Class Action Complaint

Case 2:15-cv-01787-TSZ Document 1-3 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

JOSHUA FISHER, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated,
Plaintiff,
10
13
14
15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
ij
11
12
No.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware

corporation; RAISER, LLC, a subsidiary of
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; JOHN DOES IV and JANE DOES I-V; BLACK
CORPORATIONS I-V; WHITE LIMITED
LIABLITY COMPANIES I-V; and GREEN
PARTNERSHIPS I-V,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
20
For their Complaint against the Defendants, Plaintiff JOSHUA FISHER, on behalf of
himself and all other individuals who have worked or are currently working as drivers for
Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber") and Raiser LLC ("Raiser"), an Uber subsidiary
21
("Defendants" or "Uber") in the State of Washington, by and through counsel, alleges the
22
23
following:
24
25
CLASS ACTION COMPLAiNT - 1
MYERS & COMPANY, P.L.LC.

1530 EASTLAKS AVENUE EAST
SEATFLE, WASHINGTON 98102
TELEPHONE (206)398-1188
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1
2
3
1.
Plaintiff Joshua Fisher is a resident of King County, Washington.
2.
Defendant Uber is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco,
California, that is authorized to conduct business and does conduct business throughout the State
of Washington, including in King County, Washington.
3.
Defendant Raiser is a subsidiary of Uber and is the equivalent of Uber for the
purposes of this action, and is authorized to conduct business and does conduct business
throughout the State of Washington, including in King County, Washington.
9
10
4.
Defendants JOHN DOES I-V and JANE DOES I-V; BLACK CORPORATIONS
I-V; WHITE LIMITED LIABLITY COMPANIES I-V; and GREEN PARTNERSHIPS I-V, are
11
fictitious Defendants whose true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
12
otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff therefore sues the Defendants by such
13
fictitious names and will seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint when their true names
14
15
and capacities become known.
16
5.
Defendants have caused events to occur in King County, Washington.
17
6.
Venue is proper in King County, Washington, because the Defendants conduct
18
business in King County, Plaintiff is a resident of King County, and the events that give rise to
19
Plaintiffs causes of action occurred in King County.
20
21
22
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
7.
Plaintiff brings this Class action pursuant to CR 23(a), on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated Uber drivers in the State of Washington. Plaintiff reserves the right to
23
modify this class definition prior to moving for class certification.

24
25
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT -2
MYERS & COMPANY, P.L.L.C.

1530 EASTLAKE AVENUS EAST
TELEPHONE (206)398-1188
8.
Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and
discovery, the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or
2
amended complaint. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their affiliates, parents,
subsidiaries, employees, officers, agents, and directors; government entities or agencies, their
affiliates, employees, officers, agents, and directors in their governmental capacities; any judicial
officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff;
and class counsel.
9.
9
10
This action is properly maintainable as a class action pursuant to CR 23 for the
following reasons:
a. The Class is ascertainable and there is a well-defined community of interest
11
among the members of the Class;

12
b. Membership in the Class is so numerous as to make it impractical to bring all

13
Class members before the Court. The identity and exact number of Class
14
15
16
17
members is unknown but is estimated to be at least in the thousands.

c. Plaintiff's claims are typical of those of other Class members, all of whom have
suffered harm due to Uber' s violations of the law.
18
d. Plaintiff is a member of the Class.
19
e. There are numerous and substantial questions of law and fact common to all of
20
the members of the Class which control this litigation and predominate over any
21
individual issues pursuant to CR 23(b)(3). The common issues include, but are
22
not limited to, the following:
23
i. Whether Defendants have charged customers a gratuity for class

