
20 fictitiously named defendants arise from such liability. Each reference in this complaint to
21 "defendant," "defendants" or a specifically named defendant refers to all defendants sued
22 under fictitious names.
23 15. Lime is informed and believes and therefore alleges that at all times relevant
24 to this complaint, unless otherwise stated, each defendant, including those fictitiously named,
25 was the agent, servant, employee, partner and/or joint venturer with the permission and
26 consent or ratification of each defendant, in doing the things alleged in this complaint.
27 Ill
28 ///

4
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 Venue and Jurisdiction
2 16. Lime alleges that as of the date this action is filed, the primary transactions at
3 issue occurred in the City of San Diego, County of San Diego, State of California at real
4 properties located at, among other places: (1) The Promenade, 4150 Mission Boulevard, San
5 Diego, California 92109; (2) Blue Sea Beach Hotel, 707 Pacific Beach Drive, San Diego,
6 California 92109; (3) 3003 Grape Street, San Diego, California 92102; (4) 3012 Grape
7 Street, San Diego, California 92102; (5) 3030 Grape Street, San Diego, California 92102;
8 (6) 4692 Mission Boulevard, San Diego, California 92109; (7) 2676 Mission Boulevard, San
9 Diego, California 92109; (8) Marriot Marquis Marina Hotel, 333 W. Harbor Drive, San
10 Diego, California 92101; (9) 870 Gamet Avenue, San Diego, California 92109; (10) 3287 F
11 Street, Suite A, San Diego, California 92102; (11) 3634 Yosemite Street, San Diego,
12 California 92019; (12) 3507 Ocean Front Walk, San Diego, California 92109; (13) 2500
13 Sixth Avenue, San Diego California 92101; ( 14) Omni Hotel and HOA Management 67 5 L
14 Street, San Diego, California 92101; and ( 15) M2I 10 50 Island, San Diego, California 92101.
15 17. Venue is proper in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego,
16 Central Division pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5.
17 18. The Court has jurisdiction under Code of Civil· Procedure section 410 .10.
18 Lime's Dockless Bicycle and E-Scooter Business
19 19. Lime developed a smartphone application (the "Lime App") that allows users
20 to locate and unlock its fleet. To use Lime, users open the Lime App to show nearby bicycles
21 and e-scooters. Riders then select their desired bike ore-scooter on the map, prompting the
22 Lime App to show the rider information about their ride, including price, battery level,
23 mileage range, and directions to the bike ore-scooter.
24 20. Users then scan a QR code on the bike ore-scooter to unlock and start the ride.
25 At the conclusion of their ride, users park the bike or e-scooter near a bike rack or other
26 proper parking location, discussed in detail below.

27 Ill
28 Ill

5
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 Lime Lime m
\ .'
2 How to rid e Lime- S Lim -S

4 C H ~O
---
$1 to unloek •
S0.15 /1 min C

NA Ul 1 N C T IOt
5

6 ~
7 ' <J-
G,,,11dP11~
/• •
<>"
8
L os An ge l es s Angeles
9
/<J- ",.,.,, ·,
10 <J- <J- • •
,t
.,"
.,,
,, "I
. Al.I '"' VII

11
. e," ~.J,.<1s,
r
-< vi
D 0
T OY DIS TR IC T
J"'" I <D TIIICT 0
12 CD
.,......r;, "'
0
t'•

: : SCAN TO RIDE : : SCANTORID


13

14 A R TS DI ST RI CT

15

16 21. Before users can rent Lime's bikes or e-scooters as described above, upon
17 downloading the Lime App for the first time, users are prompted to create an account and,
18 like most smartphone applications, are prompted to agree to Lime's User Agreement and
19 Terms of Service. The User Agreement instructs riders that upon conclusion of their ride,
20 they should "return [the Lime Vehicle] to any legal parking space within the approved area
21 of use (which can be found in [their] App)."
22 Ill
23 Ill
24 Ill
25 Ill
26 Ill
27 Ill
28 Ill

6
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 22. The Lime App contains express instructions regarding parking of Lime
2 Vehicles to ensure compliance with applicable laws. Those instructions include references
3 to designated parking areas, in-app parking maps, and prohibited parking locations such as
4 wheelchair ramps, hospital entrances, fire stations, and pedestrian pathways. The Lime App
5 explains that Riders should park in blue preferred parking zones or marked parking areas
6 provided by cities. Riders are "asked to take a photo at the end of [their] ride to confirm
7 [their] parking job."
. . .- -. . .- - - - -. . ...-!. . . . . . . . .- - - -.....
8

10

11

12
• • • • • • • •• II
.--~ .
13

14

15

16

17 ---------~
18 23. Because Lime's e-scooters are electric, the batteries must be charged. At the
19 end of each day, Lime's e-scooters are collected for charging and redeployment the
20 following morning.
21 Vehicle Code Division 11 Governs Bicycles and Scooters
22 24. Lime's bicycles meet the definition of "Bicycle" under Vehicle Code
23 section 231: ·"[A] device upon which any person may ride, propelled exclusively by human
24 power through a belt, chain, or gears, and having one or more wheels."
25 25. Lime's e-scooters meet the definition of "Motorized Scooter" under Vehicle
26 · Code section 407. 5: " [A ]ny two-wheeled device that has handlebars, has a floorboard that is
27 designed to be stood upon when riding, and is powered by an electric motor."

