Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04065/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04065-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Property

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK COTTER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LYFT, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04065-VC 

ORDER RE ORAL ARGUMENT

At the hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the revised class action 

settlement, the parties should be prepared to discuss the following, assuming it is possible to 

gather this information in such a short timeframe:

 What is the maximum possible restitution value under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 

17200 for Lyft's alleged violations of Cal. Labor Code § 351 in the period from 

August 2014 to August 2015, as described by the Complaint in Zamora v. Lyft, 

Inc., No. 16-cv-02558-VC?

 What is the maximum possible restitution value under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 

17200 for Lyft's alleged violations of Cal. Labor Code § 351 in the period from 

August 2015 to the present, as described by the Complaint in Zamora v. Lyft, Inc., 

No. 16-cv-02558-VC?

 Would it be feasible and appropriate to allocate a portion of the existing proposed 

settlement amount to these claims?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 3:13-cv-04065-VC Document 218 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Dated: June 1, 2016

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04065-VC Document 218 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 2