# Uber Deal Takes Hits in Contentious Hearing



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

*Uber Deal Takes Hits in Contentious Hearing*

Ben Hancock, The Recorder
June 2, 2016 | 0 Comments









U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, Northern District of California
Hillary Jones-Mixon / The Recorder
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge had tough questions Thursday about the fairness of allowing plaintiffs attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan to negotiate away a host of other lawsuits pending against Uber Technologies Inc. in reaching an $84 million settlement.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California kicked off a contentious, nearly four-hour hearing on preliminary approval of the Uber peace pact echoing criticisms from other attorneys that Liss-Riordan had cut off their claims and discounted them as worthless in the settlement.

"One could say there is something wrong when claims from another case are ... some might say hijacked ... and on top of that, given almost zero value," Chen said. "Isn't that troubling? Shouldn't I be troubled by that?

In front of a packed courtroom, Liss-Riordan proceeded to joust with a gaggle of fellow plaintiffs attorneys over that point, contending that she had pursued the claims that had the most likelihood of success rather than take a "kitchen sink" approach. She also reiterated that establishing a "global peace" is common in similar settlements and was essential to getting Uber to agree to the deal.

The settlement, which would bring Liss-Riordan at least $21 million in fees and possibly more, was reached on the basis of cases that alleged Uber owed drivers compensation for tips it collected and expenses like gas. It did not resolve the question that poses the biggest threat to Uber's business model: whether drivers ought to be treated as employees or as independent contractors. Liss-Riordan at one point grew audibly upset in fighting back against suggestions that she had simply abandoned driver overtime claims that could be worth millions. To the contrary, she said, she had pursued those claims in front of Chen-only to have them rejected.

"For me to be accused of saying there are not overtime claims so I'm just going to walk away from them is just patently a misrepresentation," she said, her voice growing louder.

Mark Geragos of Geragos & Geragos, who is now among the lawyers now representing one of the litigation's original named plaintiffs, countered that if Liss-Riordan didn't want to pursue a kitchen-sink case, she "certainly shouldn't take the kitchen sink settlement approach." Throughout the hearing, Chen dug into the details, picking apart the deal's elements and asking for clarification on certain parts of it.

In addition to the release issue, he seemed especially worried about a component of the deal that would vacate an order he issued December 23. That order nullified Uber's latest arbitration agreement until the company issued a new notice that drivers could opt-out. It never did that and both sides appealed that order for different reasons.

Chen said that vacating the order could disadvantage drivers who want to opt-out of the settlement and sue Uber in court. "Even if there's one of those [drivers], there's a due process problem," Chen said, rebuking Liss-Riordan after she suggested that was a speculative problem. He indicated that-if nothing else-he's likely to reject that part of the settlement even if it risks tanking the entire deal.

He also pressed Theodore Boutrous Jr., the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner representing Uber, on whether a mechanism of the settlement that would increase its value to $100 million was simply "window-dressing." The $84 million settlement would jump to $100 million if Uber goes public or is acquired and its valuation climbs by one-and-a-half times its current amount. Boutrous said it was "very likely" that drivers could get that whole amount, citing Uber's strong business prospects.

Liss-Riordan would get $21 million in fees under the lower amount, or $25 million if the settlement grows to its full value. Her fee request, however, was not discussed during the hearing.

Many of the lawyers who lined up next to Liss-Riordan at the lectern have called for her to be thrown off the case. Chen gave no indication that he was prepared to do that, though he asked whether there should have been a "democratic" process like that typically used in multi-district litigation. Liss-Riordan successfully fought off an attempt to rope her cases into an MDL earlier this year.

That effort, led by Napoli Shkolnik partner Hunter Shkolnik-who was also in the courtroom-could have landed the case in federal court in Texas. That, Liss-Riordan contended, would not have been in the best interest of the class.

"It would have been in my best interest," Chen joked, in one of a few light moments in the hearing.

Read more: http://www.therecorder.com/id=12027...kes-Hits-in-Contentious-Hearing#ixzz4AXSex645


----------



## Leftright? (Mar 11, 2016)

Too much politics, not enough money to drive

My car is parked...


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

Shannon's only worried that her $21million will be tanked. One's things for sure, regardless of how any of these lawsuits go, a lot of lawyers get rich off of them.