28 ///

7
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 26. In authorizing the use of motorized scooters, the California legislature found
2 and declared: (1) [T]he state "has severe traffic congestion and air pollution problems,
3 particularly in its cities, and finding ways to reduce these problems is of paramount
4 importance;" (2) "[m]otorized scooters that meet the definition of 407.5 produce no
5 emissions and, therefore do not contribute to increc).sed air pollution or increase traffic
6 congestion," and (3) [i]t is the intent of the Legislature in adding this article to promote the
7 use of alternative low-emission or no-emission transportation." Cal. Veh. Code § 21220.
8 27. The California Vehicle Code is the primary regulatory authority for bicycles
9 and scooters. California Vehicle Code section 21225 allows local authorities to pass
10 ordinances that regulate "the parking and operation of motorized scooters on pedestrian or
11 bicycle facilities and local streets and highways, if that regulation is not in conflict with
12 [the Vehicle Code]." [Emphasis added.]
13 28'. Vehicle Code section 21200 provides, "[A] person riding a bicycle ... upon a
14 highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a
15 vehicle by [Division 11]."
16 29. Likewise, Vehicle Code section21221 ensures that, "[e]very person operating
17 a motorized scooter upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions
18 applicable to the driver of a vehicle by [Division 11]."
19 Division 11: Vehicle Code section 22658
20 30. The primary California law governing the removal of parked or abandoned
21 vehicles is Vehicle Code section 22658, which is governed by Division 11, Rules of the
22 Road, Chapter 10 Removal of Parked and Abandoned Vehicles, Article 1 Authority to
23 Remove Vehicles. Section 2265 8 enumerates cJ. definitive set of rules that tow truck operators
24 must follow to remove vehicles like Lime Vehicles.
25 31. For example, section 22658(a)(l) dictates that a private property owner may
26 only cause removal of vehicles under the following four circumstances: (1) a sign not less
27 than 17 inches by 22 inches in size, with lettering not less than one inch in height, prohibiting
28 public parking and indicating that vehicles will be removed at the owner's expense, and
'
8
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 containing the telephone number of the local traffic law enforcement agency and the name
2 and telephone number of each towing company that is a party to a written general towing
3 authorization agreement with the owner or person in lawful possession of the property, is
4 displayed, in plain view at all entrances to the property; (2) 96 hours have passed since a
5 vehicle has been issued a notice of parking violation; (3) the vehicle is inoperable; or (4) the
6 vehicle is parked on a lot or parcel with an improved single-family dwelling.

7 32. Similarly, section 226 5 8(b) dictates that when towing a vehicle, if a tow truck
8 operator knows or is able to ascertain from the property owner, person in possession of the
.9 property, or DMV records, the name and address of the vehicle owner, the tow truck operator
1O "shall immediately give, or cause to be given, notice in writing to the registered and legal
11 owner of the fact of removal, the grounds of removal, and indicate the place to which the
12 vehicle has been removed." The notice must also include the time of the removal of the
13 property.
14 33. Under section 226580)(1), a person who charges a vehicle owner a towing,
15 service, or storage charge at an excessive rate is civilly liable to the vehicle owner for four
16 times the amount charged.
17 34. Section 22658(1)(1)(A) prohibits a towing company from removing a vehicle
18 from private property without first obtaining written authorization from the property's
19 owner. Presence and verification by the person authorizing the tow is required unless that
20 person is the property owner, or the owner's agent who is not a tow operator, of a residential
21 rental property of 15 or fewer units that does not have an onsite owner, owner's agent or
22 employee, and the tenant has verified the violation, requested the tow from that tenant's
23 assigned parking space, and provided a signed request or electronic mail, or has called and
24 provided a signed request or electronic mail within 24 hours, to the property owner or
25 owner's agent, which the owner or agent provides to the towing company within 48 hours
26 of authorizing the tow.

27 35. Section 22658(l)(l)(A) also requires that written authorization include all of
28 the following: (i) the make, model, vehicle identification number, and license plate number

9
COMPLAINT FOR INITJNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 of the removed vehicle; (ii) the name, signature,job title, residential or business address, and
2 working telephone number of the person authorizing the removal of the vehicle; (iii) the
3 grounds for removal of the vehicle; (iv) the time when the vehicle was first observed parked
4 at the private property; and (v) the time that authorization to tow the vehicle was given.

5 36. Section 22658(l)(l)(D) dictates that a towing company shall not remove a
6 vehicle from private property described in section 22953(a) of Vehicle Code unless the
7 towing company has made a good faith inquiry to determine that the property owner
8 complied with section 22953. Section 22953(a) dictates that an owner of private property
9 held open to the public, or a discernible portion thereof, for parking of vehicles at no fee, or
1O an employee or agent thereof, shall not tow or remove, or cause the towing or removal, of a
11 vehicle within one hour of the vehicle being parked.

12 37. Section 22658(1)(1)(E)(i) dictates the only time a general authorization to


13 remove a vehicle at a towing company's discretion can be used is when a vehicle is parked
14 within 15 feet of a fire hydrant or fire lane or in a manner which interferes with entrance to,
15 or exit from, the private property.

16 38. Section 22658(1)(5) dictates a person who violates the foregoing provisions of
17 Section 22658(1) is civilly liable to the owner of the vehicle for four times the amount of
18 towing and storage charges.

19 39. Section 22658(m)(l) dictates a towing company that removes a vehicle from
20 private property shall notify the local law enforcement agency of the tow after the vehicle is
21 removed from the private property and is in transit.

22 40. Section 22658(m)(3) further dictates a towing company that does not so notify
23 the local law enforcement agency within 30 minutes of the tow is civilly liable to the
24 vehicle's owner for three times the amount of towing and storage fees.

