# (Updated) #UberLAWSUIT | The fate of Uber drivers in California remains in the air



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*http://www.businessinsider.com/uber...deciding-whether-to-grant-class-status-2015-8*


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Judge Chen questioned where there are differences in the contracts for Uber's right to control. " The language may be different but the outcome is the same," Chen said."

Uber's right to control . . . That says it all. U controls rates, what rating (too high) a driver must keep to be able to access the app among other things.

My opinion . . . If Uber would raise the rates for X drivers to a min of 1/2 the local taxi rates, and drop their percentage by 5%, it could still see a profit and less driver turnover.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

UberNorthStar said:


> Judge Chen questioned where there are differences in the contracts for Uber's right to control. " The language may be different but the outcome is the same," Chen said."
> 
> Uber's right to control . . . That says it all. U controls rates, what rating (too high) a driver must keep to be able to access the app among other things.
> 
> My opinion . . . If Uber would raise the rates for X drivers to a min of 1/2 the local taxi rates, and drop their percentage by 5%, it could still see a profit and less driver turnover.


That's just to logical..Uber good business sense?? Nope!!


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

No offense to CA drivers intended by this comment.

If a lawyer fought for a more-balanced agreement between Uber & the drivers, it could be a win-win situation for Uber & the drivers as well.

Even as an employee less control equals a happier worker.

JM2¢W


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

>>>Boutrous, though, claimed that you can't be viewing Uber's contracts as employment contracts to begin with.
"This isn’t a contract of employment. This is a software licensing agreement," Boutrous said.<<<

That made me laugh almost as much as watching the GOP convention earlier this evening.


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> "This isn't a contract of employment. This is a software licensing agreement," Boutrous said.


Yea, suuuuuure! That "licensing agreement" contains too many infringements on a self-employed business.

JM2¢W


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> >>>Boutrous, though, claimed that you can't be viewing Uber's contracts as employment contracts to begin with.
> "This isn't a contract of employment. This is a software licensing agreement," Boutrous said.<<<
> 
> That made me laugh almost as much as watching the GOP convention earlier this evening.


Ha ha the Donald! OMG!! It made me laugh as well.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

most of those guys are pretty scary - 
but at least I'd trust John Kasich to babysit my kids.


----------



## Txchick (Nov 25, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> most of those guys are pretty scary -
> but at least I'd trust John Kasich to babysit my kids.


Ha ha ha! That's true. Trump would end up building a fence around your kids.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Txchick said:


> Ha ha ha! That's true. Trump would end up building a fence around your kids.


Hell, I did that 25 years ago.


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

"Liss-Riordan told the court that VP and Global Operations Manager, Ryan Graves, said there was no practice in place for Uber management to check which version of the contract the drivers had signed before they get activated. *She also said that driver managers have discretion to decide who gets deactivated and who gets a second chance*."

WAIT!!!!... As a driver, I have a manager?

Well, that throws the whole "Be your own boss" aspect out the window.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Good read on the courtroom arguments.

*Will Uber drivers get class-action status for employment case?*
http://www.sfchronicle.com/business...hp?t=792c6ac2dc4832b814&cmpid=twitter-premium


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Another thought on why UberX Is employment.
I OWN a CAB. I can pay my franchise fee for YEARS and never accept a ping from my franchise company.
UberX is not even a real thing, outside the uber app.
Sure you could hand out businesses cards for cash work, but in EVERY market this is illegal.
That's why in Cali, when several drivers licensed and insured their vehicles legally for X some months back, Uber deactivated the accounts.
Uber maintains 100% control over UberX drivers.
"Hi, want a ride? I Uber!!"
"Feck off *********, if I want an Uber, I'll ping one!"


----------



## UberNorthStar (Jul 7, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Uber maintains 100% control over UberX drivers.


<------- One X driver over whom Uber does not have 100% control Nor will it! 

Anyone else care to raise their hands?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

UberNorthStar said:


> <------- One X driver over whom Uber does not have 100% control Nor will it!
> 
> Anyone else care to raise their hands?


Let the delusions begin.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Good read:*
*Despite Uber's Arguments, Flexibility for Employees Is a Company's Choice*
http://recode.net/2015/08/11/despite-ubers-arguments-flexibility-for-employees-is-a-companys-choice/


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*An overall engrossing read.*
Drivers Tips (gratuities) Claim is discussed on page 56.
*
Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (.pdf, 195 KB)
















*


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Good read:*
> *Despite Uber's Arguments, Flexibility for Employees Is a Company's Choice*
> http://recode.net/2015/08/11/despite-ubers-arguments-flexibility-for-employees-is-a-companys-choice/


Excellent article that shoots down the "flexibility will be lost" theory.