24
members' services;
25

1530 EASTLAKE AVENUE EAST
TELEPHONE (206) 398-1188
ii.
Whether Defendants failed to distribute the total proceeds of those
gratuities to the class members;
iii. Whether Defendants have informed customers that gratuity is included in
the price of the Uber service and so there is no need to tip the drivers;
iv. Whether class members have suffered damages based upon Uber's
representation to customers that there is no need to tip the drivers;
6
7
v. Whether Defendants improperly classified class members as independent
contractors rather than employees;
vi. Whether class members have been required to pay the expenses of their
10
employment, including the cost of a vehicle, repairs, gas and tolls;
11
vii. Whether Uber unlawfully denied to compensate its employees, Uber' s

12
drivers, those expenses; and

13
viii. Whether class members were denied employee benefits as required by

14
law.
15
16
10.
As provided in CR 23(a)(3), the proposed lead Plaintiff's representative claims
17
are typical of those of the proposed Class because the proposed lead Plaintiff's damages are
18
based upon the same legal theories. The proposed representative Plaintiff's grievances, like the
19
proposed Class grievances, arise out of the same business practices and course of conduct of
20
Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs' damages arise out of a pattern of nearly identical and repetitive
21
business practices conducted by Defendants. Finally, the representative Plaintiff has no special
22
circumstances that would put him in conflict with the other members of the Class.
23
24
25
MYERS & COMPANY, P.LL.C.

SEATrLE, WASHINGTON 98102
TELEPHONE (206)398-1188
11.
2
3
4
5
As provided by CR 23(a)(4), the representative Plaintiff can adequately represent
the Class. No conflict of interest exists between the representatives and the Class members or
with respect to the claims for relief requested.
12.
Without a class action, the Class will continue to suffer damage and Defendant's
I violations of the law or laws will continue without remedy.

13.
The representative Plaintiff and his chosen attorneys are familiar with the subject
matter of the lawsuit and have full knowledge of the allegations contained in this complaint so as
to be able to assist in its prosecution. In addition, the representative's attorneys are competent in
9
10
the relevant areas of the law and have sufficient experience to vigorously represent the Class.
Furthermore, the resources available to Class counsel ensure that the litigation will not be
11
hampered by a lack of financial capacity. Plaintiffs' attorneys have sufficient financial resources
12
and are willing to absorb the costs of this litigation.

13
14
15
14.
As provided by CR 23(b), a class action is superior to any other available method
for adjudicating this controversy. This proposed class action is the surest way to fairly and
16
expeditiously compensate so large a number of injured persons; to keep the courts from
17
becoming paralyzed by hundreds, perhaps thousands of repetitive cases, and to reduce
18
transaction costs so that the injured Class can obtain the most compensation possible. Class
19
treatment of this controversy presents a superior mechanism for fairly resolving similar issues
20
and claims without repetitious and wasteful litigation.
21
15.
The claims in this case are properly certifiable under applicable law.
22
23
24
25
CLASS ACTION COMPLAiNT -5

1530 EASTLAKS AVENIJS EAST
SEArFLE, WASHINGTON 98102
TELEPHoNE (206) 398-1188
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1
.
3
4
A.
Background
16.
Uber is a car service that provides drivers who can be hailed and dispatched
through a mobile application.

At all relevant times, Uber was an "employer" within the meaning of all
17.
applicable statutes.
18.
8
9
Uber compensates its drivers weekly. Uber takes a percentage of the total fares
driven and the driver receives the remainder of the fare. Because Uber classifies its drivers as
independent contractors, Plaintiff had to pay expenses, including gas, tolls, car repairs and lease
10
payments, from his portion of the fare.

11
19.
Uber also deducts a $1 "safe ride" fee from each fare which is allegedly used to
12
pay for background checks, driver safety education and development of safety features in its
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
mobile application - an expense the employer should pay, not the employee.
20.
Uber1 s contract provides that drivers are to be compensated $6 for cancelled fares
but fails to actually pay the drivers any amount at all.

21.
From July of 2012 through June of 2013, Plaintiff worked for Uber as an
UberBLACK driver.
22.
On average, Plaintiff drove eight (8) hours per week throughout the course of his
employment with Uber.

