Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00262/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00262-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS O‟CONNOR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC

Case No. 15-cv-00262-EMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 

APPROVAL

O’Connor, Docket No. 518

Yucesoy, Docket No. 206

HAKAN YUCESOY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs brought the instant class action and putative class action against Defendant Uber 

Technologies, Inc., alleging that Uber misclassifies drivers as independent contractors rather than 

employees. O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., Case No. 13-cv-3826-EMC, Docket No. 330 (Second 

Amended Complaint) (SAC) at ¶ 3; Yucesoy v. Uber Techs., Inc., Case No. 15-cv-262-EMC, 

Docket No. 198 (Fourth Amended Complaint) (FAC) at ¶ 2. Following three years of contentious 

litigation, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement shortly before the O’Connor trial was to 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 35
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

begin. O’Connor, Docket No. 518; Yucesoy, Docket No. 206.1

Plaintiffs‟ motions for preliminary approval came on for hearing before the Court on June 

2, 2016. The Court has also reviewed the parties‟ briefing and supplemental briefing, as well as 

the many objections challenging the adequacy of the Settlement Agreement. It also invited and 

considered the comments of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). 

While recognizing sizeable settlement sum and policy changes proposed by the Settlement 

Agreement and the significant risk that drivers face in pursuing this litigation, for the reasons 

explained below, the Court concludes that the Settlement as a whole is not fair, adequate, and 

reasonable and therefore DENIES Plaintiffs‟ motion for preliminary approval.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

The Settlement Agreement at issue covers two lawsuits pending before this Court. 

O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. was brought on behalf of all individuals who worked as 

Uber drivers in California.2 Docket No. 330 (O’Connor Second Amended Complaint) (SAC) at ¶ 

1. O’Connor alleged that Uber misclassified its drivers as independent contractors rather than 

employees. As employees, drivers would be entitled to the protections of the California Labor 

Code, including section 2802, which requires that employees be reimbursed for expenses such as 

gas and use of their vehicle. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 23. Plaintiffs also contend that although Uber advertised 

to customers that gratuity was included in the fare and that there was no need to tip drivers, drivers 

did not receive the total proceeds of any such gratuity. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 20. By failing to remit the full 

gratuity to drivers as required by California Labor Code section 351, Plaintiffs alleged that Uber 

violated California‟s Unfair Competition Law prohibition on unlawful business practices, and they 

sought to recover the portion of the gratuities that Uber withheld. Id. at ¶ 34. These claims, too, 

 

1 All subsequent docket numbers are based on the O’Connor docket, unless otherwise indicated.

2

The O’Connor suit was originally brought on behalf of all individuals who worked as Uber 

drivers in the United States (except in Massachusetts). See Docket No. 1 (Compl.) at ¶ 1. After 

the Court found that the California laws that the O’Connor Plaintiffs relied on did not apply 

extraterritorially, the O’Connor Plaintiffs amended their complaint to be limited to California 

drivers. See Docket No. 136 (Ord. on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings) at 21.

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 2 of 35
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

are predicated on drivers being employees rather than independent contractors.

Uber has argued that because it exercises minimal control over how drivers set their own 

hours and work schedule, its drivers cannot be considered employees. Plaintiffs, on the other 

hand, contend that Uber in fact exercised considerable control and supervision over the methods 

and means of its drivers‟ provision of transportation services, making drivers employees. See id.

at ¶ 21.

Over the course of contentious litigation, the Court has adjudicated a motion to dismiss, for 

judgment on the pleadings, and for summary judgment, as well as numerous motions regarding 

class certification, arbitration, and stays. In its order denying Uber‟s motion for summary 

judgment, the Court applied California‟s two-step process for determining whether a worker is an 

employee or independent contractor. Docket No. 251 (March 11, 2015 Summary Judgment Ord.) 

at 6. First, it found that drivers provide a service to Uber because Uber is ultimately a 

transportation company, albeit a technologically sophisticated one. Id. at 10-11. The fact that 

Uber‟s drivers render a service to Uber created a rebuttable presumption of employment status. 

Id. at 15. Second, the Court applied California‟s Borello multi-factor test, focusing in particular 

on the most significant factor the putative employer‟s “„right to control work details.‟” Id. at 6 

(quoting S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Indust. Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341, 350 (1989)). It 

concluded that the ultimate determination of employment status had to be decided by a jury 

because there were disputes over material questions of fact, such as whether Uber has the right to 

significantly control the “manner and means” of drivers‟ transportation services. Id. at 20-25. The 

Court also found that a jury could reasonably find that the Borello test‟s secondary factors point in 

opposing directions, such that the test did not yield an unambiguous result. Id. at 25-27.

Following its denial of Uber‟s summary judgment motion, the Court certified the following

class: 

All UberBlack, UberX, and UberSUV drivers who have driven for 

Uber in the state of California at any time since August 16, 2009, 

and who (1) signed up to drive directly with Uber or an Uber 

subsidiary under their individual name, and (2) are/were paid by 

Uber or an Uber subsidiary directly and in their individual name, 

and (3) did not electronically accept any contract with Uber or one 

of Uber‟s subsidiaries which contains the notice and opt-out 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 3 of 35
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

provisions previously ordered by this Court (including those 

contracts listed in the Appendix to this Order), unless the driver 

timely opted-out of that contract‟s arbitration agreement.

Docket No. 342 (September 1, 2015 Class Certification Ord.) at 7. The primary effect of this 

order was to limit the class to individuals who did not sign the 2014 arbitration agreements, as the 

Court found that individualized inquiries would be needed to determine whether there was 

procedural unconscionability with respect to those later contracts. Id. at 60-63. The September 1, 

2015 certified class included approximately 8,000 drivers out of the estimated 160,000 California 

drivers. See Docket No. 519 (April 21, 2016 Liss-Riordan Dec.) at ¶ 15; September 1, 2015 Class 

Certification Ord. at 5. Further, the Court only permitted the class to pursue the gratuities claim; it 

did not certify the class to seek the expense reimbursement claim. See September 1, 2015 Class 

Certification Ord. at 66-67. Although Uber sought interlocutory review of this order, the Ninth 

Circuit denied Uber‟s petition for permission to appeal. Docket No. 389.

The parties then filed extensive supplemental briefing concerning whether the class could 

be expanded to include other California drivers who signed the later arbitration agreements, as 

well as whether a class could be certified as to the claim for expense reimbursement under 

California Labor Code section 2802. See Docket Nos. 359, 365. During a hearing on an unrelated 

motion, Plaintiffs‟ counsel for the first time argued that, as to the arbitration agreements, no 

unconscionability analysis was necessary because the arbitration clauses included a non-severable 

waiver of claims brought under California‟s Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), 

which was invalid as a matter of public policy. See Docket No. 379 (Nov. 4, 2015 Trans.) at 34:9-

35:15. 

After further briefing on this matter and oral arguments, the Court certified the following 

subclass of drivers:

All UberBlack, UberX, and UberSUV drivers who have driven for 

Uber in the state of California at any time since August 16, 2009, 

and meet all the following requirements: (1) who signed up to drive 

directly with Uber or an Uber subsidiary under their individual 

name, and (2) are/were paid by Uber or an Uber subsidiary directly 

and in their individual name, and (3) electronically accepted any 

contract with Uber or one of Uber‟s subsidiaries which contain the 

notice and opt-out provisions previously ordered by this Court, and 

did not timely opt out of that contract's arbitration agreement.

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 4 of 35
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Docket No. 395 (December 9, 2015 Class Certification Ord.) at 32. This expanded the certified 

class to over 240,000 drivers. See April 21, 2016 Liss-Riordan Dec., Exh. 1. Both the September 

1, 2015 class and December 9, 2015 subclass were certified to pursue the expense reimbursement 

claim, as well as the gratuities claim. In certifying the December 9, 2015 subclass, the Court

relied on Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014) and Sakkab v. 

Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir. 2015), which had held that a waiver 

of PAGA claims was void as a matter of public policy. December 9, 2015 Class Certification Ord. 

at 24. The Court concluded that this PAGA waiver could not be severed from the remainder of the 

arbitration agreement, rendering the entire arbitration agreement void. Id. Because it relied on 

public policy rather than unconscionability, the Court did not engage in the procedural 

unconscionability analysis that defeated class certification in the original certification motion. Id.3

Two days after the Court found that the arbitration agreement was invalid as a matter of 

public policy, Uber issued a new arbitration agreement (hereafter, the December 2015 Agreement) 

to all Uber drivers, including members of the certified subclass. Plaintiffs in O’Connor, Yucesoy, 

and In re Uber FCRA Litigation filed separate motions to enjoin the December 2015 Agreement, 

arguing that it was an unauthorized communication designed to undermine or discourage 

participation in these and other pending cases against Uber. See Docket No. 435 (Rule 23(d) Ord.) 