25 41. Section 22658(n)(l) dictates a vehicle removed from private property must be
26 stored in a storage facility that is located within a 10-mile radius of the property from where
27 the vehicle is removed.
28 ///

10
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 Defendants' Unlawful Impoundment Scheme
2 42. Lime is operating lawfully in the City of San Diego. Despite this, Defendants
3 have undertaken a scheme to unlawfully impound Lime Vehicles and "ransom" them back
4 to Lime.
5 43. In or around July 2018, Talon and Does 1 through 10 began illegally
6 impounding Lime Vehicles from The Promenade shopping center ("The Promenade")
7 located at 4150 Mission Boulevard, San Diego, California 92109. Notably, Boardwalk
8 Rides, owned and/or operated by Borelli and Does 11 through 20, is located at The
9 Promenade, and on information and belief rents e-scooters in direct competition with Lime
10 and other e-scooter providers. On information and belief, and among other reasons,
11 · Defendants are engaging in unlawful and illegal impounding of Lime Vehicles to
12 intentionally harm and interfere with Lime's business, to the benefit of Boardwalk Rides.
13 44. Subsequently, in or around January 2019, Talon expanded its illegal conduct
14 to multiple other San Diego properties. To further their scheme, Talon, Heinkel, Borelli, and
15 Does 1 through 10 created a new subsidiary, Scooter Removal, to continue unlawfully and
16 illegally impounding e-scooters and bikes in San Diego. Since then, Scooter Removal has
17 engaged in an aggressive marketing campaign via television, newspaper, radio, vehicle
18 advertisements, and internet advertising on its website www.scootscoop.com, where they
19 knowingly and intentionally misrepresent that Scooter Removal provides an allegedly legal
20 and free service.
21 45. Talon and Scooter Removal erroneously and misleadingly represent their use
22 of a general tow authorization with The Promenade and at other San Diego properties
23 authorizes them to impound Lime Vehicles. Along those lines, Scooter Removal's website
24 includes a link to a blanket general "Tow Authorization" fonn purporting to grant Scooter
25 Removal the right to tow "any and all dockless bikes and/or scooters" left on a business
26 owner's property.
27 · Ill

28 ///

11
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 46. Defendants are illegally using general tow authorizations in circumstances
2 disallowed by the Vehicle Code§ 22658(l)(l)(E)(i) where: (1) Lime Vehicles are not parked
3 within 15 feet of a fire hydrant or fire lane; or (2) Lime Vehicles are not interfering with the
4 entrance to, or exit from, the property.

5 47. In almost every instance of Defendants' wrongful impound of a Lime Vehicle,


6 Defendants were required to use separate and particularized written tow authorizations, but
7 knowingly failed and refused to do so.

8 48. Defendants' scheme is simple. Despite knowledge the general tow


9 authorizations are invalid to their activities, Defendants directly or through their agents
1O monitor the areas in and around San Diego properties for dockless bicycle or scooter activity.
11 When a rider disembarks from a Lime Vehicle, Defendants confiscate the Lime Vehicle,
12 knowingly and intentionally tow it more than ten miles from where the Lime Vehicle was
13 confiscated, and impound it at the Talon Storage Facility. On information and belief,
14 Defendants have not and do not notify local law enforcement agency of the tow after the
15 Lime Vehicle has been removed from the private property and is in transit.
16 49. Defendants often gather multiple Lime Vehicles at or near The Promenade and
17 store them in a locked garage near The Promenade's premises ("The Promenade Garage"),
18 thereby knowingly and intentionally preventing Lime from picking them up. Defendants
19 later transport the Lime Vehicles to the Talon Storage Facility.
20 50. On information and belief, Defendants also use the employees of local
21 businesses to confiscate scooters. For example, in one instance, a bellboy/valet from a hotel
22 nearby The Promenade was observed in a back alley placing scooters in The Promenade
23 Garage. That bellboy/valet had his own key to unlock The Promenade Garage. Borelli was
24 later observed conversing with that bellboy/valet. Borelli subsequently picked up the
25 scooters and took them away in a truck that had a magnetic business sign on its side door
26 bearing the following: "Scooter Removal, LLC - A Free Service for Property and Business
27 Owners - Call Us Today! 858-262-1912 www.scootscoop.com." Borelli was also observed
28 handing out business cards to two males in The Promenade boardwalk area.

12
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 51. Lime representatives asked Defendants on multiple occasions to release Lime
2 Vehicles from The Promenade Garage. Defendants refused to do so unless Lime pays a $30
3 ransom per vehicle. On at least one occasion, in response to Lime representatives' in-person
4 request for the unconditional release of Lime Vehicles from The Promenade Garage since
5 the vehicles had not yet been transported to the Talon Storage Facility, Heinke! responded
6 with hostility and threatened the Lime representatives, asserting he was carrying a gun.
7 52. On information and belief, Defendants have knowingly and intentionally
8 impounded Lime Vehicles even where they were located on public property owned and
9 controlled by the City of San Diego, and even where they had been left for less than one
10 hour. Lime Vehicles are equipped with GPS technology to allow Lime to track, maintain,
11 and rebalance its fleet. Lime's GPS data concretely evidences that many of the Lime
12 Vehicles Defendants confiscated and impounded were not parked on private property at all,
13 but were instead parked on public property in or around San Diego properties described in
14 paragraph 16 above and many others not listed, or sometimes even several miles away
15 altogether.
16 53. Defendants have also confiscated Lime Vehicles from areas that do not have
17 Code-compliant prohibition of parking signs displayed in plain view at all entrance or exits,
18 or where none of the other circumstances identified by Vehicle Code section 22658(a)(l) are
19 present.
20 54. As depicted in the photographs below, Lime Vehicles are conspicuously
21 identified as owned by Lime by their signature Lime green paint markings and multiple Lime
22 logos located along the frame of each vehicle. Further, Lime Vehicles can only be unlocked
23 with the Lime App.
24 Ill
25 Ill
26 Ill
27 Ill
28 Ill