23.
Plaintiff received 80% of the total fare, and Uber received the remaining 20% of
the total fare.
23
24
25

TELEPIONE (206)398-1188
1
n
L
3
4
24.
Plaintiff earned approximately $200 per week. From the $200, Plaintiff then had
to pay his employment related expenses, including gas and tolls, which totaled between $35 and
$50 per week.
25.
In the beginning of his employment, Plaintiff's expenses also included $10 per
week for use of a borrowed iPhone. Once the application for Uber became accessible on an
Android device, Plaintiff no longer needed to pay $10 per week for the cell phone rental.
Nonetheless, Uber's practice is to continue to charge the $10 fee.
8
9
10
26.
Uber also has a practice of denying drivers fares on the basis that they are not
eligible to drive when in fact they are; for example, at the beginning of the month, Uber will
deactivate a driver whose registration is not due until the end of the month.
11
27.
Uber makes deceptive statements concerning the amount that drivers can earn.
12
For example, during surge pricing surrounding a public event, such as a college football game,
13
Uber will claim that drivers can make more than their usual fare, which is not possible due to
14
15
16
17
18
traffic congestion.
28.
Uber told drivers that they would receive a credit card that would entitle them to a
discount for fuel; however, no card was ever provided.

29.
Over the course of his employment, Uber failed to compensate Plaintiff for any
19
employment related expenses incurred, including gas, tolls, cellular phone bills, insurance, car
20
maintenance and repairs.
21
22
30.
During the course of his employment, Plaintiff did not receive gratuities.
31.
Uber specifically advertises to its customers that tips are included in the cost of
23
the fare:
24
25

SEATTLE, WASH!NGTON 98102
TELEPHONE (206)398-1188
DO I NEED TO TIP MY DRIVER?
You don't need cash when you ride with Uber. Once you arrive at your destination,
your fare is automatically charged to your credit card on file - there's no need to tip.
32.
4
5
6
Despite Uber's representation that "there is no need to tip," Uber drivers are not
compensated for gratuities. In fact, Uber specifically instructed its drivers to refuse a cash
gratuity if offered.
B.
Misclassification of Drivers
33.
Plaintiff alleges that Uber uniformly misclassifies its drivers as independent
7
8
contractors when they should be categorized as employees.

9
34.
Uber exerts significant control over its drivers. For example, upon signing a
10
11
12
13
license agreement to work for Uber, new drivers of Uber must watch a video demonstrating how
Uber wants its drivers to interact with customers.
35.
In addition, all drivers for Uber must maintain an average customer star
14
evaluation of at least 4.5 out of a possible 5 stars. Instructions on how to improve one's star
15
rating are given to drivers who fall below this average in any given week. If a driver fails to
16
maintain an average customer rating of 4.5, Uber will deactivate his or her ability to use the
17
application to pick up customers, an action tantamount to terminating the driver "at will," a
18
19
hallmark of an employee-employer relationship.

36.
Uber also unilaterally sets the fares for all rides and drivers are required to charge
20
the cost determined solely by Uber.

21
37.
As a result of its misclassification, Uber failed to provide Plaintiff and other
22
similarly aggrieved employees with itemized wage statements, minimum wages and
23
24
reimbursement for necessary expenses. Uber failed to keep accurate payroll records evidencing
25
MYERS & COMPANY, P.L.LC.

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98102
TELEPHONE (206)398-1188
drivers' hours worked and wages paid and unlawfully retained gratuities owed to drivers, despite
1
2
3
4
representing to customers and advertising that gratuity is included in the total cost of the service.
C.
Violations of Washington Employment Laws
38.
Plaintiff further alleges that Uber violated the Revised Code of Washington in its
(i) failure to provide prompt payment of wages to drivers upon termination and resignation in
violation of RCWA 49.48.010; (ii) retention of gratuities intended for drivers; (iii) failure to keep
required payroll records in violation of RCWA 49.46.070; (iv) its failure to pay minimum wages
in violation of RCWA 49.12.150; and (v) its failure to pay overtime in violation of RCWA
9
10
11
12
13
14
49.46. 130.
COUNT I
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT & BUSINESS RELATIONS
39.
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all
preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