 

3

In analyzing the arbitration agreement, the Court noted its earlier ruling of procedural 

unconscionability warranted reconsideration:

the California Supreme Court‟s ruling in Sanchez v. Valencia 

Holding Co., 61 Cal. 4th 899 (2015), cast doubt on the viability of 

the aspects of Gentry on which this Court relied. In Sanchez, the 

California Supreme Court held that the contract drafter “was under 

no obligation to highlight the arbitration clause of its contract, nor 

was it required to specifically call that clause to Sanchez‟s 

attention.” 61 Cal. 4th at 914. “Any state law imposing such an 

obligation would be preempted by the [Federal Arbitration Act].” 

Id. Thus, at the November 4, 2015 hearing on Plaintiff[s‟] motion to 

file a Fourth Amended Complaint, the Court informed the parties 

that it was taking a second look at its procedural unconscionability 

analysis because Gentry’s required disclosure of the disadvantages 

of arbitration was not necessarily consistent with Sanchez’s ruling. 

Docket No. 379 at 8:13-10:23.

December 9, 2015 Class Certification Ord. at 9-10.

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 5 of 35
6

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

at 2. The Court granted the motions pursuant to its Rule 23(d) “power to regulate the notice and 

opt-out processes and to impose limitations when a party engages in behavior that threatens the 

fairness of the litigation.” Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 623 F.3d 743, 756 (9th Cir. 2010), 

judgment vacated on other grounds, 132 S. Ct. 74 (2011). The Court explained that its rulings on 

Uber‟s motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs‟ motions for class certification, including the 

voiding of the arbitration clauses, created a “legal landscape [that] has become materially more 

complicated for the drivers.” Rule 23(d) Ord. at 3-4. While the Court explicitly declined to rule 

on whether the December 2015 Agreement was enforceable, it did conclude that this increasingly 

complex legal landscape required more robust notice to drivers, and ordered that the December 

2015 Agreement could not be enforced without a revised cover letter and arbitration notice with a 

simplified opt-out option. Id. at 6-7. Uber moved to stay the Court‟s order pending appeal,

arguing that the Rule 23(d) Order was unwarranted and burdened its First Amendment rights. 

Docket No. 439 at 2-3. This Court denied the motion; following an appeal of the order, the Ninth 

Circuit also denied to motion to stay. Docket No. 454; Case No. 16-15000, Docket No. 10. 

Uber also moved to stay the case while it sought interlocutory review of the December 9, 

2015 Class Certification Order, which this Court conditionally granted in part and denied in part. 

Docket No. 411. In that order, the Court ruled that the trial could proceed, but that it would not 

enter a final judgment as to the December 9, 2015 subclass if the appeals were still pending. 

Docket No. 429 at 9. The Ninth Circuit denied Uber‟s motion to stay the trial proceedings 

pending appeal. Case No. 15-17420, Docket Nos. 5, 14. However, on April 5, 2016, the Ninth 

Circuit granted Uber‟s petition for permission to appeal the December 9, 2015 Class Certification 

Order per Rule 23(f). Docket No. 512 (Case No. 15-80220, Docket No. 9). Uber immediately 

filed a new motion for this Court to stay the case, which remains pending.

In the meantime, Yucesoy was filed on behalf of all Massachusetts drivers, bringing similar

claims for independent contractor misclassification, violation of the Massachusetts Tips law, 

tortious interference with contractual and/or advantageous relations, unjust enrichment/quantum 

meruit, breach of contract, and violation of the Massachusetts minimum wage and overtime law. 

Yucesoy, Docket No. 27 (First Amended Complaint). After the Court ruled on three motions to 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 6 of 35
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

dismiss, the remaining claims in Yucesoy are: (1) independent contractor misclassification (and 

attendant failure to pay business expenses), (2) violation of the Massachusetts tips law, and (3) 

tortious interference with advantageous relations. Yucesoy, Docket No. 198 (Fourth Amended 

Complaint). No motion for class certification has been brought in the Yucesoy case.

B. Settlement Agreement

1. Monetary Terms

Shortly before the trial in O’Connor was scheduled to commence, the Yucesoy and 

O’Connor Plaintiffs entered into a Settlement Agreement with Uber. Under this Agreement, Uber 

has agreed to pay $84 million, plus an additional $16 million contingent on an initial public 

offering (IPO) reaching one-and-a-half times Uber‟s most recent valuation (i.e., about $93.75 

billion). April 21, 2016 Liss-Riordan Dec., Exh. 6 (Settlement Agreement) at ¶¶ 58, 125. Of the 

$84 million, $300,000 will be used for class administration, a maximum of $73,000 will be 

allocated for enhancement payments to the named Plaintiffs and other Settlement Class members 

who contributed to the litigation, and $8.7 million will be treated as wages reported on IRS Form 

W-2. Settlement Agreement at ¶¶ 125, 129, 133. Plaintiffs‟ counsel is also permitted to seek a fee 

and expense award of up to 25% of the Settlement Fund ($21 to $25 million), although Plaintiffs‟ 

counsel has since informed the Court that she will reduce her fee request by $10 million. 

Settlement Agreement at ¶ 134; Docket No. 699 at 2. The $10 million reduction is made 

regardless of whether the $16 million contingency is triggered, thus resulting in an additional $10 

million for distribution to the class. Docket No. 699 at 2 n.1.

The remaining Settlement Fund will be separated into two funds: approximately $5.5 to 6 

million for the Massachusetts drivers, and $56 to 66.9 million for the California drivers.4 

Settlement Agreement at ¶ 144. A driver must submit a claim form to receive a payment. 

Settlement Agreement at ¶ 138. The driver‟s payment is based on the number of miles driven for 

Uber. Settlement Agreement at ¶ 145. Drivers may also receive “double weight” for their 

mileage if they opted out of Uber‟s 2013 and 2014 arbitration agreements, and if they are 

 

4

This amount does not include the $10 million that Plaintiffs‟ counsel has reduced her attorney‟s 

fee request by.

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 7 of 35
8

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

members of the O’Connor certified class. Settlement Agreement at ¶ 144. If a driver both opted 

out and is a member of the O’Connor certified class, he or she will receive quadruple weight for 

his or her mileage. Docket No. 617 (May 20, 2016 Joint Supp. Briefing) at 4. Assuming a 100% 

claim rate, Plaintiffs‟ counsel estimates that California certified class members will receive an 

average distribution of $24 to $1,950, California non-certified class members will receive an 

average distribution of $10 to $836, and Massachusetts drivers will receive an average distribution 

of $12 to $979. April 21, 2016 Liss-Riordan Dec., Exh. 1. For example, of the 243,320 California 

drivers who were part of the certified class, if all drivers filed claims, the 122,297 drivers who 

drove between 0-750 miles will receive an average distribution of $24, while the 42,074 drivers 

who drove between 750-2,000 miles would receive an average distribution of $89. On the higher 

end of the scale, the 7,534 drivers who drove over 25,000 miles would receive an average 

distribution of $1,950. Of the 60,047 Massachusetts drivers, the 33,040 drivers who drove 

between 0-750 miles would receive an average of $12, the 9,258 drivers who drove between 750-

2,000 miles would receive an average of $45, and the 1,489 drivers who drove over 25,000 miles 

would receive an average of $979. In sum, the vast majority of class members are slated to 

receive less than $100 each from the settlement.

The parties expect a 40% claim rate, which would increase the monetary amount paid to

each claimant. See May 20, 2016 Joint Supp. Briefing at 58.

2. Non-Monetary Relief

In addition to the monetary payment, Uber has agreed to implement various forms of nonmonetary relief. First, Uber has agreed to publish a comprehensive, written deactivation policy. 

Settlement Agreement at ¶ 135(a). Driver deactivation will only be allowed for sufficient cause, 

and low passenger acceptance rates will not be grounds for deactivation (although it would subject 

drivers to being logged out of the app for a limited period of time). Settlement Agreement at ¶ 

135(a)(i); see also Driver Deactivation Policy - US ONLY, Uber, 

https://www.uber.com/legal/other/driver-deactivation-us-english/ (last visited August 3, 2016)

(Uber Deactivation Policy). A driver may still be deactivated for having a high rate of 

cancellation, i.e., where the driver initially accepted the fare but then canceled it (in contrast to 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 8 of 35
9

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

never accepting the fare to begin with). See Uber Deactivation Policy. Uber will also provide at 

least two advance warnings before a driver is deactivated for reasons other than safety issues, 

discrimination, fraud, or illegal conduct (each, an “excluded matter”). Settlement Agreement at ¶¶ 

135(a)(iii)-(iv). If a driver is deactivated, Uber will provide the driver with an explanation for the 

deactivation. Settlement Agreement at ¶ 135(a)(v). A deactivated driver may appeal the decision 

to a Driver Appeal Panel, unless the deactivation resulted from certain circumstances such as low 

star ratings, criminal activity, physical altercations, or sexual misconduct. Settlement Agreement 

at ¶ 135(a)(vi). In addition, except for the excluded matters (e.g., safety issues, discrimination, 

fraud, or illegal conduct), drivers whose user accounts are deactivated will have the opportunity to 

take a “quality improvement course” and be reactivated upon completion of the course. 

Settlement Agreement at ¶ 135(a)(vii).

