Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05163/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05163-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:53(b) - Prelim &amp; Perm Inj Relief &amp; other Equitable Relief

---

L.A. TAXI v. UBER (#3:15-CV-01257-JST) – Administrative Motion re: Case Relation - 1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MARYANN CAZZELL, ESQ. (SBN 128780) 

CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS 

406 W. Fourth Street 

Santa Ana, CA 92701 

Tel. (714) 558-1772 

Fax. (714) 558-1883 

cazzell@msn.com 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO 

L.A. TAXI COOPERATIVE, INC. dba 

YELLOW CAB C0., et al. 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01257-JST 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION OF A WHITE 

AND YELLOW CAB, INC., PLAINTIFF IN 

CASE #4:15-cv-05163-JSW, TO 

DETERMINE WHETHER CASES SHOULD 

BE DEEMED RELATED 

 TO ALL PARTIES, COUNSEL, AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT: 

Pursuant to Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, A WHITE AND YELLOW CAB, INC., a 

California corporation, dba A TAXI CAB, dba 1-800-4 MY TAXI (“A TAXI,”) Plaintiff in the 

case of A TAXI v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., case #4:15-cv-05163-JSW filed 

November 10, 2015 and now pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 

Oakland Division (the “A TAXI CASE”) hereby moves to determine that the A TAXI CASE is 

related to the instant case (the “L.A. TAXI CASE,”) and to the cases of Rosen v. Uber 

Technologies, etc., et al., case #3-15-cv-03866-JST (the “ROSEN CASE”) and De Soto Cab Co., 

Inc. v. Picker, et al., case #3-15-cv-04375-JSC (the “DE SOTO CASE.”) The ROSEN CASE 

has been deemed related to the “PHILLIBEN CASE” (Philliben v. UBER Technologies, Inc., 

etc., et al., case #3:14-cv-05615-JST,) which itself was deemed related to the L.A. TAXI CASE. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

DENIED

 Judge Jon S. Tigar 

Dated: December 18, 2015

Case 4:15-cv-05163-JSW Document 13 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 7
L.A. TAXI v. UBER (#3:15-CV-01257-JST) – Administrative Motion re: Case Relation - 2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 A TAXI requested that counsel in the L.A. TAXI CASE, the ROSEN CASE, and the DE 

SOTO CASE agree to stipulate that the A TAXI CASE is related to them. Present Counsel for 

Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, and RASIER-CA, LLC (the 

“UBER Defendants”) in the L.A. TAXI CASE (the IRELL & MANELLA firm) has deferred to 

the judgment of Counsel for the UBER Defendants in the ROSEN CASE (the ALLEN 

MATKINS firm,) which will also be representing the UBER Defendants in the A TAXI CASE; 

the UBER Defendants have agreed to stipulate that these four cases are related, and the 

STIPULATION is attached as Exhibit A. Plaintiffs in the L.A. TAXI CASE, Plaintiffs in the 

ROSEN CASE, and Plaintiff in the DE SOTO case have not agreed to so stipulate. There has 

not yet been an appearance by Defendants in the DE SOTO CASE. 

Under Local Rule 3-12(a), cases are related if (1) “[t]he actions concern substantially the 

same parties, property, transaction or event,” and (2) “[i]t appears likely that there will be an 

unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are 

conducted before different Judges.” Here, both requirements are met. 

1. ARGUMENT: 

The Plaintiffs in all four of these cases are licensed taxicab companies or drivers who 

have sued the UBER Defendants directly under the Lanham Act and the California False 

Advertising Law, or (in the case of the DE SOTO CASE,) have sued the CALIFORNIA 

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (“CPUC”) on constitutional bases, challenging its right to 

have issued the Transportation Network Company (“TNC”) license under which the UBER 

Defendants operate in California. The ROSEN CASE and A TAXI CASE Plaintiffs have also 

sued the UBER Defendants under Unfair Competition Law and the Unfair Business Practices 

Act. There is a remarkable overlap of factual allegations among all four cases. Each case is 

based on the premise that UBER cars operate in the same cities and counties and compete with 

Plaintiffs’ respective taxicab operations for customers (L.A. TAXI Compl., paras. 36-37; 

ROSEN Compl. paras. 25-28; DE SOTO Compl. paras. 18-20; and A TAXI Compl., para. 54.) 

The Complaints in the L.A. TAXI CASE, the ROSEN CASE, and the A TAXI CASE 

each reference the allegations of a pending state court action against the UBER Defendants 

Case 4:15-cv-05163-JSW Document 13 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 7
L.A. TAXI v. UBER (#3:15-CV-01257-JST) – Administrative Motion re: Case Relation - 3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

brought by the San Francisco and Los Angeles County District Attorneys Offices, “People of the 

State of California v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,” filed December 9, 2014 as San Francisco 

Superior Court as Case #CGC-14-543120; a copy of that Complaint is attached as Exhibit “A” to 

each complaint (or in the case of the A TAXI CASE, referenced in para. 48 of the Complaint.) 