13
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1

2
3

10

11 55. Despite that Defendants know Lime owns the vehicles Defendants are
12 confiscating and impounding, Defendants have not immediately given or caused to be given
13 notice to Lime or law enforcement of the fact of removal, the grounds for the removal, or
14 the place to which the vehicle has been removed.
15 56. Instead, Defendants send sporadic email notices indicating the total number of
16 Lime Vehicles they impounded over an indetenninate period of time. Such sporadic email
17 notices have neither specified the date, time, nor location of the impoundments, nor have
18 they disclosed the instances when Lime Vehicles were first removed to The Promenade
19 garage before being transported to the Talon Storage facility.
20 57. Further, Defendants' email notices demand payment of excessive fees for their
21 return: an impound fee of $15 per bicycle and $30 per scooter, as well as a storage fee per
22 bike or . scooter of $2 per day for summer storage and $4 per day for winter storage.
23 Defendants contend all Lime Vehicles are eligible for redemption up to 30 days from the
24 date of each email notice. Defendants threaten that, thereafter, any unclaimed Lime Vehicles
25 will be "sold, disposed, dismantled or destroyed."
26 58. On at least one occasion, Defendants threatened to give the improperly
27 impounded Lime Vehicles to a law firm for use in a lawsuit against Lime and other e-scooter
28 providers unless Lime pays Defendants' ransom.

14
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 59. Lime repeatedly told Defendants their wrongful towing and impound of Lime
2 Vehicles violates the Vehicle Code. Nonetheless, Defendants continue their illegal actions. In
3 fact, Heinkel admitted to Lime multiple times that not only is he aware Defendants are not
4 complying with the Vehicle Code, but that Defendants refuse to do so absent a court order.
5 60. Lime repeatedly demanded the return of all Lime Vehicles in Defendants'
6 possession. Defendants refuse to return Lime Vehicles unless Lime pays excessive impound
7 and storage fees. Defendants repeatedly threatened to liquidate Lime's products if Lime does
8 not pay fees for their return, including to at least one law firm for use against Lime and other
9 e-scooter providers as described above. On infonnation and belief, Defendants are presently
10 in possession of at least 285 LimeBikes and 1300 Lime-S scooters, amounting to a ransom
11 demand in the tens of thousands of dollars, and thereby causing Lime to sustain significant
12 harm and damage. Defendants' scheme is ongoing. Every LimeBike ore-scooter Defendants
13 illegally impound is a bicycle or e-scooter not available for use, thereby resulting in a loss to
14 Lime of revenue.
15 61. When Lime Vehicles are not regularly accessible to Lime for maintenance and
16 are out of circulation for long periods of time, they can and do become obsolete or unsuitable
17 for return to circulation, resulting in additional losses and damages to Lime. This is
18 especially true of Lime's e-scooters, which require regular recharging.
19 62. Defendants knowingly and intentionally took the law into their own hands and
20 are holding Lime Vehicles for ransom. Lime demanded that Defendants return the
21 unlawfully impounded Lime Vehicles and cease their illegal towing and storage scheme.
22 Defendants have refused. Lime is left with no choice but to seek judicial relief to immediately
23 stop Defendants' illegal towing conduct, as well as all other available civil remedies.
24 Ill
25 Ill
26 Ill
27 Ill
28 Ill

15
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2 (Violation of Unfair Competition Law Per Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.)

3 (Against all Defendants)

4 63. Lime incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 62 of this complaint as


5 if fully set forth herein.
6 64. Business and Professions Code section 17200 prohibits unfair competition in
7 the form of any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. Additionally,
8 Business and Professions Code section 17204 allows "any person who has suffered injury in
9 fact and has lost money or property" to prosecute a civil action for violation of the Unfair
10 Competition Law. Business and Professions Code section 17203 dictates, "Any person who
11 engages, has engaged, or proposes to engage in unfair competition may be enjoined in any
12 court of competent jurisdiction."
13 65. As California's Supreme Court explained, California's Legislature
14 "established a wide standard for the guidance of courts of equity in restraining all unfair
15 business practices because it felt that 'given the creative nature of the scheming mind ... a
16 less inclusive standard would not be adequate."' People v. James (1981) 122 Cal.Ap.3d 25,
17 35, quoting Barquis v. Merchants (1972) 7 Cal.3d 94, 112.
18 66. Lime owns all Lime Vehicles, including Lime bicycles and e-scooters in the
19 City and County of San Diego. Lime Vehicles are further identified as Lime's by their
20 signature Lime green paint markings and multiple Lime logos located along the frame of
21 each vehicle. Lime Vehicles can only be unlocked with the Lime App.
22 67. Defendants have knowingly and intentionally engaged and continue to
23 knowing and intentionally engage in unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of
24 California's Unfair Competition Law pursuant to Business and Professions Code section
25 17200 et seq. by and through their scheme of improperly confiscating and impounding Lime
26 Vehicles, in violation of Vehicle Code sections 22658 and 22851, and thereafter improperly
27 charging Lime excessive fees for the towing and storage of Lime Vehicles in order for Lime
28 to obtain their return.

16
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 68. The acts, omissions and practices alleged herein constitute unlawful business
2 acts and practices because Defendants have no lawful basis for confiscating and impounding
3 Lime Vehicles. Defendants are performing such confiscations and impoundments in direct
4 violation of Vehicle Code sections 2265 8 and 22851. Heinkel admitted he is aware that his
5 and the other Defendants' actions violate the Vehicle Code, yet Defendants continue to
6 confiscate Lime Vehicles.

7 69. The acts, omissions, and practices alleged herein also constitute fraudulent
8 business practices because Defendants continue to intentionally, falsely and misleadingly
9 represent to the public and Lime that they are providing a free, legal vehicle removal service
10 when, in fact, Defendants' actions are illegal.