This article deserves its own thread.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber's Defense in California Driver Class-Action Lawsuit: 'LOL Laws LOL'*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Analysis: Uber will survive, no matter what courts decide*
*http://www.sfchronicle.com/business...481531.php?t=32ccbda1cf&cmpid=twitter-premium*

_"Even if Uber loses this case, it will be free to restructure its relationship with its drivers in such a way that the drivers would actually be bona fide independent contractors," Chen wrote in a 68-page decision._


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Page 25
Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (.pdf, 195 KB)







*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Lawyer in Uber Class Action Says They Want to Take the Case National*
*http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/r...tion-says-they-want-to-take-the-case-national*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Update from Shannon Liss-Riordan Law Office:
*www.UberLAWSUIT.com*

_*We won another important victory on September 2, 2015, when the court certified the case as a class action. Click here to read the court's class certification decision. Under this decision, the case will now include all drivers who have contracted with Uber directly and in their own name (not through intermediate companies) in California since 2009 -- but not current drivers or any drivers who have driven since June 2014 (unless you opted out of Uber's arbitration clause).

SO IF YOU HAVE DRIVEN FOR UBER SINCE JUNE 2014 - OR IF YOU HAVE DRIVEN FOR UBER AT ANY TIME IN CALIFORNIA THROUGH A CORPORATE NAME OR AN INTERMEDIATE COMPANY (LIKE A LIMOUSINE COMPANY) - and you want to be part of this case, you will need to CONTACT OUR FIRM and sign up to bring your claim individually. Nearly two thousand Uber drivers from around the country have already contacted us to join our list.

We filed this case on behalf of Uber drivers across the country. In an early ruling, the court agreed with us that the case could proceed on behalf of drivers nationwide. In a later ruling, however, the judge changed his mind and limited the case to drivers in California. We think this decision was incorrect and we plan to appeal it. But meanwhile, if you have driven for Uber anywhere in the United States, and did not opt out of the arbitration clause within 30 days of accepting Uber's licensing agreement, PLEASE CONTACT US to obtain a form to return to us so that we can pursue an individual claim for you, in the event that we have to pursue these claims individually, rather than through the class action.*_


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber fights back against driver lawsuit*
*http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/16/9336175/uber-appeal-class-action-lawsuit-california-employee*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

nooneyouknowof you posted in The Rideshare Guy's thread:
*What Questions Would You Like To Ask Shannon Liss-Riordan?*

_So, the lawsuit only applies to FORMER Uber drivers? This to me speaks volumes- this lawsuit is about money money money. WE, the CURRENT drivers are not being represented or compensated, yet the ruling on this case will directly affect our status! How does that make sense? Why should angry, former drivers determine my employment status? _

Please read this thread to correct your faulty assumptions & understanding of the UberLAWSUIT.


----------



## ocbob2 (Aug 18, 2015)

Txchick said:


> Ha ha ha! That's true. Trump would end up building a fence around your kids.


I don't blame Trump. My kids don't have any valid picture Id.

Btw, I am a believer of stronger borders.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Trial date set for June 20th, 2016.

*Uber Drivers to Have Their Day in Court*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber Case Drives SF Judge Into Spotlight*
Marisa Kendall
http://m.therecorder.com/module/alm/app/ca.do#!/article/1756251944









The scene in U.S. District Judge Edward Chen's courtroom this past week would have been unacceptable to some judges.

Arguments veered off course and left the briefs far behind-at one point neither Chen nor the lawyers could tell which motion was being argued. The lawyers delved into brand-new arbitration case law, some of which threatened to undermine a prior ruling from Chen and force him to reverse himself.

Surprisingly, the judge looked pleased.

In fact, Chen instigated some of the chaos himself. He kicked off the Nov. 4 hearing by announcing he was taking "a second look" at his decision invalidating Uber Technologies Inc.'s 2014 arbitration agreement in light of an August ruling from the California Supreme Court. His reconsideration could have major consequences for the class action challenging Uber's classification of drivers as independent contractors-a case that has pointed a national spotlight on Chen's courtroom and, fairly or not, will be the crucible that forges his reputation as an Article III judge.

Depending on who you talk to, 62-year-old Chen is an open-minded jurist committed to the right result or a liberal-leaning judge who still wears the American Civil Liberties Union badge that nearly wrecked his prospects for a judicial appointment. His decisions in the Uber case, which forces Chen into the politically charged position of balancing workers' rights against innovative business practices in an imperfect legal framework, offer fuel for both narratives.

While Chen already has drawn criticism for some of his rulings that sided with drivers against Uber, lawyers who actually argue in Chen's courtroom tend to describe him as even-handed, commending him for showing up to hearings exceptionally well prepared and with no built-in bias.

Chen declined to be interviewed or to answer questions by email.