All three of these cases set forth substantially the same allegations of false advertising against the 

UBER Defendants over the same general time period, targeting without limitation “industryleading” safety comments (L.A. TAXI Compl. para. 63; ROSEN Compl. paras. 29-36 &78-80; 

TAXI Compl. para. 70), background check representations (L.A. TAXI Compl. para. 70; 

ROSEN Compl. paras. 53-66; A TAXI Compl. paras. 70&79), and the comparison of the safety 

of rides in UBER cars with those in taxicabs (L.A. TAXI Compl. para. 65; ROSEN Compl. 

paras. 37-52 & 72-84; A TAXI Compl. paras. 70&79.) The ROSEN Complaint and the A TAXI 

Complaint also share specific allegations of UBER drivers usurping vested specialty taxi 

permits: in the ROSEN Complaint, medallion-holding taxidrivers’ ability to pick up fares at the 

San Francisco Airport (paras. 14 &23); in the A TAXI Complaint, City of Anaheim Taxicab 

Franchise permits (paras. 18-24, 30-33, & 52-55.) Both the A TAXI CASE and DE SOTO 

CASE Complaints refer to UBER cars as “de facto” taxis (passim throughout these Complaints.) 

 The A TAXI CASE advances constitutional and civil rights claims against the CPUC that 

are strikingly similar to those in the DE SOTO CASE. The A TAXI CASE sues the same five 

CPUC Commissioners as does the DE SOTO CASE; and sues the CPUC as an entity as well. 

Both challenge the CPUC’s authority to create and implement the TNC license (A TAXI Compl. 

paras. 85-106; DE SOTO Compl. paras. 9-51) on constitutional (equal protection and due 

process) bases. Both the A TAXI CASE and the DE SOTO CASE also allege that the CPUC 

Commissioners violated the Federal Civil Rights of authentic taxi drivers by exceeding THE 

CPUC’s authority in creating (and then failing to properly administer) the TNC license. Both 

cases seek damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 et seq. (A TAXI Compl. 

paras. 34-46 & 85-106; DESOTO CAB Compl. paras. 9-51.) 

The ROSEN CASE, while stopping short of naming the CPUC, also contains a myriad of 

charges that sound in negligence against the CPUC in creating and giving a TNC license to the 

Case 4:15-cv-05163-JSW Document 13 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 7
L.A. TAXI v. UBER (#3:15-CV-01257-JST) – Administrative Motion re: Case Relation - 4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UBER Defendants, overlooking their disobedience of the CPUC Regulations, and ignoring 

Cease and Desist Orders (ROSEN Compl. paras. 10-24.) These allegations echo those at paras. 

85-106 of the A TAXI CASE Complaint which charge that the CPUC gave the UBER 

Defendants a TNC license but then failed to properly administer and enforce its requirements. 

Plaintiffs in the L.A. TAXI CASE opine that the cases are not related because the A 

TAXI CASE also sues the CPUC. It should be noted that A TAXI’s earlier Motion For Leave to 

File a Complaint-in-Intervention in the L.A. TAXI CASE (which Plaintiff L.A. TAXI opposed) 

was denied on August 27, 2015 on the grounds that the allegations of the [Proposed] Complaintin-Intervention contained allegations against the CPUC which would unduly delay and prejudice 

the adjudication of the L.A. TAXI Complaint. 

However, the standards are quite different in considering whether or not cases are related. 

In denying the Motion to Intervene, the Court in the L.A. TAXI CASE did not rule on whether 

similar claims in a separate “stand-alone” Complaint would be deemed “related.” 

It is respectfully submitted that all four of these cases can and should be deemed related, 

as the facts and circumstances of each embrace the constructs of Local Rule 3-12(a), as follows: 

A. Rule 3-12(a) (1): “[T]he actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction 

or event”: 

Three out of four of the cases name the exact same UBER Defendants, reference or 

incorporate the allegations of a pending San Francisco State Court Complaint against those same 

UBER Defendants, and sue on the same Lanham Act and false advertising grounds. Two of 

these also bring pendent unfair competition-related challenges. Three out of four of the cases 

allege malfeasance on the part of the CPUC, and two of those sue the exact same CPUC 

Commissioners. While each of the four cases does not sue the exact same parties, they need not 

do so in order to be “related;” the parties need only be “substantially” the same. Moreover, each 

of the four cases concern the same “property” (proceeds from taxi fares), “transaction” (ondemand transportation); and “event” (the advent of UBER and creation of the TNC License.) 