11 70. As a result ofDefendants' unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent acts, Lime Vehicles
12 are not available for use, resulting in loss of revenue to Lime. To date, Lime has lost the
13 revenue associated with the approximately 285 LimeBikes and 1300 Lime e-scooters.
14 Defendants are currently holding and refusing to return the illegally impounded LimeBikes
15 and e-scooters to Lime absent Lime paying impound and storage fees to Defendants.
16 Defendants' wrongful conduct is ongoing, causing Lime's losses to increase daily.

17 71. When Lime Vehicles are removed from circulation, they are less available to
18 Californians and residents of San Diego, in contravention of the Legislature's express desire
19 to encourage use of such e-scooters. Lime is also incurring costs for repairs or replacements
20 of Lime Vehicles that Defendants have damaged, either partially or beyond repair, as well
21 as Lime Vehicles that are now potentially obsolete due to lack of regular maintenance and
22 use caused by Defendants' unlawful impoundment.

23 72. Defendants wrongfully seek illegal profits at Lime's expense through their
24 demand for payment of improper and excessive towing and storage fees, which exceed
25 $50,000 as of March 2019. Additionally, Borelli, Boardwalk Rides, and Does 11 through 20
26 benefit from reduced competition because Defendants' illegal confiscation and impound
27 scheme reduces Boardwalk Rides' competition.
28

17
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 73. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17203, Lime requests this
2 court order Defendants to restore to Lime all Lime Vehicles currently in Defendants'
3 possession. Additionally, Lime requests this court enjoin Defendants from: (1) towing Lime
4 Vehicles in violation of Vehicle Code section 22658; and (2) charging Lime a fee to release
5 any Lime Vehicles that are not in transit to or are not stored at an authorized storage facility
6 within a 10-mile radius of the property from which the Lime Vehicles were removed, in
7 accordance with Vehicle Code sections 22658 and 22851.
8 74. Defendants' conduct constitutes multiple violations of Vehicle Code section
9 22658, which gives rises to civil penalties pursuant to: (1) Vehicle Code section 22658G)(l),
1O which provides a person who charges a vehicle owner a towing, service, or storage chart at
11 an excessive rate is civilly liable to the vehicle owner for four times the amount charged; (2)
12 Vehicle Code section 22658(1)(5), which provides a person in violation is civilly liable to
13 the owner of the vehicle for four times the amount of the towing and storage charges; and
14 (3) Vehicle Code section 22658(m)(3), which provides a towing company that does not
15 provide notification under paragraph ( 1) within 30 minutes after the vehicle is removed from
16 the private property and is in transit is civilly liable to the registered owner of the vehicle for
17 three times the amount of the towing and storage charges.
18 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
19 (Violation of Vehicle Code§ 22658(j)(1))
20 (Against all Defendants Except Boardwalk Rides and Does 11 through 20)
21 75. Lime incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 74 of tbis complaint as
22 if fully set forth herein.
23 76. Vehicle Code section 22658G)(l) dictates, "[a] person who charges a vehicle
24 owner a towing, service, or storage charge at an excessive rate, as described in subdivision
25 (h) or (i) is civilly liable to the vehicle owner for four times the amount charged."
26 77. Vehicle Code section 22658(i)(l)(A) dictates that a charge for towing or
27 storage is excessive if the charge exceeds the greater of (i) that which would have been
28 charged for that towing or storage made at the request of a law enforcement agency under

18
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 an agreement between a towing company and the law enforcement agency that exercises
2 primary jurisdiction in the city in which the vehicle was removed; or (ii) that which would
3 have been charged for the towing or storage, under the rate approved for that towing operator,
4 by the Department of the California Highway Patrol for the jurisdiction in which the vehicle
5 was removed.
6 78. Defendants demand that Lime pay excessive rates for the towing or storage of
7 Lime Vehicles. Because Defendants improperly confiscated and impounded Lime Vehicles
8 where such confiscation and impoundment are not authorized under Section 22658, any and
9 all fees charged to Lime for towing or storage of Lime Vehicles are excessive. As of
10 March 2019, Defendants have demanded in excess of $50,000, an unconscionable amount
11 given the size and ease of transport of Lime Vehicles in addition to the fact that Defendants'
12 conduct violates the Vehicle Code.
13 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
14 (Violation of Vehicle Code§ 22658(l)(l)(E)(i))
15 (Against all Defendants Except Boardwalk Rides and Does 11 through 20)
16 79. Lime incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 78 of this complaint as
17 if fully set forth herein.
18 80. Vehicle Code section 22658(l)(l)(E)(i) dictates, "[g]eneral authorization to
19 remove or commence removal of a vehicle at the towing company's discretion shall not be
20 delegated to a towing company or its affiliates except in the case of a vehicle unlawfully
21 parked within 15 feet of a fire hydrant or in in a fire lane, or in a manner which interferes
22 with an entrance to, or exit from, the private property."
23 81. Vehicle Code section 22658(1)(5) dictates that a person that violates Section
24 22658(1) is civilly liable to the owner of the vehicle or his or her agency for four times the
25 amount of towing or storage charges.
26 82. Defendants utilized and continue to utilize general towing authorizations to
27 remove or commence removal of Lime Vehicles, notwithstanding that such Lime Vehicles
28

19
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 were and are not unlawfully parked within 15 feet of a fire hydrant or fire lane, nor in a
2 manner that interferes with an entrance to, or exit from, private property.
3 83. Scooter Removal's website includes a link to such general authorizations
4 purportedly authorizing Scooter Removal to "any and all dockless bikes and/or scooters" left
5 on the business owner's property.
6 84. The Lime Vehicles that Defendants unlawfully towed pursuant to such
7 improper general authorizations belong to Lime. Defendants are currently demanding that
8 Lime pay Defendants tens of thousands of dollars for return of Lime Vehicles impounded in
9 violation of section 2265 8(1)(1 )(E)(i) of the Vehicle Code.
10 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 (Violation of Vehicle Code § 22658(m)(1))
12 (Against all Defendants Except Boardwalk Rides and Does 11 through 20)