Conversations with more than two dozen of his close friends and colleagues, lawyers who have appeared before him and those that know him by reputation only-as well as a look at Chen's background and his history on the bench-suggest there's more to the judge than what one Republican critic famously decried as the "ACLU chromosome."

Chen's willingness to admit a mistake, which he's already done once before in the Uber case, speaks to the pains he takes to reach decisions that are both just and legally sound, lawyers said.

"It's a rare thing for a judge unilaterally to do that," said defense-side employment attorney Stephen Hirschfeld of Hirschfeld Kraemer in San Francisco. "It goes to show that this is a judge who is extremely thoughtful."

It may also signal Chen is taking a meticulous approach to the case that could define him, acutely aware that whatever he decides ultimately will be closely reviewed on appeal.

"He knows this is a high-profile case," said Hirschfeld. "He wants to get it right."

YOUTH AND CONSEQUENCES
Chen, an Oakland native born to Chinese immigrant parents, started his career as a passionate civil rights advocate. He specialized in discrimination cases, drawn in particular to issues that affected the Asian-American community.

After graduating from UC-Berkeley School of Law, Chen worked briefly at the firm now known as Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass before starting a 16-year stretch with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Ed was just somebody who was sensitive to people's rights and the needs of ordinary people," said retired U.S. District Judge Charles Renfrew, for whom Chen clerked from 1979 to 1980. (Chen went on to clerk for Judge James Browning of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1981 to 1982.)

While at Coblentz, Chen had a hand in reopening the Supreme Court's landmark 1944 ruling in _Korematsu v. United States_ that approved the internment of Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II.

San Francisco attorney Dale Minami, who led the effort to overturn the conviction of Fred Korematsu, said Chen was the team's "go-to guy" for researching tough questions.

Today Chen comes across as brainy in a low-key way. But he hadn't always seemed destined for a position of influence, said Minami, founder of Minami Tamaki.

As an undergrad at UC-Berkeley in the 1970s Chen was "pretty dorky," recalled Minami, his Asian-American studies professor. "When he wrote his first papers, I said 'Who wrote these?'" said Minami. "They were brilliant."

Chen joined the Northern District of California's bench as a magistrate judge in 2001 at the prodding of U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a former Coblentz partner. He was the court's first Asian-American judge.

Eight years later, Chen's ACLU background became the political equivalent of a scarlet letter as he pursued confirmation to a district court seat. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, famously worried Chen carried the "ACLU chromosome." After a bruising fight, Chen finally was confirmed in May 2011.

Chen kept his sense of humor throughout the ordeal, according to his friends, who say he's never been one to take himself too seriously.

Consider "The Recusals," a goofy rock band of glitter bow-tie-wearing judges that Chen organized to perform at this year's Northern District judicial conference. While the gig was purely for fun, Chen's friends swear he's really a brilliant musician.

("Thanks to him we actually weren't terrible," Judge Breyer said.)

*Continued next post.*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

INTELLECTUAL SPARRING
On the bench, Chen is known for putting counsel through their paces. Lawyers who have spent time in his San Francisco courtroom described the experience as "fun," as well as intellectually rigorous.

One lawyer who recently appeared in Chen's courtroom said the judge allowed arguments to flow like a freewheeling debate, encouraging the lawyers to butt in and interrupt.

"The oral argument was more like a television oral argument than a traditional oral argument," said the lawyer, who asked not to be named. He added, "I found myself having to fight to get in to respond to some of the points [opposing counsel] would make."

Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, who represented plaintiffs in privacy litigation over tracking software in cellphones, said Chen came to court impeccably prepared.

"The other side was quoting a few cases they thought were key, and several times Judge Chen interrupted them and said 'Wait you need to read the rest of the sentence, because that changes the meaning,'" Berman wrote in an email. "So he has the key cases nailed."

Mark Burton of the plaintiffs firm Audet & Partners remembers Chen carefully scrutinizing a $228 million settlement FedEx Corp. reached with drivers in a wage-and-hour suit earlier this year. Chen's concerns that class members were being shortchanged prompted the parties to amend the agreement and provide drivers additional compensation.

"He definitely didn't just accept what the parties presented to him initially," said Burton.

Judge Richard Seeborg, who sits down the hall from Chen on the 17th floor of the San Francisco federal courthouse, said he pays attention if a lawyer cites one of Chen's decisions.

"I may not agree with it," Seeborg said. "But I know it is really thoughtful and thoroughly researched, so it is one that behooves you as a judge to read."

Not everyone has been pleased with Chen's rulings, however, and those on the political right are usually the ones aggrieved.