Second, Uber will provide more information regarding star ratings. Settlement Agreement 

at ¶ 135(d). Uber will also “consider” changes such as informing drivers how they rank against 

their peers, providing warnings when driver ratings go below a certain threshold, and warning 

drivers when their user accounts are at risk of deactivation for going below a certain threshold.

Third, the parties stipulate to the enforceability of the December 2015 Agreement. 

Settlement Agreement at ¶ 135(e). In exchange, Uber will pay for the filing and administrative 

arbitration fees in: (1) cases based on an alleged employment relationship between Uber and 

drivers, and (2) cases arising out of a final deactivation of a driver in the event of an excluded 

matter. The parties also agree to stipulate to vacating (retrospectively) this Court‟s Rule 23(d) 

Orders, and they agree that Uber has the option of voiding the Settlement Agreement should the 

Court not vacate these orders. Plaintiffs also agree to withdraw the charges filed with the National 

Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on behalf of John Billington and Catherine London, challenging 

the enforceability of the 2014 arbitration agreements as a violation of the National Labor Relations 

Act, and will not further cooperate with the NLRB‟s investigation unless compelled by subpoena 

or court order. Settlement Agreement at ¶ 33.

Fourth, Uber will institute an internal process for drivers to raise concerns regarding the 

payment of specific fares in California and Massachusetts. Settlement Agreement at ¶ 135(f).

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 9 of 35
10

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Fifth, Uber will collaborate with Plaintiffs regarding the creation and funding of a driver 

association as a means of “opening a dialogue between Uber and Drivers.” Settlement Agreement 

at ¶ 135(g). The association‟s leaders are to be elected by drivers, and the leaders will have the 

opportunity to meet quarterly with Uber management to discuss driver concerns. Settlement 

Agreement at ¶¶ 135(g)(iv)-(v). The driver association will not be a union, and will have no right 

to bargain collectively with Uber. Settlement Agreement at ¶¶ 135(g)(ii)-(iii). The parties 

provided little detail on how the driver association will work in practice (in part due to the 

expected autonomy of each driver association), including what obligations Uber will have to fund 

the driver association.

Finally, Uber will make good-faith efforts to clarify its messaging to riders regarding 

tipping, i.e. that tips are not included in fares (except for UberTAXI), but that they are neither 

expected nor required. Settlement Agreement at ¶ 135(h); May 20, 2016 Joint Supp. Briefing at 

18. Drivers will be permitted to put up signs requesting tips, although the parties disagree on 

whether this actually constitutes a change in policy. See May 20, 2016 Joint Supp. Briefing at 18 

n.24 (“Uber expressly disputes Plaintiffs‟ claim that Uber‟s policy with respect to tipping signage 

will change as a result of this settlement”).

3. Scope of the Class and Released Claims

The Settlement Agreement covers “all Drivers in California and Massachusetts who have 

used the Uber App at any time since August 16, 2009, up to and including the Preliminary 

Approval Date.” Settlement Agreement at ¶ 103. Thus, the settlement class releasing claims will 

not only include the O’Connor certified class, but (1) all California drivers for Uber including

California drivers who had been excluded by the class definition, i.e., drivers who drove for a 

third-party transportation company or who used fictitious or corporate names; and (2) all 

Massachusetts drivers.

Furthermore, although the O’Connor and Yucesoy cases were limited to claims based on 

expense reimbursement and the payment of tips, the Settlement Agreement contains an expansive

release provision: it will require settlement class members – all drivers in California and 

Massachusetts – to release all claims based on or reasonably related to the employment 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 10 of 35
11

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

misclassification claim, i.e., overtime, minimum wage, meal and rest breaks, and workers‟ 

compensation. Settlement Agreement at ¶ 105.5 The Settlement Agreement requires that the 

Plaintiffs file amended complaints expanding the causes of action to include all claims related to 

the alleged misclassification of drivers as independent contractors. See Settlement Agreement at ¶ 

29 and Exhs. A (Proposed Yucesoy Fifth Amended Complaint), B (Proposed O’Connor Fifth 

Amended Complaint). As a result, the Settlement Agreement will cover claims that are brought in

at least fifteen other lawsuits currently pending in federal and California state courts, effectively 

terminating those suits.

6

 Settlement Agreement at ¶ 28. It could also affect proceedings pending 

before various administrative bodies such as the NLRB. See NLRB v. Uber Techs., Inc., Board 

Case Nos. 20-CA-160717, 20-CA-160720 (filed September 24, 2015) (complainants required by 

Settlement Agreement to withdraw charges).7 The Settlement Agreement will also settle all civil 

penalties potentially due under PAGA, ending in all likelihood all currently pending PAGA 

litigation against Uber in the other lawsuits. Settlement Agreement at ¶ 105. Because PAGA is an 

action on behalf of the State, the PAGA settlement included in the Settlement Agreement would 

prohibit any other driver from bringing a PAGA claim (or obtaining relief through a PAGA 

 

5 Uber also contends that the release would also apply to “claims based on or reasonably relating 

to the conduct alleged in the proposed settlement complaint, regardless of whether classification as 

an employee is technically a requirement of that claim.” Docket No. 732 (July 15, 2016 Joint 

Supp. Briefing) at 26. For example, Uber would argue that a claim “based on or reasonably 

related to an alleged entitlement to a tip, even though that driver may or may not also allege she 

was an Uber employee” would be released by the Settlement Agreement. Id. at 26-27.

6

These lawsuits include: (1) Price v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. BC554512; (2) Del Rio v. 

Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-3667-EMC; (3) Berger v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 

Case No. 3:16-cv-41-MEJ; (4) In re Uber FCRA Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-5200-EMC; (5) 

Ghazi v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545532; (6) Richardson v. Uber 

Technologies, Inc., Case No. RG15775562; (7) Zine v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 

BC591351; (8) Narsi v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. BC599027; (9) Tabola v. Uber 

Technologies, Inc., Case No. CGC-16-550992; (10) Barajas v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 

CGC-16-550198; (11) Aquino v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. BC608873; (12) Adzhemyan 

v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. BC608874; (13) Gollnick v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case 

No. CGC-15-547878; (14) Mokeddas v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. RG16807483; and (15) 

Berwick v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-546378 (appeal of Labor Commissioner 

award). See Settlement Agreement at ¶ 28.

7

See NLRB v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 16-80057-KAW (N.D. Cal.) Docket No. 31 

(motion by Uber to stay NLRB‟s application for order enforcing subpoenas because of pendency 

of motion for preliminary approval of settlement herein).

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 11 of 35
12

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

representative suit) for the time period up to preliminary approval, even if that driver opts out of 

the Settlement Agreement. See Docket No. 732 (July 15, 2016 Joint Supp. Briefing) at 23; Docket 

No. 736 (Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) Resp.) at 2.

Finally, as noted above, the parties stipulate to the enforceability of the December 2015 

Agreement, as well as to vacating the Court‟s December 2015 Rule 23(d) Order and January 19, 

2016 Order regarding the arbitration agreement‟s notice provision and corrective cover letter

(collectively, the Rule 23(d) Orders). Settlement Agreement at ¶ 135(e). The effect of such 

action, if agreed to by the Court, would be to retroactively strip drivers of the protections afforded 

by this Court‟s Rule 23(d) order. If the Court does not agree to vacate these orders, Uber is 

permitted to void the Settlement Agreement.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), “[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a 

certified class may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court‟s 

approval.” As the Ninth Circuit has explained, “[t]he purpose of Rule 23(e) is to protect the 

unnamed members of the class from unjust or unfair settlements affecting their rights.” In re 

Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, before a court approves a 

settlement, it must conclude that the settlement is “fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” 

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Allen v. Bedolla, 787 

F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir. 2015) (same). This inquiry:

requires the district court to balance a number of factors: the 

strength of the plaintiff‟s case; the risk, expense, complexity, and 

likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class 

action status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; 

the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; 

the experience and views of counsel; the presence of a government 

participant; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed 

settlement.

Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026; see also Churchill Vill. L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (same). “In determining whether the proposed settlement falls within the range of 

reasonableness, perhaps the most important factor to consider is plaintiffs‟ expected recovery 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 12 of 35
13

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

balanced against the value of the settlement offer.” Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-4065-VC, 

-- F. Supp. 3d --, 2016 WL 1394236, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2016) (internal quotation omitted); 

see also Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT -

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, http://cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance 

(last visited August 12, 2016). While it is not necessarily unusual or improper for a class action 

settlement agreement to release claims not originally brought by the plaintiff, the court must 

consider the strength and value of those claims in deciding whether to approve the settlement. See 

Cotter, 2016 WL 1394236, at *4.