13 85. Lime incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 84 of this complaint as


14 if fully set forth herein.
15 86. Section 22658(m)(l) of the Vehicle Code states "a towing company that
16 removes a vehicle from private property under this section shall notify the local law
17 enforcement agency of that tow after the vehicle is removed from the private property and is
18 in transit."
19 87. Section 22658(m)(3) of the Vehicle Code states, "a towing company that does
20 not provide the notification under paragraph (1) within 30 minutes after the vehicle is
21 removed from the private property and is in transit is civilly liable to the registered owner of
22 the vehicle, or the person who tenders the fees, for three times the amount of the towing and
23 storage charges."
24 88. On information and belief, Defendants do not provide the Vehicle Code
25 required notices to law enforcement at any point after confiscation and impound of Lime
26 Vehicles. When Lime representatives requested proof of Defendants' notice to law
27 enforcement, Defendants refused to provide any documentation. A Public Records Request
28

20
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 to the San Diego Police Department revealed no documentation concerning notice of any
2 vehicle impounds by Defendants.
3 89. Defendants are currently demanding that Lime pay Defendants tens of
4 thousands of dollars for the return of Lime Vehicles impounded in violation of section
5 22658(m)(l) of the Vehicle Code.
6 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7 (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)
8 (Against all Defendants)

9 90. Lime incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 89 of this complaint as


1O if fully set forth herein.
11 91. Lime has economic relationships with its customers, which are producing
12 economic benefits.
13 92. On information and belief, defendants know of these relationships through the
14 clear identification ofLime Vehicles, as well as the Lime App. Defendants intend to disrupt
15 those relationships.
16 93. Defendants have in fact disrupted and continue to disrupt those economic
17 relationships by actively engaging in the unlawful towing and storage of Lime Vehicles in
18 violation of Vehicle Code sections 2265 8 and 22851, and unlawfully withholding from Lime
19 at least 285 LimeBikes and over 1300 Lime-S scooters. As a result, Lime, which depends on
20 customer access to Lime's fleet within the City of San Diego for its economic success, has
21 been significantly harmed as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, in an
22 amount to be proven at trial. Every Lime e-scooter or bike Defendants illegally impound is
23 an e-scooter or bike not available to Lime's customers. Lime loses revenue from every
24 illegally impounded e-scooter and bike. As Defendants' wrongful conduct is ongoing, these
25 numbers are rapidly increasing daily.
26 94. When Lime Vehicles are removed from circulation, Lime incurs costs for
27 repairs or replacements of Lime Vehicles that Defendants damaged, either partially or
28

21
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 beyond repair, as well as Lime Vehicles that now may be obsolete due to lack of regular
2 maintenance and use due to their impoundment.
3 95. On information and belief, Heinke! is the chief executive officer, director,
4 owner and agent for service of process of Talon. Borelli conducts business as Boardwalk
5 Rides and is its managing agent. Heinke! and Borelli are co-owners and managing agents of
6 Scooter Removal. Heinke! and Borelli intentionally, willfully and knowingly personally
7 engaged in the acts of oppression, fraud and malice against Lime through Talon's and
8 Scooter Removal's wrongful towing and storage of Lime Vehicles, despite knowledge this
9 conduct was in violation of the Vehicle Code. Heinke! and Borelli intentionally, willfully
1O and knowingly ratified the acts of oppression fraud, and malice undertaken by their
11 representatives against Lime through Talon's and Scooter Removal's aforementioned
12 wrongful towing and storage of Lime Vehicles, despite knowing this conduct was and is in
'13 violation of the Vehicle Code.
14 96. Defendants acted and continue to act with a conscious disregard of Lime's
15 right to operate its business in San Diego. Defendants' conduct is oppressive as they are
16 extorting Lime for the return of Lime Vehicles at excessive rates, all while Defendants
17 continue their conduct unchecked and answer to no authority. Moreover, Defendants
18 intentionally and fraudulently misrepresent to Lime and the San Diego public that they are
19 legally operating pursuant to general tow authorizations, when in reality said general
20 authorizations are invalid and violate the Vehicle Code as they relate to Defendants'
21 impoundment of Lime Vehicles.
22 97. As Defendants' actions constitute oppression, malice and fraud under Civil
23 Code section 3294, Lime is entitled to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish
24 or set an example of Defendants.
25 98. Lime further requests this court order Defendants to restore to Lime all Lime
26 Vehicles currently in Defendants' possession. Additionally, Lime requests this court enjoin
27 Defendants from: (1) towing Lime Vehicles in violation ofVehicle Code section 22658; and
28 (2) charging Lime a fee to release any Lime Vehicles that are not in transit to or are not stored