In a September blog post, the conservative Washington Legal Foundation criticized Chen's decision in a case that pit cellphone retailers against the city of Berkeley. Chen's order upholding a Berkeley statute that required retailers to warn customers of the radiation dangers of cellphones, the blog post stated, is part of a "disturbing trend" that threatens constitutional protections against compelled government speech.

'NOT KNEE-JERK'
In the Uber case, Chen has been tough on the company from the start.

He twice foiled Uber's attempts to block the employment suit. He's rejected one of Uber's central arguments-that it's a technology company that markets an app, not a transportation business that employs drivers. And he was unimpressed with the 400 declarations Uber submitted from drivers who said they don't want to be employees. In September, he certified a portion of plaintiffs' prospective class.

Some court watchers say they've spotted a pattern-and it doesn't look good for Uber.

UC-Berkeley law professor Steven Davidoff Solomon is among them. He said Chen seems "favorably disposed" to the plaintiffs.

"He is giving plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt in almost every circumstance," Solomon said.

Mark Chenoweth, general counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation, called Chen's class certification order "troubling." Uber's own claim that all workers are independent contractors suggested that common issues predominate the case, Chen wrote, finding that factor weighed in favor of class certification.

"Every defendant in Uber's shoes will claim that the plaintiff-workers are independent contractors," Chenoweth wrote in an email. "By the court's strained logic, this contested fact would always make class certification appropriate, regardless of other relevant and significant differences among putative class members."

In October the U.S. Chamber of Commerce accused Chen of viewing Uber's arbitration agreements through an overly harsh "anti-arbitration lens."

His finding that Uber's arbitration agreements are unenforceable "reflects the very judicial hostility to arbitration that Congress enacted the [Federal Arbitration Act] to prevent," the Chamber's lawyers wrote in an amicus curiae brief backing Uber before the Ninth Circuit. "If allowed to stand, the ruling would potentially unsettle many millions of arbitration agreements."

But Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents Uber drivers, hasn't always been happy with Chen's decisions either. Last year he nixed plaintiffs' bid for a nationwide class action, instead allowing them to bring claims only on behalf of California drivers. And he denied certification to a large chunk of plaintiffs' proposed class-a cut Uber claimed reduced the class size by as much as 90 percent.

Before rejecting the nationwide class action, however, Chen had approved it. Last year, after reviewing a second judge's ruling on a nearly identical question, he acknowledged he'd erred by allowing out-of-state Uber drivers to pursue claims under California law.

Chen owned up to another possible mistake this past week when he agreed to rethink his ruling tossing out Uber's 2014 arbitration agreement. In light of the California Supreme Court's August opinion in _Sanchez v. Valencia,_ Chen conceded that he may have judged Uber's agreement too harshly.

To Liss-Riordan that proves critics taking shots from afar don't appreciate the care Chen takes in reaching the right decisions. "He's certainly not knee-jerk ruling for the plaintiffs on anything."


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber can't appeal class certification order in U.S. driver lawsuit*
By Dan Levine 
*http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0T62IA20151117*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber Got Dealt Another Blow in the Lawsuit That Threatens Its Business Model*
*http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox..._another_blow_in_its_class_action_driver.html*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber's Exposure May Grow as U.S. Drivers Seek 57.5 Cents a Mile*
*http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-may-expand-as-drivers-seek-57-5-cents-a-mile*

*Excerpts:*
The judge will also consider today (Tuesday, Nov 24th) whether to add more drivers to the class-action, which threatens to upend the ride share company's business model and cut into its $50 billion valuation.

*Arbitration Agreements*
Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan asked Chen to add to the lawsuit tens of thousands of drivers hired since 2014 who were excluded because their contracts required them to resolve disputes through arbitration. Liss-Riordan based her request on a September appellate court ruling in an unrelated case she says cast doubt on the legality of the arbitration agreements.

Uber cited a California Supreme Court ruling handed down in August to keep the class capped at fewer than 15,000 drivers.

Chen has gone back and forth on the arbitration provision. At first he declared it unfair to the drivers, even after he drafted fixes to try to cure its flaws. Then, saying it was a close call, he excluded drivers operating under the 2014 agreement from the class action.

Chen said Nov. 4 he's "taking a second look" at the arbitration clause in Uber's 2014 contracts.

Ted Boutrous, a lawyer for Uber, exhorted the judge not to second-guess his own work that helped make the arbitration agreement bullet-proof.

*'Esteemed' Judge*
"If there's ever in history" been in arbitration clause that should withstand a challenge, it's Uber's, the lawyer argued.

Even as Chen continues to weigh the issue, the company has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco to bless its arbitration agreements as legal. The court this month declined to review Chen's Sept. 1 ruling letting the case proceed as a class action.