“[W]hether a settlement is fundamentally fair within the meaning of Rule 23(e) is different 

from the question whether the settlement is perfect in the estimation of the reviewing court.” Lane 

v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 819 (9th Cir. 2012). However, “when . . . the settlement takes 

place before formal class certification, settlement approval requires a „higher standard of 

fairness.‟” Id.; see also Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026 (“settlement approval that takes place prior to 

formal class certification requires a higher standard of fairness [because t]he dangers of collusion 

between class counsel and the defendant, as well as the need for additional protections when the 

settlement is not negotiated by a court[-]designated class representative, weigh in favor of a more 

probing inquiry than may normally be required under Rule 23(e)”). This more “exacting review”

is warranted “to ensure that class representatives and their counsel do not secure a disproportionate 

benefit at the expense of the unnamed plaintiffs who class counsel had a duty to represent.” Lane, 

696 F.3d at 819 (internal quotation omitted).

In this case, because the Settlement Agreement covers the claims of both certified class 

members and drivers who fall outside the class definition and thus have not been certified (for 

example, all Massachusetts drivers and the California drivers who drove for a third-party 

transportation company or under a corporate name), this Court must apply the more “exacting” 

standard in determining whether this settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Further, with 

respect to all of the drivers, the parties propose to release all claims related to misclassification,

including many which had not been brought in this case. This not only results in the addition of 

claims that Plaintiffs‟ counsel may not have fully investigated or reviewed, but would also 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 13 of 35
14

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

eliminate at least fifteen other cases pending in California courts wherein the claims sought to be 

added and waived herein are being litigated. See Settlement Agreement at ¶ 28. Thus, exacting 

review is additionally warranted as newly added claims have not been subject to class 

certification. Moreover, as this Court has noted, the Court must be especially sensitive to the risk 

of collusion or a less than full adversarial process where claims pending in other lawsuits are 

released for minimal value, in order to induce the defendant to settle this case.

8

 See Docket No. 

724 at 9.

Courts implementing Rule 23(e) have required a two-step process for the approval of class 

action settlements: the Court first determines whether class action settlement deserves preliminary 

approval and then, after notice is given to class members, whether final approval is warranted. In 

re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., Case No. 11-CV-2509-LHK, 2014 WL 3917126, at *3 (N.D. 

Cal. Aug. 8, 2014). As a general matter, “there is relatively scant appellate authority regarding the 

standard that a district court must apply in reviewing a settlement at the preliminary approval 

stage.” Id. Some district courts “have stated that the relevant inquiry is whether the settlement 

„falls within the range of possible approval‟ or „within the range of reasonableness,‟” looking at 

factors such as whether the settlement is the product of non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious 

deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments 

of the class, and falls within the range of possible approval. Id.; see also Harris v. Vector Mktng. 

Corp., Case No. C-08-5198-EMC, 2011 WL 1627973, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011). Although 

the Ninth Circuit has not specified what standard should apply at the preliminary approval stage, 

“district courts often state or imply that scrutiny should be more lax.” Cotter v. Lyft, Case No. 13-

cv-4065-VC, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2016 WL 3561742, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2016).

More recently, in Cotter, Judge Chhabria questioned this “lax review,” finding that:

lax review makes little practical sense, from anyone‟s standpoint. If 

the district court, by taking a quick look rather than a careful one, 

misses a serious flaw in the settlement, the parties and the court will 

 

8

This is not to suggest there is something inherently wrong with releases that are broader than the 

complaint; however, the reviewing court must examine, inter alia, the verdict value of all claims 

released, not just those alleged in the complaint (and the benefit obtained by the defendant in 

averting existing litigation) in assessing the reasonableness of the suit.

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 14 of 35
15

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

waste a great deal of money and time notifying class members of the 

agreement, only to see it rejected in the end, requiring the parties to 

start over. The same is true if the district court does identify a 

potentially serious flaw at the preliminary stage but waits until final 

approval to conclude that it‟s fatal. What‟s worse, if a court waits 

until the final approval stage to thoroughly assess the fairness of the 

agreement, momentum could have a way of slanting the inquiry, in a 

manner that deprives the class members of the court protection that 

Rule 23 demands.

Id. at *4. “[B]y scrutinizing the agreement carefully at the initial stage and identifying any flaws 

that can be identified, the court allows the parties to decide how to respond to those flaws (whether 

by fixing them or opting not to settle) before they waste a great deal of time and money in the 

notice and opt-out process.” Id.

The Court finds Judge Chhabria‟s view persuasive, particularly where, as here, the class 

includes nearly 400,000 individuals, and thus a great deal of expense would be incurred and 

substantial confusion could ensue were the Settlement Agreement preliminarily approved but 

ultimately disapproved on final review. And, as noted above, close review is particularly 

warranted where Plaintiffs seek to add new claims and drivers not previously certified, and the 

settlement would settle not only the instant case but claims brought in at least fifteen other

pending lawsuits for relatively modest value. Further, the Settlement Agreement at issue has 

already been the subject of numerous objections challenging its adequacy even at the preliminary 

approval stage. As Judge Chhabria explained, it makes little sense to apply a lax standard at the 

preliminary approval stage to factors already known and amenable to analysis. Instead, the Court 

finds it more prudent to apply with full force the factors articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Hanlon

and Churchill Village, while recognizing that some of these factors – such as the reaction of class 

members – are not currently known and cannot be assessed at the stage of preliminary approval

and thus would have to await the stage of final approval.

B. Hanlon Approval Factors

1. Strength of the Plaintiffs‟ Case; the Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely 

Duration of Further Litigation; and the Risk of Maintaining Class Action Status

In considering the first three factors, the Court looks at the risks to both Plaintiffs and Uber 

in continuing this litigation. 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 15 of 35
16

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

a. Risks to Drivers

The most obvious risk to Plaintiffs is, of course, that the Ninth Circuit will uphold the 

validity of the arbitration provision contained in the 2013 and/or 2014 agreements, which this 

Court found was invalid as a matter of public policy in certifying the December 9, 2015 Subclass. 

See Ben Hancock, Uber ADR Pact May Get Green Light, THE RECORDER, June 16, 2016 (“A 

panel of federal appeals judges gave clear signs Thursday that it is ready to reverse a lower court 

decision finding the arbitration agreements that Uber Technologies Inc. circulated to its drivers 

were unenforceable”); Bonnie Eslinger, 9th Cir. Leans Toward Restoring Uber Arbitration Pacts, 

LAW360, June 16, 2016. This risk is heightened by the Ninth Circuit‟s decision to grant Uber‟s 

petition for permission to appeal the December 9, 2015 Class Certification Order. See Docket No. 

512. A finding that one or both of the arbitration clauses is valid and enforceable would 

substantially change the scope and course of Plaintiffs‟ case, as it would likely require the vast 

majority of the class to go to arbitration on their non-PAGA claims, thus jeopardizing the scope 

and potential viability of the class action at bar. Plaintiffs face a considerable risk that they will 

not proceed as a class action in any court, or at least be limited to a class action greatly reduced in 

size. Even if the Ninth Circuit were to limit a finding of enforceability to the more recent 

contracts, and hold only the 2013 arbitration agreement not to be enforceable, this could 

substantially decrease the class from approximately 240,000 drivers to 8,000 drivers, dramatically 

lowering any class monetary recovery that Plaintiffs might obtain through the class action. See

April 21, 2016 Liss-Riordan Dec. at ¶ 15. Requiring the drivers to arbitrate their claims 

individually will likely reduce by a substantial degree overall recovery for drivers, as typically 

only a fraction of individuals pursue arbitration.

In addition to this risk to maintaining class action status, as this Court has previously 

noted, Plaintiffs face risks on the merits of the case. The fundamental question of whether Uber 

drivers are employees or independent contractors is not a simple one. As this Court held in 

denying Uber‟s motions for summary judgment, there are factors under the Borello analysis that 

support each side‟s position. While the Court found that drivers performed a service for Uber and 

were therefore presumptively employees, it found that questions of fact existed as to the primary 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 16 of 35
17

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Borello inquiry of Uber‟s control over the drivers. March 11, 2015 Class Certification Ord. at 15, 

25. For example, although drivers could choose their own days and hours or work, Uber 

controlled certain aspects of driver performance; for instance, Uber could terminate individuals 

with low acceptance rates. Id. at 21-25. Moreover, as to the secondary factors set forth in Borello, 

the Court found that these factors cut both ways. Id. at 25-26. Several factors pointed in favor of 

employment status, such as: (1) driving is an occupation that typically does not require close 

supervision, (2) driving does not require a special skill, and (3) the drivers were performing a 

regular and integral part of Uber‟s business. Id. at 26. On the other side, several factors favored 

independent contractor status, including: (1) the drivers‟ use of their own vehicles, (2) the ability 

of drivers to employ other drivers to drive on their own behalf, and (3) the drivers signing an 

agreement stating no employment relationship was created. Id. As a result, should the issue of 

employee versus independent contractor status proceed to trial, it would be up to the jury to make 

the ultimate determination, the outcome of which cannot be predicted with any certainty. See id.

at 27 (finding that “[t]he application of the traditional test of employment – a test which evolved 

under an economic model very different from the new „sharing economy‟ – to Uber‟s business 

model creates significant challenges”); Cotter, 2016 WL 3561742, at *5 (“there is no straight 

answer to the question whether those drivers must be classified as employees or independent 

contractors under California law”); cf. Alatraqchi v. Uber Techs., Inc.,

9 Case No. 13-cv-3156-JSC, 

Docket No. 9 at 6-9 (attaching California Labor Commissioner‟s August 1, 2012 decision, which 

found that a driver was an independent contractor) with Berwick v. Uber Techs., Inc., Case No. 11-

46739 EK (June 3, 2015), available at 

http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1988&context=historical (last 

visited August 5, 2016) (performing Borello analysis and concluding that a driver was Uber‟s 

 

9 Of note, in Alatraqchi, the California Labor Commissioner found that Uber‟s “business was 

engaged in technology and not in the transportation industry,” and thus the services Alatraqchi 

“provided were not part of the business operated by [Uber].” Alatraqchi v. Uber Techs., Inc., Case 

No. 13-cv-3156-JSC, Docket No. 9 at 8. This Court came to the oppose conclusion, finding that 

“it is clear that Uber is most certainly a transportation company, albeit a technologically 

sophisticated one. In fact, as noted above, Uber‟s own marketing bears this out, referring to Uber 

as „Everyone‟s Private Driver,‟ and describing Uber as a “transportation system‟ and the „best 

transportation service in San Francisco.‟” March 11, 2015 Summary Judgment Ord. at 10-11.