22
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 at an authorized storage facility within a 10-mile radius of the property from which Lime
2 Vehicles have been removed, in accordance with Vehicle Code sections 2265 8 and 22851.
3 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (Conversion)
5 (Against all Defendants Except Boardwalk Rides and Does 11 through 20)
6 99. Lime incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 98 of this complaint as
7 if fully set forth herein.
8 100. Lime owns all Lime Vehicles in the County of San Diego.
9 101. Since approximately July 2018, Defendants have knowingly, intentionally,
1O and substantially interfered with Lime Vehicles by unlawfully taking possession of them and
11 towing them from various properties throughout the City of San Diego. Defendants prevent
12 Lime from having access to Lime Vehicles by storing Lime Vehicles either at The
13 Promenade Garage or the Talon Storage Facility. Lime repeatedly requested that Defendants
14 return Lime V chicles, but Defendants refuse unless Lime pays excessive impound and
15 storage fees in excess of $50,000.00 as of March 2019.
16 102. On multiple occasions, Defendants also threatened to liquidate or destroy Lime
17 V chicles without Lime's permission.
18 103. Lime did not consent to Defendants' taking possession of Lime Vehicles.
19 Defendants refused to release any Lime Vehicles in Defendants' wrongful possession to
20 Lime without payment of unconscionable impound and storage fees. Defendants converted
21 Lime V chicles for their own use to ransom to Lime.
22 104. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Lime has been
23 damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. It is presently estimated Defendants are in
24 possession of at least 285 LimeBikes and over 1300 Lime-S scooters that are of significant
25 value to Lime, causing Lime lost profits for every day the Lime Vehicles are not in operation
26 in the City of San Diego. Lime's damages continue to increase every day Defendants
27 continue their unlawful conduct.
28

23
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 105. When Lime Vehicles are removed from circulation, Lime incurs costs for
2 repairs or replacements of Lime Vehicles that Defendants damaged, either partially or
3 beyond repair, as well as Lime Vehicles that now may be obsolete due to lack of regular
4 maintenance and use due to their impoundment.
5 106. On information and belief, Heinke! is the chief executive officer, director,
6 owner and agent for service of process of Talon. Borelli conducts business as Boardwalk
7 Rides and is its managing agent. Heinke! and Borelli are co-owners and managing agents of
8 Scooter Removal. Heinke! and Borelli intentionally, willfully and knowingly personally
9 engage in and ratified acts of oppression, fraud, and malice against Lime through Talon's
10 and Scooter Removal's aforementioned wrongful towing and storage of Lime Vehicles,
11 despite knowing said conduct was in violation of the Vehicle Code.
12 107. Defendants acted and continue acting with a conscious disregard of Lime's
13 right to operate its business in San Diego. Defendants' conduct is oppressive as they are
14 extorting Lime for the return of Lime Vehicles at excessive rates, while they continue their
15 conduct unchecked and answer to no authority. Defendants intentionally and fraudulently
16 misrepresent to Lime and the San Diego public that they are legally operating pursuant to
17 general tow authorizations, when in reality said general authorizations are invalid, and
18 violate the Vehicle Code as they relate to Defendants' impoundment of Lime Vehicles.
19 108. As Defendants' actions constitute oppression, malice and fraud under Civil
20 Code section 3294, Lime is entitled to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish
21 or set an example of Defendants.
22 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 (Civil Theft)
24 (Against all Defendants Except Boardwalk Rides and Does 11 through 20)
25 109. Lime incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 108 of this complaint as
26 if fully set forth herein.
27 110. Pursuant to Penal Code section 484(a), every person who shall feloniously
28 steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another is guilty of theft. Penal

24
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 Code section 487 provides grand theft is committed when the personal property taken is of
2 a value exceeding $950.
3 111. Penal Code section 496( c) states any person who has been injured as a result
4 of theft may bring an action for three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained
5 by the plaintiff, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees.
6 112. Lime owns all Lime Vehicles in the City and County of San Diego.
7 113. Since approximately July 2018, Defendants have knowingly and intentionally
8 taken Lime Vehicles from various properties throughout the City of San Diego. By doing so,
9 Defendants are preventing Lime's possession, custody and control of the Lime Vehicles
10 without Lime's consent. Defendants have moved and continue moving Lime Vehicles to
11 either The Promenade Garage or the Talon Storage Facility. Lime has repeatedly requested
12 that Defendants return the Lime Vehicles, but Defendants refuse unless Lime pays excessive
13 impound and storage fees totaling in excess of $50,000.00 as of March 2019.
14 114. It is presently estimated Defendants are in possession of at least 285
15 LimeBikes and over 1300 Lime-S scooters, which have a reasonable fair market value above
16 $950.00.
17 115. Defendants' conduct constitutes theft as defined by Penal Code section 484(a)
18 and constitutes a violation of Penal Code section 496(a), which gives rise to civil liability
19 under Penal Code section 496(c).
20 116. As a result of Defendants' conduct, Lime has incurred actual damages,
21 including but not limited to lost profits for every day the Lime Vehicles are not in operation
22 in the City of San Diego. Lime is entitled to three times the amount of damages, costs of suit
23 and attorneys' fees.
24 11 7. When Lime Vehicles are removed from circulation, Lime incurs costs for
25 repairs or replacements of Lime Vehicles that defendants damaged, either partially or beyond
26 repair, as well as Lime Vehicles that now may be obsolete due to lack of regular maintenance
27 and use due to Defendants' illegal impoundment.
28

25
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 118. On information and belief, Heinke! is the chief executive officer, director,
2 owner and agent for service of process of Talon. Borelli conducts business as Boardwalk
3 Rides and is its managing agent. Heinke! and Borelli are co-owners and managing agents of
4 Scooter Removal. Heinke! and Borelli intentionally, willfully and knowingly personally
5 engage in and ratified acts of oppression, fraud, and malice against Lime through Talon's
6 and Scooter Removal's aforementioned wrongful towing and storage of Lime Vehicles,
7 despite knowledge this conduct was in violation of the Vehicle Code.
8 119. Defendants acted and continue acting with a conscious disregard of Lime's
9 right to operate its business in San Diego. Defendants' conduct is oppressive as they are
1O extorting Lime for the return of Lime Vehicles at excessive rates, all while Defendants
11 continue their conduct unchecked and answer to no authority. Moreover, Defendants
12 intentionally and fraudulently misrepresent to Lime and the San Diego public that they are
13 legally operating pursuant to general tow authorizations, when in reality said general
14 authorizations are invalid, and violate the Vehicle Code as they relate to Defendants'
15 impoundment of Lime Vehicles.
16 120. As Defendants' actions constitute oppression, malice and fraud under Civil
17 Code section 3294, Lime is entitled to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish
18 or set an example of Defendants.
19 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 (Trespass to Chattels)
21 (Against all Defendants Except Boardwalk Rides and Does 11 through 20)
22 121. Lime incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 120 of this complaint as
23 if fully set forth herein.
24 122. Lime owns all Lime Vehicles in the City and County of San Diego.
25 123. Defendants have intentionally interfered and continue intentionally interfering
26 with Lime's use and possession of Lime Vehicles by engaging in the wrongful towing and
27 storage of Lime Vehicles in violation of Vehicle Code sections 22658 and 22851, and
28