James Evans, a lawyer who drafts arbitration agreements for companies, said it requires "a very significant logical stretch" for Uber to prevail on the arbitration dispute.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> The judge will also consider today (Tuesday, Nov 24th) whether to add more drivers to the class-action,


This is the only thing I've found on the 11/24/15 hearing:


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> This is the only thing I've found on the 11/24/15 hearing:
> 
> View attachment 18824


ok so it looks like Judge Chen will be gobbling over this through Thanksgiving weekend


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Judge expands driver class-action lawsuit against Uber
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TS2MA20151209*
By Dan Levine 
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. judge ruled on Wednesday that Uber drivers could participate in a class action against the company over their employment status, even if they did not opt out of an arbitration clause in their contracts.

Drivers sued Uber in San Francisco federal court, contending they are employees and entitled to reimbursement for expenses, including gas and vehicle maintenance. The drivers currently pay those costs themselves.

The results of Uber's legal battle could reshape the on-demand economy, which is built around Internet companies that serve as marketplaces matching people who provide a service with others looking to pay for it.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen said Uber drivers must have opted out of arbitration to be a member of the class. At the time, Uber said Chen's ruling meant only a "tiny fraction" of a potential 160,000 California drivers would be eligible to be class members.

But on Wednesday, Chen found some of Uber's arbitration agreements unenforceable. Chen also ruled that drivers could pursue expense reimbursement claims against the company as a class action.

Representatives for Uber could not immediately be reached for comment.

The case is Douglas O'Connor et al v. Uber Technologies Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 13-3826.


----------



## riChElwAy (Jan 13, 2015)

Judge Chen for Time Magazine's PERSON OF THE YEAR!!!


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Judge expands driver class-action lawsuit against Uber
> http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TS2MA20151209*
> By Dan Levine
> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. judge ruled on Wednesday that Uber drivers could participate in a class action against the company over their employment status, even if they did not opt out of an arbitration clause in their contracts.
> ...


Uber is NOT a marketplace.


----------



## EcoSLC (Sep 24, 2015)

^ In a marketplace, we would be free to bargain.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

EcoSLC said:


> ^ In a marketplace, we would be free to bargain.


^^ Exactly! Ebay and Etsy are marketplaces, their vendors set the prices.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Chen Expands Class Against Uber*
*http://m.therecorder.com/module/alm/app/ca.do#!/article/1757409854*

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge Wednesday allowed thousands more Uber Technologies Inc. drivers to join litigation attacking the company's policy of classifying drivers as independent contractors.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in the Northern District of California expanded the class he certified in September to allow previously excluded California drivers who signed up with Uber in 2014 or later. He also said the class can pursue reimbursement for work expenses, which he'd previously excluded.

"This is a significant ruling on both counts, and we are very pleased with it," plaintiffs lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan wrote in an email. She wrote that the ruling will allow "many more thousands" of drivers to be part of the suit.

An Uber representative said the company will appeal the decision immediately. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous Jr. represents Uber.

Chen denied plaintiffs' request to certify a subclass of plaintiffs who drove through intermediary limo companies or used corporate names.

Liss-Riordan originally moved to certify a class of 160,000 Uber drivers, claiming her clients should be classified as employees and entitled to employee benefits. Chen instead certified a much smaller class, finding the court couldn't determine on a class-wide basis whether drivers who signed up in 2014 or later were bound by Uber's arbitration agreement. Such a determination would require an individual investigation into whether each driver felt free to opt out of the agreement, he ruled. But a September decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit changed Chen's mind. Under _Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail North America_, Chen found Uber's 2014 arbitration agreement is void for all drivers because it contains an unenforceable waiver of Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claims that can't be severed from the rest of the agreement.

The class Chen originally certified allowed plaintiffs only to seek employee status and reimbursement for tips withheld by Uber. He said plaintiffs lawyers hadn't adequately explained their methodology for calculating recoverable work-related expenses. Chen had worried that the lawyers' decision to forgo recoupment for items purchased for passenger comfort, such as satellite radio, mints and water bottles, went against class members' best interests. But he was mollified by additional briefing and six declarations plaintiffs submitted showing that vehicle-related costs encompass about 75-85 percent of driver expenses.

"Here, plaintiffs have made a reasonable judgment call to pursue vehicle-related and phone expenses in this litigation," Chen wrote, "and have presented some evidence that these expenses will comprise the majority of any recoverable expenses."

_Contact the reporter at[email protected]._


----------



## SECOTIME (Sep 18, 2015)

http://gawker.com/federal-judge-rules-to-expand-class-action-lawsuit-agai-1747234089


----------



## SECOTIME (Sep 18, 2015)

Uber is about to take a hit eh


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

SECOTIME said:


> http://gawker.com/federal-judge-rules-to-expand-class-action-lawsuit-agai-1747234089


Love the comments on the Gawker article!