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 17 of 35
18

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

employee).

Moreover, even if drivers were determined at trial to be employees, Uber challenges 

recovery on their claims. For instance, with respect to the expense reimbursement claim, 

Plaintiffs‟ counsel noted that Uber intended to argue that it already structured the fare to be “allinclusive that takes into account things like expenses.” April 21, 2016 Liss-Riordan Dec. at ¶ 31 

(citing Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., 42 Cal. 4th 554, 559 (2007) (“We conclude that an 

employer may satisfy its statutory reimbursement obligation by paying employees enhanced 

compensation in the form of increases in base salary or increases in commission rates, or both, 

provided there is a means or method to apportion the enhanced compensation to determine what 

amount is being paid for labor performed and what amount is reimbursement for business 

expenses”)). 

Plaintiffs‟ counsel also notes that there is a risk as to which IRS mileage reimbursement 

rate would apply. Plaintiffs have argued for use of the fixed rate while Uber would likely 

advocate for use of the variable rate, a potential reduction of 60%. Id. at ¶¶ 33-34. Further, as to 

Massachusetts drivers, Plaintiffs perceive an additional risk because Massachusetts does not have 

an express expense reimbursement statute, and thus recovery for expenses in Massachusetts may 

be less likely. Mot. at 23 n.25; May 20, 2016 Joint Supp. Briefing at 7 (“the law is not entirely 

established in Massachusetts as to whether employees may recover unreimbursed business 

expenses from their employers”). Similarly, Plaintiffs acknowledged risks to their tips claim, 

should a jury find that Uber‟s communications indicating that “tip is included” in a fare were too 

variable or not widespread enough to conclude that a tip was actually included. April 21, 2016 

Liss-Riordan Dec. at ¶ 45.

There are additional risks to the claims the parties seek to add to this case and for which 

releases are sought. First, as to meal and rest breaks, California courts have found liability for 

failure to provide such breaks when the employer lacked a policy authorizing and permitting 

breaks. E.g., Benton v. Telecon Network Specialists, Inc., 220 Cal. App. 4th 701, 725-26 (2013). 

But Uber states that it has set up a system in which “drivers log in and out whenever they want, so 

that there can never be any circumstance in which a driver might feel pressure (even implicitly) 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 18 of 35
19

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

not to take a break. In other words, Uber‟s entire system can be understood to constitute a policy 

of „permitting‟ or „authorizing‟ breaks whenever a driver wants.” July 15, 2016 Joint Supp. 

Briefing at 11. There has been little argument that Uber drivers lack the freedom to choose their 

days and hours of work (although there has been evidence of the control Uber exercises over 

drivers when they do report to work), see March 11, 2015 Summary Judgment Ord. at 25, creating 

a potential risk that a jury would find that Uber had not deprived its drivers of meal and rest 

breaks.

Second, with respect to minimum wage and overtime, the primary question appears to be 

whether drivers would be entitled to compensation for time spent waiting to perform a task. See

Docket No. 724 at 11. This Court previously dismissed with prejudice the minimum wage and 

overtime claims in Yucesoy, finding that Plaintiffs had failed to plead specific facts to support their 

claim that waiting time should be compensable. Yucesoy, Docket No. 194 at 10-11. For example, 

there Plaintiffs did not explain how often ride requests came in, how many requests they had to 

accept, and the magnitude of the risk of deactivation if requests were not accepted. Id. In so 

finding, the Court looked to the Ninth Circuit‟s test in Fair Labor Standards Act cases, the same 

test applied by California courts. Id.; Gomez v. Lincare, Inc., 173 Cal. App. 4th 508, 523 (looking 

to the Ninth Circuit‟s test to determine whether an employee was free to engage in personal 

activities while on call).10 While the Court does not conclude that drivers could not prevail on this 

claim were sufficient allegations pleaded and evidence presented, there are significant risks.

11

Finally, regarding the workers‟ compensation claims, the Court notes that the settlement is 

not intended to release individual workers‟ compensation claims or personal injury claims against 

 

10 While the Price objectors cited the California Supreme Court‟s decision in Mendiola v. CPS 

Security Solutions for the proposition that “on-call or standby time may require compensation”

under California law, the California Supreme Court went on to explain that to determine whether 

on-call time constitutes compensable time requires a determination of the extent of the employer‟s 

control. 60 Cal. 4th 833, 840 (2015). To make this determination, the California Supreme Court 

applied the same FLSA factors that this Court used in Yucesoy.

11 On the other hand, Uber could be found liable for waiting time given their prior policy of 

deactivating drivers for low acceptance rates, and their present policy of suspending drivers for 

low acceptance rates. See Uber Deactivation Policy. Again, the problem with the pleadings in 

Yucesoy was that Plaintiffs had failed to plead sufficient facts in their complaint, despite it being 

their fourth complaint in that action. Yucesoy, Docket No. 194 at 10-11.

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 19 of 35
20

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

an employer who failed to carry workers‟ compensation insurance. July 15, 2016 Joint Supp. 

Briefing at 14. Rather, what is at issue is a claim in which a driver challenges Uber‟s failure to 

obtain workers‟ compensation insurance, and seeks to recover Uber‟s “savings” from not 

obtaining such insurance under California‟s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). See Docket No. 592 

(Ghazi Obj.) at 1-2. There is a risk that such a claim could not be enforced through the UCL, as 

the California Supreme Court has generally found that the UCL cannot be used to recover money 

in which the plaintiff does not have an ownership interest. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin 

Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1143-53 (2003). While the State has brought a similar claim under the UCL, 

see People ex rel. Harris v. Pac. Anchor Transp., Inc., 59 Cal. 4th 772, 775-76 (2014), it is not 

clear that private individuals could recover under such a claim, in light of Korea Supply Co.12

b. Risks to Uber

While Plaintiffs thus face substantial risks both in their ability to maintain class 

certification and on the merits, the Court reiterates that Uber also faces substantial risks of losing

on the misclassification question. As noted above, in its March 11, 2015 Summary Judgment 

Order, this Court held, as a matter of law, “Uber‟s drivers render service to Uber, and thus are 

Uber‟s presumptive employees.” March 11, 2015 Summary Judgment Ord. at 15. Thus, the 

burden is on Uber to disprove an employment relationship, both in California and in 

Massachusetts. Id. at 16; see also Sebago v. Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc., 471 Mass. 321, 327 

(2015) (“an individual performing any service is presumed to be an employee[, and t]he purported 

employer may rebut the presumption of employment by establishing . . . three indicia of an 

independent contractor relationship”) (internal quotations omitted). While Uber has emphasized

that drivers are free to pick and choose when they work, this Court has found that this freedom 

 

12 As for the remaining claims, some require a finding of willfulness (e.g., Cal. Lab. Code § 203 

(“[i]f an employer willfully fails to pay . . . any wages of an employee who is charged or who 

quits”) (emphasis added); Cal. Lab. Code § 1174.5 (“Any person employing labor who willfully

fails to main the records required . . . shall be subject to a civil penalty of five hundred dollars 

($500)”) (emphasis added); Cal. Lab. Code § 226.8 (concerning “willful misclassification”)) or 

injury (e.g., Cal. Lab. Code § 226(e)(1) (requiring injury for failure to furnish accurate wage 

statement to be entitled to recover damages or penalty), while other claims have problems of proof 

(e.g., April 21, 2016 Liss-Riordan Dec. at ¶ 75 (no evidence that Uber delays final payment to 

deactivated drivers).

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 20 of 35
21

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

does not preclude a finding of an employment relationship, as the more relevant inquiry is how 

much control Uber exercises over drivers while they are on duty for Uber. March 11, 2015 

Summary Judgment Ord. at 25. Judge Chhabria recognized in Cotter that:

although a jury could be tempted to conclude that people who drove 

only sporadically for Lyft should be independent contractors, it 

seems equally likely that the jury could analogize Lyft drivers to 

restaurant workers who work in multiple venues, but only 

occasionally at each particular venue. There is no dispute that, 

under California law, someone who picks up a couple of restaurant 

shifts here and there is an „employee‟ of that restaurant (along with 

any other restaurant where he works”).