If the intersections and overlaps of the identities of the parties, the property, the transaction, and 

the event were charted in a Venn Diagram using four partially overlapping elipses (elipses are 

Case 4:15-cv-05163-JSW Document 13 Filed 12/18/15 Page 4 of 7
L.A. TAXI v. UBER (#3:15-CV-01257-JST) – Administrative Motion re: Case Relation - 5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

required instead of circles where there are four variables,) the centerpart at which the similarities 

of these aspects were charted would be the most-heavily weighted. The subjects of UBER, taxi 

service, taxi drivers and companies, and monetary damage would all cram its borders. The next 

most-heavily populated areas would be the interior overlaps, containing the CPUC, Lanham Act,

false advertising and unfair competition claims, and constitutional challenges. Almost nothing 

would populate the outlying areas, as there are far more similarities than differences. 

B. Rule 3-12(a)(2): “[I]t appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of 

labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges.” 

Most striking in the relation of the cases are the remedies sought. The L.A. TAXI CASE, 

the ROSEN CASE, the DE SOTO CASE and the A TAXI CASE all seek injunctive relief 

against UBER. All request a jury trial. All seek damages related to the operations of UBER. 

The factual underpinnings of all are the same: taxi companies and drivers, playing by the 

“rules,” have been damaged and are at risk of being put out of business because of the acts of 

UBER, not playing by the rules. There will be huge overlaps in discovery and expert work. If 

these four cases are litigated separately, there will be an incredible duplication of labor and 

expense, and there may well be conflicting holdings. The interests of judicial economy militate 

in favor of finding that the cases are related. 

 2. CONCLUSION: 

 As the L.A. TAXI, ROSEN, DE SOTO, and A TAXI CASES involve many of the same 

allegations related to the same transaction that will require an analysis of overlapping evidence 

and argument, the cases should be deemed related under Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11. 

 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

 CAZZELL & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS

 /S/ Maryann Cazzell, Esq. 

Dated: December 10, 2015 ________________________________ 

 By: MARYANN CAZZELL, ESQ. 

 Attorneys for A WHITE AND YELLOW 

 CAB, INC. dba A TAXI CAB, etc. 

Case 4:15-cv-05163-JSW Document 13 Filed 12/18/15 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE

I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age

of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 406 W. Fourth Street,

Santa Ana, California 92701.

On December 11, 2015 I served the documents described hereinbelow on each

of the parties listed on the attached service list: 

* ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION OF A WHITE AND YELLOW CAB, INC.,

PLAINTIFF IN CASE #4:15-CV-05163-JSW, TO DETERMINE WHETHER

CASES SHOULD BE DEEMED RELATED

* DECLARATION OF MARYANN CAZZELL IN SUPPORT OF

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER CASES

SHOULD BE RELATED (Including Exhibit “A” STIPULATION); and

* [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION OF A

WHITE AND YELLOW CAB, INC. TO HAVE CASES DEEMED

RELATED

xx BY MAIL: I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope addressed as indicated below, with

postage fully prepaid, on the above-mentioned date. I am familiar with the firm's practice

of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal

Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of

party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date is more than one day

after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 

Executed on December 11, 2015 at Santa Ana, California.

xx (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United

States of America that the above is true and correct.

 /S/ Maryann Cazzell

 ______________________________ MARYANN CAZZELL

Case 4:15-cv-05163-JSW Document 13 Filed 12/18/15 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 SERVICE LIST

Counsel for L.A. TAXI PLAINTIFFS: Counsel for L.A. TAXI DEFENDANTS:

Bruce E. Simon, Esq. Andra Barmash Greene, Esq.

Benjamin E. Shiftan, Esq. A. Matthew Ashley, Esq. 

PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP IRELL & MANELLA, L.L.P.

44 Montgomery Street, Ste. 2450 840 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 400 

San Francisco, CA 94104 Newport Beach, CA 92660-6324

Christopher B. Dolan, Esq.

THE DOLAN LAW FIRM

1438 Market Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

Counsel for ROSEN PLAINTIFFS: Counsel for ROSEN DEFENDANTS 

 and A TAXI DEFENDANTS:

Harold. M. Jaffe, Esq. Marshall C. Wallace, Esq.

LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD M. JAFFE ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE

3521 Grand Ave. MALLORY & NATSIS LLP

Oakland, CA 94610 Three Embarcadero Center, 12th Fl.

 San Francisco, CA 94111-4074

Brian W. Newcomb, Esq.

LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN W. NEWCOMB

770 Menlo Avenue, Ste. 101 

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Counsel for DE SOTO PLAINTIFFS: (NO APPEARANCE FOR DE SOTO DEFENDANTS)

 (But see address entry immediately below)

Shannon Michele Seibert, Esq.

Joseph Isaac Bautista, Esq.

SEIBERT & BAUTISTA

100 Pine Street, Ste. 1250

San Francisco, CA 94111 

 Additional A TAXI CASE DEFENDANTS:

 (No appearance yet by counsel) 

 

 Commissioners Picker, Florio, Sandoval,

 Peterman, and Randolph 

 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM.

 505 Van Ness Avenue

 San Francisco, CA 94102-3298

Case 4:15-cv-05163-JSW Document 13 Filed 12/18/15 Page 7 of 7