----------



## charlotteuber28 (Dec 10, 2015)

Hi am a driver in Charlotte North Carolina is there anyway I can join this class action?


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

SECOTIME said:


> http://gawker.com/federal-judge-rules-to-expand-class-action-lawsuit-agai-1747234089


Thanks for sharing, that is huge.


----------



## EcoSLC (Sep 24, 2015)

Not yet. But I'm pretty sure her law firm still plans to take this national if they succeed. Keep your eye on this case and anything else in the news section of this website.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

SECOTIME said:


> http://gawker.com/federal-judge-rules-to-expand-class-action-lawsuit-agai-1747234089


Thanks for sharing, that is huge.


----------



## charlotteuber28 (Dec 10, 2015)

I'll keep an eye out, it sucks this only is a California case right now. Uber screws everyone it should be a national case.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

charlotteuber28 said:


> I'll keep an eye out, it sucks this only is a California case right now. Uber screws everyone it should be a national case.


Give it time.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Judge Faults Uber for Confusing Drivers With New Contract*
*http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...judge-for-confusing-drivers-with-new-contract*

Uber Technologies Inc. was barred from imposing a new contract on drivers who are suing the company to be treated like employees after a federal judge said the reworded agreement is confusing.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco on Thursday also ordered Uber to stop communicating with drivers covered by the class-action lawsuit without consulting a lawyer for the drivers or getting the court's consent.

The rebuke to the world's most valuable startup came after a lawyer for the drivers accused Uber of going behind her back to circulate a reworded work agreement Dec. 11 that she said was meant to trick her clients into relinquishing their right to join the class action.

Chen concluded the new contract is "likely, frankly, to engender confusion."

"I'm very concerned about what has happened," he told lawyers in court.

Uber's lawyer told the judge the company thought it had his blessing to issue the new agreement.

*'Unlawful, Unconscionable'*

"This court had ruled that provisions were unlawful, unconscionable and unenforceable," Theodore Boutrous, the attorney, said in court. "The agreement that was sent out addresses the things that this court was troubled by, it fixes those things."

Uber issued the new agreement two days after Chen vastly expanded the case, seeking to classify California drivers as employees rather than independent contractors, to include more than 100,000 people. A provision of the new agreement requires drivers to resolve any conflicts with Uber in private arbitration instead of court.

While the contract gives drivers* 30 days to opt out* of the provision, it also prohibits those who don't "from participating in or recovering relief under any current or future" class action.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, the drivers' lawyer, said in a court filing that the agreement is aimed at undercutting the tens of thousands of drivers eligible to join the suit. Hundreds of drivers have phoned her office expressing "confusion and dismay about the new agreement" because they don't understand if they have to opt out of the new arbitration provision to join the lawsuit, according to the filing.

*'Planned Rollout'*
Uber said it told Chen at a Dec. 10 hearing in a different, related case that it would issue the agreements containing new arbitration agreements. The judge acknowledged "why the planned rollout made sense," the company said.

The company said on the day it issued the reworded contract that it wouldn't apply the new arbitration provisions to any drivers covered by the class action. The new agreement is intended to be "more driver-friendly," the company said in a court filing.

Chen ruled Dec. 9 that drivers in the class action can seek expense reimbursement, including as much as 57 1/2 cents for every mile driven, in addition to their claims for tips that were already part of the case. A trial is scheduled for June. A victory for the drivers threatens to upend the ride share company's business model and cut into its more than $60 billion valuation.

The case is O'Connor v. Uber Technologies Inc., 13-cv-03826, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Plaintiffs Want Judge, Not Jury, to Decide Uber Class Action*
http://m.therecorder.com/module/alm/app/ca.do#!/article/1757706618
Marisa Kendall
12/17/2015

SAN FRANCISCO - After securing a pair of favorable rulings-and in the face of a supercharged media campaign launched by Uber-plaintiffs challenging the company's business model are seeking to put on their case without a jury.

Plaintiffs lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan, who won class certification for drivers suing over their status as independent contractors and then got the class significantly expanded, moved on Thursday to dismiss an expense reimbursement claim in an effort to proceed to a bench trial. The proposal, subject of a hearing before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, drew a vigorous objection from Uber lawyer Theodore Boutrous of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

"Plaintiffs counsel is afraid of a jury trial here in the Northern District," Boutrous said, adding that assertions that a jury could not be fair minded are "ridiculous" and "outrageous."

Uber was also playing defense at the hearing over the rollout of a new driver arbitration agreement, a contract Chen said "raises grave concerns." Liss-Riordan filed an emergency motion to block enforcement of the agreement, which Uber unveiled last week. Uber previously said the company wouldn't enforce the agreement against drivers who are already part of Liss-Riordan's certified class.