----------



## Leftright? (Mar 11, 2016)

Yup and driving more only allows it to happen even more.

Why should I feed them?

my car will remain parked


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

This is great, guys ! It looks like he is leaning towards rejecting the worst proposed settlement in US history and complete sellout !

The only thing better would be to get Shannon thrown off the case ! However that will take some luck as Uber is using some good spin.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

ChortlingCrison said:


> Shannon's only worried that her $21million will be tanked. One's things for sure, regardless of how any of these lawsuits go, a lot of lawyers get rich off of them.


The ONLY reason Shannon started trying to settle was because the appeals court decided to hear arguments on whether to possibly limit the class size to 8000 from 350000. That would mean a smaller payday for her which is clearly all that idiot cares about. There is little chance of the appeals court doing any limiting as there has been an outcry against allowing binding arbitration clauses to be enforced in employment agreements and contracts.

As we all know this case is a slam dunk for any potential future lawyer that is assigned this case !


----------



## Micmac (Jul 31, 2015)

KevinH said:


> *Uber Deal Takes Hits in Contentious Hearing*
> 
> Ben Hancock, The Recorder
> June 2, 2016 | 0 Comments
> ...


Street Justice !turn off your phone and strike! It s free and you can see employee conditions gets better ( pay, treatment ....) within a day or two!


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

KevinH said:


> *Uber Deal Takes Hits in Contentious Hearing*
> 
> Ben Hancock, The Recorder
> June 2, 2016 | 0 Comments
> ...


Shannon ain't getting paid yet.


----------



## SumGuy (Jul 29, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> Shannon ain't getting paid yet.


Nobody is.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

She's a sell-out. Pennies in settlements for the drivers and no increases in rights. She'll be in the same special room in hell as the leaders or our company.


----------



## cho (Mar 26, 2016)

Is the trial still going to start June 20th?


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

Thank goodness this judge has more sense than the entire staff at Uber.


----------



## Fireguy50 (Nov 23, 2015)

I'm Glad Judge Edward Chen is trying to keep this about the Driver's and not lawyer's getting their percentage of a crappy pie.
Sad it takes $20+ million to make a slice of pie palatable


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

The maximum amount the lead plaintiffs can get in this case is $5000 each. 

There are less than 10 lead plaintiffs. 

The lawyer wants 20 million for herself.

The Uber math is rubbing off on her.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland (Jul 28, 2014)

Fireguy50 said:


> I'm Glad Judge Edward Chen is trying to keep this about the Driver's and not lawyer's getting their percentage of a crappy pie.
> Sad it takes $20+ million to make a slice of pie palatable


It's not what the judge SAYS that matters. It's what he DOES.


----------



## Sure (Apr 10, 2016)

cho said:


> Is the trial still going to start June 20th?


It can if the judge denies the settlement.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

uber is still treating us like employees. they use incentives to force us to drive on their terms
uber cuts your rates and offers that same money under the guise of incentives in order to dictate when and where to drive. corrupt company for sure.
Bye Shannon.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

uber strike said:


> uber is still treating us like employees. they use incentives to force us to drive on their terms
> uber cuts your rates and offers that same money under the guise of incentives in order to dictate when and where to drive. corrupt company for sure.
> Bye Shannon.


Agreed. The core issues are all related to control and transparency. If they want independent contractors, then they need to make fundamental changes so that drivers and passengers negotiate the price and terms of every trip.


----------



## Darrell (Dec 27, 2015)

SumGuy said:


> Nobody is.


Nobody was going to get paid anyway from this settlement but they lawyer.


----------



## SumGuy (Jul 29, 2015)

Darrell said:


> Nobody was going to get paid anyway from this settlement but they lawyer.


I'm in California, I am.


----------



## Darrell (Dec 27, 2015)

SumGuy said:


> I'm in California, I am.


Yes and with the settlement the lawyer is the only one getting paid, everybody else just gets insulted.


----------



## XUberMike (Aug 2, 2015)

ChortlingCrison said:


> One's things for sure, regardless of how any of these lawsuits go, a lot of lawyers get rich off of them.


I'd be willing to bet all these attorneys ride Uber's & none of them tip. Our emails to Judge Chen have been heard.

Liss-Riorden, I'll see you in hell.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

SumGuy said:


> I'm in California, I am.


i think he was talking about getting paid. not uber type pay where you guys get a couple of hundred a week after expenses, and you guys are thrilled.