40.
On its website, Defendants' specifically sets forth:
15
16
17
DO I NEED TO TIP MY DRIVER?

You dr3ni need cash when you ride with tJber. Once you arrive at your dctination, your tare is automatically chargoct to your crcdiz
card on file - Iheres no need to t1P.
18
41.
Defendants' conduct, in failing to remit the total proceeds of gratuities to drivers
19
constitutes unlawful tortious interference with the contractual and/or advantageous relationship
20
21
22
that exists between the drivers and customers.

42.
Defendants' conduct, informing customers "there is no need to tip," constitutes
23
unlawful tortious interference with the contractual and/or advantageous relationship that exists
24
between the drivers and customers.
25
MYERS & COMPANY, P.LL.C.

1530 EASTLAKa AvENUE EAsT
SEArILE, WASHINGTON
TELEPHONE
98102
(206) 398-1188
Defendants had a contract with Plaintiff, were aware of those contracts,

1
2
intentionally procured the breach of those contracts, and caused Plaintiff damages thereby.
COUNT II
BREACH OF CONTRACT
3
4

6
Defendants have a contract with the drivers, requiring them to remit to the drivers
7
8
9
10
the total proceeds of all gratuities.

At all relevant times, Defendants did withhold, and continue to withhold,
gratuities given by customers to drivers, and/or gratuities that are incorporated into the set fare.
11
Defendants' withholding of gratuities constitutes a breach of contract.
12
As a result of the Defendants' withholding of gratuities, Plaintiff, on behalf of
13
himself and the proposed class, has suffered damages by, among other things, not realizing the
14
full income he and the class are entitled to receive.
15
COUNT III
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
16
17
18
19
Defendants unlawfully retained gratuities owed to the drivers.
20
As a result, Defendants has been unjustly enriched through their retention of a
21
22
portion of the gratuities owed to the drivers.

Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to restitution for their full share of the
23
proceeds of the improperly retained gratuities.

24
25
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 10

SEATILE, WASHINGTON 98102
TELEPHONE (206)398-1188
COUNT IV
CONVERSION
53.
3
54.
Defendants unlawfully took Plaintiff's property, namely tips and money spent for
expenses, without Plaintiff's permission.

6
55.
As a result, Plaintiff was harmed and class members are entitled to restitution for
their full share of proceeds, as well as treble damages.

COUNT V
UNFAIR COMPETITION
9
10
56.
11

12
57.
RCW Ch. 19.86 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of
13
14
15
business.
58.
Defendants' actions constituted unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the
16
conduct of business. Defendants' acts have the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the
17
public, including Plaintiff and class members.
18
19
20
21
22
59.
Plaintiff's property rights, specifically gratuities and expenses, were
misappropriated by Defendants for their commercial advantage.

60.
Defendants deceived Plaintiff by making false accusations regarding gratuities,
cancelled fares and opportunities to earn during surge pricing.

61.
Defendants unjustly profited by Plaintiff's expenditure of time, labor and talent.
62.
As a result of Defendants unfair or deceptive acts or practices, Plaintiff and the
23
24
proposed class suffered economic damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

25

1530 EASTLAKE AVENUE LAST
SEATrLE, WASHINGTON 98102
TELEPHONE (206)398-1188
COUNT VI
FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION
63.
3
4

64. Defendants made a material representation of fact, that Plaintiff would receive
gratuities, which was untrue, which Defendants knew was an untrue statement at the time, with
6
the intent to deceive, which Plaintiffjustifiably relied upon, causing Plaintiff to incur damages.
7
8
9
65.
Defendants also informed Plaintiff and proposed class members that they would
receive a cancellation fee refund if a passenger cancelled, which Defendants knew was an untrue
10
statement at the time, with the intent to deceive, which Plaintiff justifiably relied upon, causing
11
Plaintiff to incur damages.
12
66. Defendants made a material representation of fact, that Plaintiff would receive a
13
card for discounted gas, which Defendants knew was an untrue statement at the time, with the
14
intent to deceive, which Plaintiff justifiably relied upon, causing Plaintiff to incur damages.
15
COUNT VII
VIOLATIONS OF WASHINGTON EMPLOYMENT LAW
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
67.