Despite his concerns, Chen said he was unsure if he had the authority to halt the agreement from taking effect. Instead, he said he would issue an order confirming that the new agreement cannot be enforced against members of the certified class. He also directed Uber to refrain from communicating with class members "with respect to anything that might affect the prosecution of the case." Chen put off deciding on whether there needs to be additional protection for plaintiffs in the several other cases filed against the company.

The plaintiffs' push for to forgo a jury marks a change in strategy. Earlier this month, Chen allowed plaintiffs to pursue class-wide reimbursement for driving expenses under the California Labor Code. Now Liss-Riordan is seeking permission to scratch that hard-won claim and refile under California's Unfair Competition Law, which does not include a right to jury trial.

"A bench trial will assure that there are clear factual findings and conclusions in the record and can more easily allow for an appeal of any adverse decisions in a way that would be more difficult in a jury trial," Liss-Riordan wrote in the motion filed just before the hearing.

She added that Uber's press push, including the company's publicizing of hundreds of declarations by drivers who say they like being independent contractors, may have prejudiced potential jurors.

"Plaintiffs have concern that a jury may be more susceptible to outside, irrelevant considerations," Liss-Riordan wrote.

Chen put off ruling but expressed concerns. "Manageable or not, there is a right to a jury trial," he said. "You cannot unilaterally withdraw the right to a jury trial."

Chen ordered Uber to respond to Liss-Riordan's motion. The case, O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, is scheduled to go to trial in summer 2016.

_Contact the reporter at[email protected]._


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> While the contract gives drivers *30 days to opt out of the provision*, it also prohibits those who don't "from participating in or recovering relief under any current or future" class action.


Please read:

*New Partner Agreement, Binding Arbitration Provision, Opting Out & UberLAWSUIT Explained*


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

What is the status of the parallel Lyft suit?


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

*Uber judge puts brakes on California drivers' suit outcome*
*http://www.ocregister.com/articles/drivers-697167-ruling-uber.html*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Headline should be *"Uber loses bid to halt California Drivers' Lawsuit"* 
*Uber Judge Puts Brakes on California Drivers' Suit Outcome*
*http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...al-halt-to-part-of-california-drivers-lawsuit*

Uber Technologies Inc. won lost a ruling that may put off the outcome of a bid by California drivers to be treated as employees in a lawsuit that has grown dramatically both in size and potential liability.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco on Tuesday said he won't issue a final ruling following a June trial if his decision to add more than 100,000 drivers to the class action hasn't been resolved on appeal.

In his Dec. 9 ruling, the judge allowed all drivers covered by the case to seek expense reimbursement, including as much as 57 1/2 cents for every mile driven. Chen had previously allowed the drivers to seek tips in the case.


A victory for the drivers seeking the pay and benefits of employees rather than independent contractors threatens to upend the ride share company's business model and cut into its more than $60 billion valuation. Experts have said the stakes in the lawsuit grew by hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the Dec. 9 ruling.

Chen concluded then that the company's contract with its drivers improperly required them to resolve disputes through arbitration, preventing them from suing. Uber then sought to put the case on hold when it asked an appeals court to review the contract's arbitration provision.

In Tuesday's order, Chen said there's a public interest in not delaying trial in the lead case in the nation on the status of Uber drivers. He also said "a serious legal question has been raised by Uber" that justifies waiting for the company's appeal on the arbitration issue to play out before the final outcome of the case is decided.

Jessica Santillo, a spokeswoman for Uber, said the company will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco to halt all proceedings in the case until the judge's Dec. 9 order is reviewed on appeal.

*Drivers' Lawyer*
Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lawyer for the drivers, said she's pleased the June 20 trial date remains intact.

"Uber had attempted to avoid this trial altogether while its appeal proceeds," she said in an e-mail. "Judge Chen agreed with our argument that the trial must go forward in any event, with or without Uber's appeal and so there is no reason for the trial be delayed. "

The case is O'Connor v. Uber Technologies Inc., 13-cv-03826, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

You need to fully understand what is going on here. 

What this smart judge is going is crossing all of his T's and dotting all of his I's with this case. That is exactly what he has done from the beginning of the case. He is giving Uber all the rope they need to hang themselves. 

He is giving Uber every opportunity to challenge the pieces of the case that they want. 

Once Uber has exhausted all of those challenges, then it will be game over for Uber. 

Judge Chen's ruling will stand and any further appeals will concur with the judge's ruling.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Here's a different industry, but very relevent to TNC drivers situation.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/business...in-landmark-ruling-in-employee-status-hearing


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

And those 37 "Independent Contractors" that were really not independent contractors were determined to be employees. Each (Independent Contractor--now employee) will receive almost $200,000 in back wages and expenses. 