----------



## driveLA (Aug 15, 2014)

throw that stupid lawyer in jail. she's a fraud.

fight fight fight!


----------



## SumGuy (Jul 29, 2015)

Darrell said:


> Yes and with the settlement the lawyer is the only one getting paid, everybody else just gets insulted.


A couple thousand is more then I have now. Yes, I'm sure they could of got more for the drivers, but the longer it takes more fees for the stupid lawyers.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

Now that Uber has $2.5 billion of Saudi money in their pocket, $100 million doesn't seem like that much.

I think Shannon will be tossed from the case and a California based attorney will take over.


----------



## THIRDEYE (Jul 2, 2015)

Love that Mark Geragos is getting involved. His podcast with Adam Carolla is pretty entertaining and informative. 
Needs to be at least a $1B settlement for investors to start doubting Uber and shit will have to change.


----------



## THIRDEYE (Jul 2, 2015)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> Now that Uber has $2.5 billion of Saudi money in their pocket, $100 million doesn't seem like that much.
> 
> I think Shannon will be tossed from the case and a California based attorney will take over.


$3.5 billion


----------



## Darrell (Dec 27, 2015)

SumGuy said:


> A couple thousand is more then I have now. Yes, I'm sure they could of got more for the drivers, but the longer it takes more fees for the stupid lawyers.


Hate to break it to ya, but you want be getting a couple of thousand unless you are 1 of the original plaintiffs. You will likely get no more than $300 due to all the drivers included into the class action lawsuit.


----------



## JerseyBoy911 (Nov 14, 2015)

ChortlingCrison said:


> Shannon's only worried that her $21million will be tanked. One's things for sure, regardless of how any of these lawsuits go, a lot of lawyers get rich off of them.


Exactly why Uber should help build Associations in each state with an election and negotiate with them...only the sharks....err Lawyers are banking all the loot and Uber keeps paying...


----------



## SumGuy (Jul 29, 2015)

Darrell said:


> Hate to break it to ya, but you want be getting a couple of thousand unless you are 1 of the original plaintiffs. You will likely get no more than $300 due to all the drivers included into the class action lawsuit.


Use the search function, a table and break down of what drivers will be getting was published already.


----------



## Darrell (Dec 27, 2015)

SumGuy said:


> Use the search function, a table and break down of what drivers will be getting was published already.


Post the link


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

ChortlingCrison said:


> Shannon's only worried that her $21million will be tanked. One's things for sure, regardless of how any of these lawsuits go, a lot of lawyers get rich off of them.


Yep! Uber has been a Godsend to the Legal fraternity ALL around the world!


----------



## z289sec (Apr 6, 2016)

If it goes through, the lawyers will get their 21 million, and drivers will get .78 each.


----------



## maui (Dec 22, 2015)

It is simple... We need to do a class action lawsuit against Shannon Liss-Riordan. It is clear that as drivers, we were sold out. Shannon Liss-Riordan deal benefits Uber and herself and not the drivers, as well as given Shannon Liss-Riordan duplicity and acting counter to her clients best interest, she should be disbarred


----------



## Just Another Uber Drive (Jul 15, 2015)

ChortlingCrison said:


> Shannon's only worried that her $21million will be tanked. One's things for sure, regardless of how any of these lawsuits go, a lot of lawyers get rich off of them.


"Her fee request, however, was not discussed during the hearing."

It wasn't discussed because all these lawyers are in it for the money. They aren't going to complain about her take in hopes nobody will complain about theirs.


----------



## volksie (Apr 8, 2015)

The "No Need To Tip" statement to riders has lost me $2800 in tips and counting! One way or another, legally or not, I will extract the money owed to me from Uoober. Tips from Lyft riders pay for Lyft's weekly commission, PAY UP UBER!


----------



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

*Inside the Fight Over Uber's $84 Million Deal*

* Inside the Fight Over Uber's $84 Million Deal *

Ben Hancock, The Recorder
June 3, 2016 | 1 Comments 









Uber
Jason Doiy / The Recorder
For Shannon Liss-Riordan, familiar ground had been transformed into enemy territory.

The Boston plaintiffs attorney has spent plenty of time over the past three years inside U.S. District Judge Edward Chen's courtroom, successfully parrying attempts by a powerhouse Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher litigation team to run her labor class action off the road.