Cotter, 2016 WL 1394236 at *11. And just as Judge Chhabria found that “if the jury reached a 

similar conclusion about Lyft drivers, the consequences for Lyft would be enormous,” the Court 

concludes that the consequence for Uber of an adverse jury verdict would be substantial. Id.

Next, even if Uber were to prevail on its argument that the 2013 and/or 2014 arbitration 

agreements were enforceable, it would face substantial risks and costs absent settlement. First, 

PAGA claims13 cannot be compelled to arbitration. See Iskanian, 59 Cal. 4th at 360; Sakkab, 803 

F.3d at 431-40.

14 Thus, the employment classification question could still be decided by this or 

another court in the adjudication of a PAGA claim. See Docket No. 593 (Richardson Obj.).15 

Should a court conclude that Uber drivers are, in fact, employees, both Plaintiffs and the LWDA 

conclude the statutory penalty against Uber would exceed $1 billion. See LWDA Resp. at 3. 

 

13 This Court has not ruled on whether Plaintiffs may bring PAGA claims for violations of 

California Labor Code sections 351 and 2802; the issue remains under submission in O’Connor. 

See Docket No. 401 at 5.

14 While Plaintiffs have suggested that there is a “significant risk” that the Supreme Court will 

determine that PAGA claims are arbitrable, see July 15, 2016 Joint Supp. Briefing at 27 n.26, the 

Supreme Court has twice denied review of Iskanian‟s holding. CLS Transp. L.A., LLC v. 

Iskanian, 135 S. Ct. 1155 (2015) (denying petition for writ of certiorari); Carmax Auto 

Superstores Cal., LLC v. Areso, No. 15-235, 2015 WL 5005244, at *1 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2015) 

(denying petition for writ of certiorari on the question of whether Iskanian is preempted by the 

FAA).

15 There is a substantial likelihood that a PAGA suit would not be stayed pending arbitration. If 

the PAGA representative has opted out of arbitration, there is no obvious basis for a stay. Even if 

the representative has not opted out and thus has both nonarbitrable and arbitrable claims to 

prosecute, the decision to stay pending arbitration rests with the court‟s discretion. See ESAB 

Grp., Inc. v. Zurich Ins. PLC, 685 F.3d 376, 394-95 (4th Cir. 2012); United Commc’ns. Hub, Inc. 

v. Qwest Commc’ns. Inc., 46 Fed. Appx 412, 415 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 21 of 35
22

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Further, such a PAGA judgment could have an influential and perhaps even binding effect on 

Uber in arbitration. In Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969, 985 (2009), the defendants argued

that it would be unfair not to impose class action requirements for PAGA claims because “the 

defendant would be a party to every lawsuit while each of the various plaintiffs would be a party 

in only one lawsuit, [and therefore] the defendant would in later lawsuits be bound by any adverse 

determination of the common issues, while none of the plaintiffs would be similarly bound by 

prior determinations in the defendant‟s favor.” The California Supreme Court concluded, 

however, there was no unfairness because a PAGA judgment would be “binding not only on the 

named employee plaintiff but also on government agencies and any aggrieved employee not a 

party to the proceeding.” Id.

Second, if one or more drivers were not bound by arbitration (e.g., because like the class 

representatives in O’Connor, they opted out of arbitration), they would be free to litigate the 

merits of their claims, again raising the prospect that were Uber to lose on the merits of the 

classification question, that judgment would affect the outcome of arbitrations. Simply put, 

without the benefit of the release and waiver conferred by the Settlement Agreement, Uber still 

faces a substantial risk of litigation.

Further, even if the class were wholly or partially decertified and hundreds of thousands of 

drivers were remitted to arbitration, if even a fraction of the 380,000 drivers invoked arbitration, 

the mere transactional costs for Uber (in the absence of the broad release effected by the 

Settlement Agreement) of arbitrating thousands of cases would be substantial, not to mention the 

risks of findings of liability and imposition of damages (which for any driver could well be ten 

times greater than the award scheduled under the Settlement Agreement) by the arbitrators.

2. The Amount Offered in Settlement

a. Monetary Amount

Under the Settlement Agreement, Uber has agreed to make an $84 million guaranteed 

payment (including a $1 million payment for PAGA), as well as a $16 million payment contingent 

on the success of an IPO. As an initial matter, the Court cannot consider the $16 million 

contingent payment as part of the settlement amount because there is no information on the 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 22 of 35
23

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

likelihood that this contingency will be triggered. At the June 2, 2016 hearing, Uber stated that 

the $16 million payment was “very likely” based on public reports about Uber‟s cash infusions 

and analysts‟ reports. See Docket No. 691 (June 2, 2016 Trans.) at 35:17-36:1. However, when 

the Court requested this public information, Uber stated that “it would not be proper for Uber to 

provide such information.” July 15, 2016 Supp. Briefing at 25. While Plaintiffs provide a number 

of articles, none of the articles address the likelihood that an Uber IPO will yield an average 

valuation of at least 1.5 times Uber‟s most recent valuation within 365 days from the closing of 

the IPO. See Docket No. 733 (July 15, 2016 Liss-Riordan Dec. at 10 n.4). Thus, absent a 

showing that there is a realistic likelihood that the additional $16 Million will be realized, the 

Court will only consider the $84 million monetary amount in assessing the adequacy of the 

Settlement Agreement.

By comparison, Plaintiffs have estimated that the verdict value of the non-PAGA claims 

being released are:

CLAIM: VALUE:

Expense Reimbursement (Mileage)16 $700 million

Expense Reimbursement (Phones) $30 million

Tips $122 million

Overtime $2.4 million

Total: $854.4 million

Mot. at 24; see also April 21, 2016 Liss-Riordan Dec. at ¶ 57. For all other non-PAGA claims, 

Plaintiffs‟ counsel attributes no value on the basis that “there would be a substantial risk of no 

recovery on this claim.” As discussed above, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that there were 

substantial risks as to the breaks claims, minimum wage and overtime claims, and workers‟ 

 

16 The mileage provided for the expense reimbursement estimate were produced as a part of 

discovery, prior to settlement discussions, and covered the period up to April 8, 2016. July 15, 

2016 Joint Supp. Briefing at 9; April 21, 2016 Liss-Riordan Dec. at ¶ 35. In responding to 

discovery, the parties are required to be truthful, and counsel is ethically bound to ensure truthful 

responses. July 15, 2016 Joint Supp. Briefing at 9. Further, Plaintiffs‟ counsel represents that 

they analyzed the total mileage recorded in the trip histories of Plaintiffs Manahan and Gurfinkel, 

compared these numbers to the mileage produced by Uber, and found that the figures lined up 

“almost exactly,” with differences of less than .2%. Id. at 9 n.13; July 15, 2016 Liss-Riordan Dec. 

at ¶¶ 7-8.

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 23 of 35
24

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

compensation claims, and it was therefore reasonable for Plaintiffs‟ counsel to assign no or little 

value to these claims when considering the overall full-verdict value. Compare with Cotter, 2016 

WL 3561742, at *5 (finding that failure to assess value of a particular gratuity claim “does not 

automatically invalidate the settlement they reached. If the unconsidered claims are not 

particularly strong or valuable, such that they‟re not likely to have materially influenced the 

overall settlement, counsel‟s failure to consider the claims would not be a basis for rejecting the 

agreement”). 

After considering the information provided to the Court in response to the Court‟s order 

for supplemental briefing, the Court concludes that the parties‟ assessment of the value of all the 

non-PAGA claims is reasonably accurate. Thus, looking solely at the monetary relief, the 

settlement of $84 million constitutes about 10% of the full verdict value of the non-PAGA claims

– i.e. a 90% discount off the verdict value of the non-PAGA claims. This substantial discount is 

well illustrated by the case of Ms. Berwick, who drove 6,468 miles and was awarded $3,878.08 in 

unreimbursed expenses by the California Labor Commissioner, would likely receive 

approximately $455 if she was a California class member, or $195 if she was a California nonclass member. See Liss-Riordan Dec. Exh. 1 (average distributions); Berwick v. Uber Techs., Inc., 

Case No. 11-46739 EK.

b. Non-Monetary Relief

The Settlement Agreement is, of course, not limited to the $84 million payment, but 

includes a number of non-monetary relief that also provide benefits to the class. However, much 

of this non-monetary relief is not as valuable as the parties suggest, limiting their worth in 

considering the amount being offered in settlement.

First, Uber has agreed to “promulgate a comprehensive written deactivation policy,” which 

will permit deactivation only for sufficient cause. Settlement Agreement at ¶ 135(a). Notably, a 

driver can no longer be deactivated because of low acceptance rates. Settlement Agreement at ¶ 

135(a)(i); see also Uber Deactivation Policy. This is a significant change from prior contracts 

which seemed to allow Uber to fire its drivers for any reason at any time. See March 11, 2015 

Summary Judgment Ord. at 20. But while Uber will no longer deactivate drivers because of low 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 24 of 35
25

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

acceptance rates, it will still exercise substantial control over a driver‟s ability to accept or decline 

ride requests, as the deactivation policy still permits Uber to “temporarily . . . log[ a driver] out of 

the app for a limited period of time” based on low acceptance rates. Uber Deactivation Policy; see 

also Travis Kalanick, Growing and Growing Up, UBER NEWSROOM (Apr. 21, 2016), 

https://newsroom.uber.com/growing-and-growing-up/ (“As part of the settlement, Uber has agreed 

not to deactivate drivers who regularly decline trips when they are logged into the app. . . . 