The same thing is coming Uber's way except it's going to be much bigger. 

Those Uber executives don't even see it coming. 

By the way the Uber executives can be held PERSONALLY liable for any back wages awarded to Uber drivers if for some reason the company doesn't have the money to pay. These amounts are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.


----------



## humandriver (Sep 16, 2014)

*qz.com: Why it matters that a big, class-action lawsuit against Uber will be tried in front of a jury.*

http://qz.com/581172/why-it-matters...gainst-uber-will-be-tried-in-front-of-a-jury/

Judge Chen just gave Uber a huge leg up. A jury in Northern California, many of whom are probably Uber customers, are not going to rule against the company.


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

humandriver said:


> *qz.com: Why it matters that a big, class-action lawsuit against Uber will be tried in front of a jury.*
> 
> http://qz.com/581172/why-it-matters...gainst-uber-will-be-tried-in-front-of-a-jury/
> 
> Judge Chen just gave Uber a huge leg up. A jury in Northern California, many of whom are probably Uber customers, are not going to rule against the company.


While you never know how a jury is going to rule, this case is going to come down to the 20 point IRS criteria. I would expect that both the Department of Labor and the IRS will both rule on the independent contractor question prior to the trial. Witnesses from both the IRS and the DOL will be called to testify.

Uber can dazzle the jury with bs, but juries are pretty smart folks and they will see though the bs.

When drivers are called to the stand to testify that they are making .75 cents an hour that will be game over for Uber in front of the jury.


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

*Uber sued by drivers excluded from class-action lawsuit*
*http://www.latimes.com/business/tec...-driver-misclassification-20160104-story.html*


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

arto71 said:


> *Uber sued by drivers excluded from class-action lawsuit
> http://www.latimes.com/business/tec...-driver-misclassification-20160104-story.html*


...
Filed in San Francisco's Superior Court on behalf of the drivers by lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan - the same lawyer representing plaintiffs in the class action - the new suit, which is not a class action, makes similar arguments to the original lawsuit.

The plaintiffs allege Uber misclassified them as independent contractors, effectively stripping them of rights such as business-expense reimbursements and gratuities. 
...
In the court filing, Liss-Riordan argues that despite these drivers working for Uber through third-party companies or under corporate names, Uber should be considered their employer or joint employer because "Uber has controlled their employment, including establishing the rules and standards they must adhere to, and determining which drivers are subject to termination."
...
The lawsuit currently has 78 plaintiffs. Liss-Riordan told The Times that the case is being filed to pursue the claims of any drivers who want to be part of it.


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

Again Uber needs to be careful what they ask for because they just might get it.


----------



## arto71 (Sep 20, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *http://www.businessinsider.com/uber...deciding-whether-to-grant-class-status-2015-8*


*Uber loses bid to pause drivers group lawsuit as trial looms*

http://la.suntimes.com/la-business/...to-pause-drivers-group-lawsuit-as-trial-looms


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

Oh the poor Uber babies.

JudgeOn!


----------



## charlotteuber28 (Dec 10, 2015)

Is there any progress or update on this becoming a national case?


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

charlotteuber28 said:


> Is there any progress or update on this becoming a national case?


The case in California is not likely to become a nationwide case.

However once the case is decided in California then you can expect that another case will be filed that will include the Uber drivers outside of California.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> INTELLECTUAL SPARRING
> On the bench, Chen is known for putting counsel through their paces. Lawyers who have spent time in his San Francisco courtroom described the experience as "fun," as well as intellectually rigorous.
> 
> One lawyer who recently appeared in Chen's courtroom said the judge allowed arguments to flow like a freewheeling debate, encouraging the lawyers to butt in and interrupt.
> ...


POST # 29/chi1cabby: F A B U L O U S
D O U B L E - S H O T Effort on "St. Comity's
Brief History of Judge Chen, Jurist, Musician
and No-longer Dork"!

Bison Smiling Mirthfully.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

SECOTIME said:


> http://gawker.com/federal-judge-rules-to-expand-class-action-lawsuit-agai-1747234089


POST # 41/SECOTIME: Bostonian Bison
Thanks You for this
Hyperlinked Contribution to THIS Thread's
"Wicked Important" Topic.

Bison: Well-done, "Montgomery".


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

arto71 said:


> *Uber sued by drivers excluded from class-action lawsuit
> http://www.latimes.com/business/tec...-driver-misclassification-20160104-story.html*


POST # 61/arto71: Bostonian Bison
Thanks You for this
Hyperlinked LATimes.com Article of
Major Importance to A-B TNC Drivers
in the Golden State! Way to work there,
"Colm Bohannon"!

Bison Admires. Bison Inspires!


----------