But on Thursday, Gibson Dunn's Theodore Boutrous Jr. appeared to be the closest thing she had to a friend in the room. Meanwhile, she struggled to maintain her spot at the lectern as hostile plaintiffs lawyers vied for the microphone. By the end, she seemed frustrated by her detractors and the stream of questions that Chen threw at her over the course of a four-hour hearing.

It appeared almost certain that the $84 million settlement she has said was so painstakingly crafted with Uber would be rejected.

By removing the legal shadow from Uber's skyrocketing business, the deal is a certain boon for both the company and Liss-Riordan, who stands to receive $21 million-or more under a mechanism that pushes the deal's full value to $100 million if the company's valuation grows.

But objectors have complained that she settled too cheaply and its prospects dimmed during this past week's preliminary approval hearing. Chen had clearly heard the opposition from the lawyers who stood around Liss-Riordan, and echoed fears she was selling out the separate claims against Uber raised in their cases so she could offer the company a "global peace" deal."One could say there is something wrong when claims from another case are ... some might say hijacked ... and on top of that, given almost zero value," Chen ask. "Isn't that troubling? Shouldn't I be troubled by that?"

*TEMPERS FLARE*
Chen, known for being a bit of a jokester, grew visibly angry at one point. He was drilling down into a part of the settlement that has generally gotten less attention than the big-dollar figure-but hasn't escaped other lawyers suing Uber.

That piece of the deal would wipe away an order that Chen issued last December rendering Uber's latest arbitration agreement unenforceable absent revisions and a fresh opt-out notice to drivers. The company stood its ground, and both Liss-Riordan and Uber appealed the order.

The significance of vacating that order has been downplayed by Liss-Riordan, but other attorneys say it will give Uber an edge in future fights to compel arbitration.

When Chen pressed Liss-Riordan on whether it would also retroactively deprive certain drivers in her California and Massachusetts law suits who opt-out of the settlement of their right to go to court, she waffled. He turned the screws: "You signed the settlement agreement," he said. "You ought to know."

Liss-Riordan then countered that it was "speculative" to suppose any such driver even existed. That answer set Chen off. "Even if there's one of those, there's a due process problem," he snapped back, adding that he was prepared to reject that piece of the deal even if its risks scuttling the rest of the settlement.

It wasn't the only heated moment. Liss-Riordan practically steamed as she battled suggestions that she had simply abandoned driver overtime claims that could be worth millions-only to settle out another case that brought those claims and assign them zero value. To the contrary, she said, she had pursued those claims in front of Chen but was rebuffed.

"For me to be accused of saying there are not overtime claims so I'm just going to walk away from them is just patently a misrepresentation," Liss-Riordan said, her voice rising. She also said she was justified in pursuing the claims she thought were the most valuable, which alleged that Uber-in misclassifying drivers as contractors-failed to compensate them for expenses like gas and skimmed tips that were fully owed to them.

Mark Geragos of Geragos & Geragos, who is among the lawyers now representing one of the litigation's original named plaintiffs, stood to take on that argument. If Liss-Riordan didn't want to pursue a kitchen-sink case, he said, she "certainly shouldn't take the kitchen sink settlement approach."


1
2
VIEW FULL ARTICLE
Only could get first page of article.


----------



## driveLA (Aug 15, 2014)

this settlement should be the largest in history 

not that dumb joke 100 million

fedex recent lawsuit settlement was 225 million and those "independent contractors" weren't even putting up 100% of the operating costs like we have and uber is the richest company everrrr


liss-Riordan needs to be burned at the stake like the witch she is


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

KevinH said:


> *Uber Deal Takes Hits in Contentious Hearing*
> 
> Ben Hancock, The Recorder
> June 2, 2016 | 0 Comments
> ...


Tell you what, no TNC drivers should have a beef with Judge Chen. Clearly, he has spoken his mind and never allowed his influence to be bought by the venture capitalists under scrutiny. If he has been bought, it isn't obvious to me.


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

I don't think the Limo (UberBlack) or Taxi operators are employees but I do think the UberX drivers are indeed employees. And Uber still has "no need to tip" on their website. That should be included in the lawsuit and tip option added into the app.