26
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 wrongfully withholding from Lime at least 285 LimeBikes and over 1300 Lime-S scooters,
2 and counting. Lime did not consent to this interference.
3 124. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Lime has been
4 harmed and has incurred damages, in amount to be proven at trial. Everyday a Lime e-scooter
5 or bike is illegally impounded, an e-scooter or bike not available to Lime's customers, and
6 Lime loses potential revenue from that e-scooter or bike.
7 125. Furthermore, when Lime Vehicles are removed from circulation, Lime incurs
8 costs for repairs or replacements of Lime Vehicles that Defendants damaged, either partially
9 or beyond repair, as well as Lime Vehicles that now may be obsolete due to lack of regular
1O maintenance and use due to Defendants' impoundment.
11 126. On information and belief, Heinke! is the chief executive officer, director,
12 owner and agent for service of process of Talon. Borelli conducts business as Boardwalk
13 Rides and is its managing agent. Heinke! and Borelli are co-owners and managing agents of
14 Scooter Removal. Heinke! and Borelli intentionally, willfully and knowingly personally
15 engage in and ratified acts of oppression, fraud, and malice against Lime through Talon's
16 and Scooter Removal's aforementioned wrongful towing and storage of Lime Vehicles,
17 despite knowledge this conduct was in violation of the Vehicle Code.
18 127. Defendants acted with conscious disregard of Lime's right to operate its
19 business in San Diego. Defendants' conduct is oppressive as they are extorting Lime for the
20 return of Lime Vehicles at excessive rates, all while Defendants' continue their conduct
21 unchecked and answer to no authority. Moreover, Defendants intentionally and fraudulently
22 misrepresent to Lime and the San Diego public that they are legally operating pursuant to
23 general tow authorizations, when in reality said general authorizations are invalid, and
24 violate the Vehicle Code as they relate to Defendants' illegal impoundment of Lime
25 Vehicles.
26 128. As Defendants' actions constitute oppression, malice and fraud under Civil
27 Code section 3294, Lime is entitled to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish
28 or set an example of Defendants.

27
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 129. Lime requests this court order Defendants to restore to Lime all Lime Vehicles
2 currently in Defendants' possession. Additionally, Lime requests this Court enjoin
3 defendants from: (1) towing Lime Vehicles in violation of Vehicle Code section 22658; and
4 (2) charging Lime a fee to release any Lime Vehicles that are not in transit to or are not
5 stored at an authorized storage facility within a 10-mile radius of the property the Lime
6 Vehicles are being removed from pursuant to Vehicle Code sections 22658 and 22851.
7 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
8 Wherefore, Lime prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
9 1. On the First Cause of Action:
10 a. For injunctive relief, as allowed by law; and
11 b. For civil penalties pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22658;
12 c. For interest as allowed by law on all sums awarded to Lime;
13 d. For reasonable attorneys' fees;
14 e. For costs of suit; and
15 f. For any and all further relief the Court may deem just and proper.
16 2. On the Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action:
17 a. For civil penalties pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22658;
18 b. For interest as allowed by law on all sums awarded to Lime;
19 c. For reasonable attorneys' fees;
20 d. For costs of suit; and
21 e. For any and all further relief the Court may deem just and proper.
22 Ill
23 Ill
24 Ill
25 Ill
26 Ill
27 Ill
28 Ill

28
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 3. On the Fifth Cause of Action:

2 a. For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof;

3 b. For punitive and exemplary damages;

4 C. For injunctive relief as allowed by law;

5 d. For interest as allowed by law on all sums awarded to Lime;

6 e. For reasonable attorneys' fees;

7 f. For costs of suit; and

8 g. For any and all further relief the Court may deem just and proper.

9 4. On the Sixth Cause of Action:

10 a. For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof;

11 b. For punitive and exemplary damages;

12 C. For interest as allowed by law on all sums awarded to Lime;

13 d. For reasonable attorneys' fees;

14 e. For costs of suit; and

15 f. For any and all further relief the Court may deem just and proper.

16 5. On the Seventh Cause of Action:

17 a. For compensatory damages based on three times the total amount of

18 damages, according to proof;

19 b. For punitive and exemplary damages;

20 C. For interest as allowed by law on all sums awarded to Lime;

21 d. For reasonable attorneys' fees;

22 e. For costs of suit; and

23 f. For any and all further relief the Court may deem just and proper.

24 6. On the Eighth Cause of Action:

25 a. For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof;

26 b. For punitive and exemplary damages; and

27 C. For injunctive relief as allowed by law;

28 d. For interest as allowed by law on all sums awarded to Lime;

29
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1 e. For reasonable attorneys' fees;

2 f. For costs of suit; and

3 g. For any and all further relief the Court may deem just and proper.

5 Date: March 19, 2019 TYSON & MENDES, LLP

8
By: ,L'u/4~
Patrick J. Mendes
9 Justina L. Tate
Katie M. Greenbaurri
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Neutron Holdings, Inc. dba Lime
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

26
27

28

30
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

You might also like