[W]here drivers do have low acceptance rates . . . we will alert them to the issue. If things don‟t 

pick up, we may log them out of the app for a limited period of time”). 

Moreover, although Uber has added a Driver Appeal Panel to which a deactivated driver 

can appeal a deactivation decision, as well as agreed to pay for the arbitration costs of a challenge 

to a final deactivation decision in the event of an “excluded matter,” both these avenues of review 

leave out an important reason for deactivation – low star ratings. Plaintiffs‟ counsel noted that star 

ratings are “a frequent reason for deactivation.” June 2, 2016 Trans. at 84:12-13. While star 

ratings based on customer reviews might seem to be a relatively objective basis upon which Uber 

may deactivate a driver without an appeal process, but there may be value to such a process. For 

instance, Uber has expressed concern about bias and subjectivity on the part of passengers with 

respect to tipping; deactivations based on star ratings could likewise be subject to the same bias 

and subjectivity. See June 2, 2016 Trans. at 85:9-16.

Second, the Court is not convinced that the change to tipping policy will result in the 

“substantially increased income” that Plaintiffs‟ counsel promises. See May 20, 2016 Joint Supp. 

Briefing at 16. Plaintiffs‟ counsel suggests that if passengers tip 5% on average, Uber drivers 

would have earned an additional $125 million since 2009. Docket No. 611 (Plaintiffs‟ Resp. at 

21). In support of this assertion, Plaintiffs cite Lyft‟s model, where customers have tipped drivers 

more than $85 million since the company‟s founding. May 20, 2016 Joint Supp. Briefing at 16. 

Plaintiffs‟ $125 million valuation suffers a number of flaws. As an initial matter, it relies on a 

100% tipping rate, which is highly unlikely given that even Lyft, which includes an in-app tipping 

function (thus making it clear to riders that tipping is not already included in the fare), only has a 

70% tipping rate. See Plaintiffs‟ Resp. at 21 n.18. By contrast, Uber has made it clear that it will 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 25 of 35
26

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

not add an in-app tipping function, thus requiring riders to tip using cash (which many riders may 

not have readily on-hand, given Uber‟s emphasis on the cashless transaction).17 Importantly, 

while Uber has agreed to “clarify” its tipping policy to make clear that tips are not included in the 

fare, it has also actively discouraged tipping, arguing that it is inconsistent with its business 

model, drivers‟ interests, and a positive rider experience. May 20, 2016 Joint Supp. Briefing; see 

also Our Approach to Tipping, UBER UNDER THE HOOD (Apr. 28, 2016), 

https://medium.com/uber-under-the-hood/our-approach-to-tipping-aa0074c0fddc#.wb66dqmuq. 

In other words, Uber may be permitting tipping, but it is also telling riders not to tip, further 

decreasing the amount of tips that riders are likely to give. Given the lack of an in-app tipping 

function and Uber‟s active dissuasion of tipping, the value of this tipping policy (which Uber 

strenuously disputes is even a change, see May 20, 2016 Joint Supp. Briefing at 18) is, while not 

meaningless, not nearly as valuable as Plaintiffs suggest. The fact that no in-app tipping function 

will be included will also make it difficult, if not impossible, to measure the effectiveness of the 

new tipping policy. 

Finally, the parties have stipulated to the enforceability of the December 2015 Agreement

and that this Court‟s Rule 23(d) Orders be vacated. Settlement Agreement at ¶ 135(e). Although 

included as part of the non-monetary relief, this portion of the Settlement is an additional benefit 

to Uber, not the class, and the Settlement Agreement is voidable at Uber‟s option should the Court 

not vacate its prior orders. By stipulating to the enforceability, drivers will be prevented from 

challenging the validity of the December 2015 Agreement, even in cases unrelated to employment 

misclassification such as whether arbitration would violate the National Labor Relations Act or on 

the ground that it denies a class member a contractual right to effectual relief, a claim that has 

been brought in Congdon v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-2499-YGR. See July 15, 

2015 Joint Supp. Briefing at 27. 

Further, as expressed at the June 2, 2016 hearing, the Court is concerned about

 

17 Furthermore, for safety reasons, drivers may not carry much cash with which to make change if 

a rider decides to tip but does not have the appropriate denominations in hand. Requiring drivers 

to handle cash (or at least the public perception thereof) could also raise safety concerns.

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 26 of 35
27

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

retroactively vacating its orders and the potential impact on the due process rights of drivers who 

may not have opted out of the December 2015 Agreement in reliance on those orders. See June 2, 

2016 Trans. at 117:2-25. This is because the Court‟s Rule 23(d) Order specifically held that Uber 

could not enforce the December 2015 Agreement until it added more robust cover letter and notice 

provisions, and thus a driver was not required to exercise his or her opt-out right until Uber 

complied with Court‟s directives. Rule 23(d) Ord. at 6-7. Uber did not comply with the order. To 

retroactively revoke the protection that this Court imposed to protect the rights of drivers without 

affording drivers a right to now opt-out would be to put a driver in a worse position than if the 

Court had not issued the Rule 23(d) Orders at all. Such retroactive elimination of protection 

afforded by the Court could raise due process issues. Cf. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Romein, 503 U.S. 

181, 191 (1992) (“Retroactive legislation presents problems of unfairness that are more serious 

than those posed by prospective legislation, because it can deprive citizens of legitimate 

expectations and upset settled transactions”); Landgraf v. Usi Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 266 

(1994) (“The Due Process Clause also protects the interests in fair notice and repose that may be 

compromised by retroactive legislation; a justification sufficient to validate a statute‟s prospective 

application under the Clause may not suffice to warrant its retroactive application”) (internal 

quotation omitted). Further, vacating this Court‟s Rule 23(d) would effectively circumvent and 

nullify both this Court‟s and the Ninth Circuit‟s denial of Uber‟s motions to stay the Court‟s Rule 

23(d) Orders on January 8 and January 13, 2016, respectively.

3. The Extent of Discovery Completed and the Stage of the Proceedings

The parties entered into the Settlement Agreement shortly before the O’Connor case was 

to go to trial, after having litigated two class certification motions and two summary judgment 

motions, as well as submitted their trial plans in preparation for trial. During this time, the parties 

conducted a significant amount of discovery, including a combined 326 Requests for Production, 

216 interrogatories, 71 requests for production, and multiple depositions, including depositions of 

Uber‟s Senior Vice President of Operations, Ryan Graves, and five named plaintiffs. April 21, 

2016 Liss-Riordan Dec. at ¶ 4. In addition, the parties exchanged discovery prior to settlement 

discussions. Id. at ¶ 25; see also July 15, 2016 Joint Supp. Briefing at 6.

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 27 of 35
28

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

4. The Experience and Views of Counsel

This Court previously found that Plaintiff‟s counsel is a “capable advocate” and a leading 

practitioner in the field of employment misclassification. September 1, 2015 Class Certification 

Ord. at 66. Plaintiff‟s counsel has strongly advocated for preliminary approval of the Settlement 

Agreement, particularly after considering the risks of this Court‟s arbitration orders being 

overturned, and even offered to reduce her fees by $10 million so that these funds could be 

distributed to the class, regardless of whether the $16 million contingent payment is triggered. 

Docket No. 699 at 2. However, as noted above, deference to the views of counsel must be 

tempered here where the Settlement Agreement at the eleventh hour folds in new claims and class 

members at the expense of litigation pending in other courts, while attributing almost no value to 

those claims, in order to induce Uber to settle the cases at bar.

5. The Presence of a Governmental Participant

In general, there has been no governmental participant in this case. However, as will be 

more fully discussed below, the California LWDA has, at the invitation of the Court, submitted a 

letter regarding the PAGA claim, in which it expresses serious reservation about the $1 million

allocated to the newly added PAGA claim. See LWDA Resp. at 3.

6. The Reaction of the Class Members to the Proposed Settlement

Plaintiffs‟ counsel submits that since the announcement of the settlement, her firm has 

received feedback from more than 2,500 drivers; of these, 1,797 e-mails were from drivers 

wanting to confirm they were in the class or asking how to submit a claim. 71 class members 

expressed support for the Settlement Agreement, while 33 class members expressed negativity 

towards the Settlement Agreement. Docket No. 613-1 (Mason Dec.) at ¶¶ 8, 12, 13, 15. However, 

even at this preliminary state, this Court has received (and continues to receive) numerous 

objections, filed both by individuals and attorneys representing drivers in other California cases. 