----------



## Shieldzzzy84 (Jan 1, 2016)

uber strike said:


> uber is still treating us like employees. they use incentives to force us to drive on their terms
> uber cuts your rates and offers that same money under the guise of incentives in order to dictate when and where to drive. corrupt company for sure.
> Bye Shannon.


we need to get together and strike 1 or 2 days and watch how fast we get our way. We all complain about the rates, we'll let's do something about it. I say we set a date for June 30th...right before 4th of July weekend on of the biggest days for uber. Who's with me?


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Shieldzzzy84 said:


> we need to get together and strike 1 or 2 days and watch how fast we get our way. We all complain about the rates, we'll let's do something about it. I say we set a date for June 30th...right before 4th of July weekend on of the biggest days for uber. Who's with me?


Sf drivers protested and they got their way. 



 they got $1.15 a mile $0.22 a minute and they even have a base fare of $2.00. so you are right, without drivers there is no uber. this may work in your market, but not in La. drivers here are driving for 85 cents a mile.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

stuber said:


> Agreed. The core issues are all related to control and transparency. If they want independent contractors, then they need to make fundamental changes so that drivers and passengers negotiate the price and terms of every trip.


It makes total sense for drivers to set their own prices and passengers to set what they're willing to pay. If the driver can't get a ride, he can lower them and the pax can raise theirs if they can't get a car. Market equilibrium. No negotiating necessary.


----------



## Shieldzzzy84 (Jan 1, 2016)

uber strike said:


> Sf drivers protested and they got their way.
> 
> 
> 
> they got $1.15 a mile $0.22 a minute and they even have a base fare of $2.00. so you are right, without drivers there is no uber. this may work in your market, but not in La. drivers here are driving for 85 cents a mile.


That's because LA didn't do it right


----------



## Lost In Translation (Sep 18, 2015)

Shieldzzzy84 said:


> we need to get together and strike 1 or 2 days and watch how fast we get our way. We all complain about the rates, we'll let's do something about it. I say we set a date for June 30th...right before 4th of July weekend on of the biggest days for uber. Who's with me?


Most Uber drivers don't even visit this forum. No strike will ever work until someone can get the driver datasbase. This is the database Uber gave away to the City & County of San Francisco Treasurer & Tax Collector so he could send every Uber driver operating in San Francisco a bill for a business license.

This was no data breech or inside malcontent handing over the data. This was the evil Uber handing the city a freebie for influence with the politicians.

Luckily, most drivers are ignoring the bill from the tax collector. They have no resources for enforcement. If they come after a driver, it opens the whole employee versus independent contractor argument which due to Lis_Riordan selling out, has never been ajudicated. So the tax collector has extended the date into August by which time we must buy a license. DO NOT PAY THE CITY ANYTHING.

We are not independent contractors by choice but by coercion and duress. So let them try to enforce their business license tax. Of course, Uber will probably send them driver logs and 1099's so they can try to go after more drivers.

But get real. No strike against Uber has ever worked. Until you have a way to communicate with ALL drivers, you are basically pi**ing in the wind.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

Shieldzzzy84 said:


> That's because LA didn't do it right


La did not. and we actually suffered another pay cut since then. uber pool was cut to 85 cents a mile. every time a driver in La accepts a pool request he is accepting a pay cut. there is no resolve with La drivers. travis gives them a lolipop (incentives that cause you to drive on uber's terms), and they are sucking on it right now.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Lost In Translation said:


> Most Uber drivers don't even visit this forum. No strike will ever work until someone can get the driver datasbase. This is the database Uber gave away to the City & County of San Francisco Treasurer & Tax Collector so he could send every Uber driver operating in San Francisco a bill for a business license.
> 
> This was no data breech or inside malcontent handing over the data. This was the evil Uber handing the city a freebie for influence with the politicians.
> 
> ...


The database is Uber's Secret Sauce.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Lost In Translation said:


> Most Uber drivers don't even visit this forum. No strike will ever work until someone can get the driver datasbase. This is the database Uber gave away to the City & County of San Francisco Treasurer & Tax Collector so he could send every Uber driver operating in San Francisco a bill for a business license.
> 
> This was no data breech or inside malcontent handing over the data. This was the evil Uber handing the city a freebie for influence with the politicians.
> 
> ...


I never received a letter but I hadn't filed a tax return yet so I believe it has to do with a filed tax return.


----------