68.
Despite the existence of an agreement indicating Plaintiff is an independent
contractor, the treatment of Plaintiff and control exercised by Uber indicate that Plaintiff is an
employee.
69.
Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington for
23
violations of the following sections:

24
25

1530 EASTLAKE AvENUE EAST
TELEPHoNE (206) 398-1188
a. Failure to provide prompt payment of wages to driver employees upon

1
2
termination and resignation in violation of RCW 49.48.010;

b. Improperly retaining portions of gratuities intended for driver employees;
3
4
c. Failure to keep required payroll records in violation of RCW 49.46.070;
d. Failure to pay minimum wages in violation of RCW 49.12.150.
e. Failure to pay overtime in violation of RCW 49.46.130.
7
8
9
10
70.
As a result of Uber' s violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages associated
with the wages and benefits withheld in violation of the Revised Code of Washington as well as
attorneys' fees pursuant to RCW 49.48.030. In addition, Plaintiff seeks the imposition of
penalties on the Defendants with respect to the applicable provisions of RCW 49.60.180 and
11
49.60.210
12
REQUEST FOR RELIEF

13
14
15
16
17
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, requests

relief against the Defendants as follows:
a.
An award of damages, including compensatory and treble damages, in an amount
to be determined at trial;
18
b.
Notice to the Classes of the action;
19
C.
An injunction against Defendants prohibiting Defendants from engaging in each
20
21
22
of the unlawful practices, policies and patterns set forth herein;

d.
Liquidated damages, pursuant to RCW;
e.
Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action;
f.
Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and
23
24
25
CLASS ACTION COMPLAiNT - 13

1530 EASTLAKE AVENUE EAsT
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98102
TELEPHONE (206) 398-I 188
An Order requiring that Defendants return to Plaintiff any gratuities and any other
2
3
4
funds wrongfully kept by Defendants; and

Such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED this 121h day of October, 2015.
MYERS & COMPANY,
Attorneys for Plaintiff
P.L.L.C.
7
8
By:
Michael David Myers
WSBA No. 22486
9
10
NAPOLI LAW,
P.L.L.C.
11
By:
12
5/
Marie Napoli
Marie Napoli (pro hac vice pending)
13
IMBESI LAW,
p.c.
14
15
By: s/Brittany Weiner

Brittany Weiner (pro hac vice pending)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1530 EASTLARE AVENUE EAST
TELEPHONE (206) 398-1 188

Class Action Complaint - 1 Myers & Company

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Class Action Complaint - 1 Myers & Company

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:15-cv-01787-TSZ Document 1-3 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 14

KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware

MYERS & COMPANY, P.L.LC.

Case 2:15-cv-01787-TSZ Document 1-3 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 14

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

Plaintiff Joshua Fisher is a resident of King County, Washington.

Defendant Uber is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco,

of Washington, including in King County, Washington.

throughout the State of Washington, including in King County, Washington.

and capacities become known.

Defendants have caused events to occur in King County, Washington.

Venue is proper in King County, Washington, because the Defendants conduct

Plaintiffs causes of action occurred in King County.

modify this class definition prior to moving for class certification.

MYERS & COMPANY, P.L.L.C.

Case 2:15-cv-01787-TSZ Document 1-3 Filed 11/13/15 Page 3 of 14

Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and

and class counsel.

This action is properly maintainable as a class action pursuant to CR 23 for the

among the members of the Class;

b. Membership in the Class is so numerous as to make it impractical to bring all

members is unknown but is estimated to be at least in the thousands.

d. Plaintiff is a member of the Class.

not limited to, the following:

i. Whether Defendants have charged customers a gratuity for class