E.g., Docket No. 529, 536-540, 546-548, 551-553, 556, 559, 561, 567, 569-571, 579, 581, 582, 

584, 592, 594, 599, 601-604, 626, 652, 662, 688, 675, 690, 737. These objectives are in addition 

to five motions to intervene and one motion to disqualify Plaintiffs‟ counsel. Docket Nos. 588, 

591, 627, 637, 644, 677. 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 28 of 35
29

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

7. Balancing the Factors

Balancing the Hanlon factors, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs‟ assessment that there is a 

substantial risk on the arbitration question in light of the Ninth Circuit‟s actions thus far, a risk that 

many of the objectors fail to appreciate. This risk would have the effect of substantially altering –

if not effectively terminating – the class action in this Court, as well as in pending state court

cases. These risks could well render a settlement providing for monetary relief reflecting a 90% 

discount off the verdict value along with limited non-monetary relief fair and adequate. Indeed, 

while at the low end of reasonable recovery,18 the Court would be inclined, after weighing the 

Hanlon factors, to find the consideration afforded by the settlement to be adequate for release of 

the non-PAGA claims.19 However, the parties‟ inclusion of waiver of PAGA claims as part of the 

settlement considerably alters the Court‟s assessment of the fairness and adequacy of the 

settlement as a whole.

C. Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)

In 2003, California enacted the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. Arias, 46 Cal. 4th 

at 980. As explained by the LWDA:

By creating a cause of action under which private plaintiffs may 

recover civil penalties otherwise recoverable by the state, PAGA 

benefits the public by augmenting the state‟s enforcement 

capabilities, encouraging compliance with Labor Code provisions, 

and deterring noncompliance. This furthers the state‟s policy to 

protect workers from substandard and unlawful conditions and also 

to protect employers “who comply with the law from those who 

 

18 Compare Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117927, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 

12, 2011) (denying final approval of a settlement where the actual payout to the class was 6.56% 

of the maximum verdict value) and Cotter, 2016 WL 1394236, at *8, 11 (denying preliminary 

approval of a settlement where the settlement was 8.82% of the reimbursement claim, and finding 

that the settlement must be increased to 17% of the value of the reimbursement claim); with

Dunleavy v. Nadler (In re Mego Fi. Corp. Sec. Litig.), 213 F.3d 454, 458-59 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(finding that settlement for approximately 16.67% of the potential recovery was adequate where 

the district court had “properly found that the Plaintiffs‟ case was weak and the risk, expense, and 

complexity of trial weighed against them”).

19 The Court‟s reservations would lay primarily with the stipulation that the Court vacate 

retroactively its Rule 23(d) orders. The Court also questions the parties‟ refusal to provide for an 

easier Rule 23 opt-out mechanism (e.g. using e-mail, opt out forms, or hyperlinks), which would 

not require drivers to send a written letter by traditional mail to the administrator in order to opt 

out.

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 29 of 35
30

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

attempt to gain a competitive advantage at the expense of their 

workers by failing to comply with minimum labor standards.”

LWDA Resp. at 2 (quoting Cal. Lab. Code § 90.5(a)); see also Arias, 46 Cal. 4th at 980 

(explaining that in passing PAGA, “[t]he Legislature declared that adequate financing of labor law 

enforcement was necessary to achieve maximum compliance with state labor laws, that staffing 

levels for labor law enforcement agencies had declined and were unlikely to keep pace with the 

future growth of the labor market, and that it was therefore in the public interest to allow 

aggrieved employees, acting as private attorney generals, to recover civil penalties for Labor Code 

violations”). The California Supreme Court has also recognized that “PAGA was clearly 

established for a public reason,” such that a prohibition of a representative PAGA action would be 

contrary to public policy. Iskanian, 59 Cal. 4th at 383; see also id. at 383 (explaining that a predispute PAGA waiver “serves to disable one of the primary mechanisms for enforcing the Labor 

Code”). 

A plaintiff who brings a PAGA claim “does so as the proxy or agent of the state‟s labor 

law enforcement agencies.” Arias, 46 Cal. 4th at 986. Because the “plaintiff represents the same 

legal right and interest as state labor law enforcement agencies,” the California Supreme Court has 

found that “a judgment in an employee‟s action under the act binds not only that employee but 

also the state labor law enforcement agencies.” Id. In short, because the employee‟s PAGA 

action acts as a “substitute” for a governmental action, the judgment binds all those who would be 

bound by an action brought by the government, including nonparty employees. Id. Thus, in a 

lawsuit which asserts a PAGA claims and seeks class certification for labor/wage claims, even 

class members who opt out of the class would be bound by an adverse PAGA judgment or 

settlement. For that reason, the LWDA rightly has stressed that:

It is thus important that when a PAGA claim is settled, the relief 

provided for under the PAGA be genuine and meaningful, consistent 

with the underlying purpose of the statute to benefit the public and, 

in the context of a class action, the court evaluate whether the 

settlement meets the standards of being „fundamentally fair, 

reasonable, and adequate‟ with reference to the public policies 

underlying the PAGA.

LWDA Resp. at 2-3.

Here, Plaintiffs seek formally to add the PAGA claim to the suit and settle it for $1 million, 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 30 of 35
31

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

despite having previously argued that the PAGA claim could result in penalties over $1 billion. 

April 21, 2016 Liss-Riordan Dec. at ¶ 82. As noted above, the LWDA also concludes that the 

verdict value of the PAGA claim in this case exceeds $1 billion. See LWDA Resp. at 3 (“LWDA 

believes it is accurate to estimate the potential PAGA penalty exposure as in excess of $1 

billion”). This $1 billion amount makes up more than half of the total verdict value of the case.

Plaintiffs propose settling the PAGA claim for 0.1% of its estimated full worth. The Court is 

cognizant that even if a verdict were rendered for PAGA plaintiff(s), a penalty of $1 billion could 

well be reduced, as a court may reduce the penalty when “to do otherwise would result in an 

award that is unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory.” Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(e)(2).

20

Nonetheless, as the LWDA concludes, there is “no rationale for allocating $1 million of the 

proposed settlement fund to the PAGA claim . . . other than that this is a „round‟ number and a 

large figure in comparison to other PAGA settlements.” Id. The parties have failed to 

demonstrate how the Hanlon factors or any other coherent analysis justifies settling the PAGA 

claim for such a relatively meager value.

It is important to note that where plaintiffs bring a PAGA representative claim, they take

on a special responsibility to their fellow aggrieved workers who are effectively bound by any 

judgment. See Iskanian, 59 Cal. 4th at 381 (“When a government agency is authorized to bring an 

action on behalf of an individual or in the public interest, and a private person lacks an 

independent legal right to bring the action, a person who is not a party but who is represented by 

the agency is bound by the judgment as through the person were a party”). Such a plaintiff also 

owes responsibility to the public at large; they act, as the statute‟s name suggests, as a private 

attorney general, and 75% of the penalties go to the LWDA “for enforcement of labor laws . . . 

and for education of employers and employees about their rights and responsibilities under this 

code.” Cal. Lab. Code § 2699(i). This duty imposed upon the PAGA representative is especially 

 

20 See also Cotter, 2016 WL 3561742, at *5 (finding that “[a] significant reduction” of the PAGA 

claim “would be appropriate” because “[t]his is not a case where a company has deliberately 

evaded a clear legal obligation to provide legally required pay and benefits to its employees[, n]or 

does this appear to be a case where a company negligently failed to learn about its obligations 

under the wage and hour laws”).

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 31 of 35
32

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

significant given that PAGA does not require class action procedures, such as notice and opt-out 

rights. The Court must be cognizant of the risk that despite this responsibility, there may be a 

temptation to include a PAGA claim in a lawsuit to be used merely as a bargaining chip, wherein 

the rights of individuals who may not even be members of the class and the public may be waived 

for little additional consideration in order to induce the employer to agree to a settlement with the 

class.

This is not to suggest that the PAGA claim must comprise a disproportionate amount of

class settlements which include a PAGA claim, with the majority of funds going to the State 

simply because the PAGA penalty has the potential to be larger than the actual claims. Such a 

requirement would come at the expense of the workers, who might otherwise benefit from a larger 

non-PAGA settlement. Rather, in reviewing a settlement that includes both a Rule 23 class and a 

PAGA claim, the Court must closely examine both aspects of the settlement. While a proposed 

settlement must be viewed as a whole, see In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 

944 (9th Cir. 2015), the Court must evaluate the adequacy of compensation to the class as well as

the adequacy of the settlement in view of the purposes and policies of PAGA. In doing so, the 

court may apply a sliding scale. For example, if the settlement for the Rule 23 class is robust, the 

purposes of PAGA may be concurrently fulfilled. By providing fair compensation to the class 

members as employees and substantial monetary relief, a settlement not only vindicates the rights 

of the class members as employees, but may have a deterrent effect upon the defendant employer

and other employers, an objective of PAGA. Likewise, if the settlement resolves the important 

question of the status of workers as employees entitled to the protection of the Labor Code or 

contained substantial injunctive relief, this would support PAGA‟s interest in “augmenting the 

state‟s enforcement capabilities, encouraging compliance with Labor Code provisions, and 

deterring noncompliance.” LWDA Resp. at 2. But where, as here, the compensation to the class 

amounts is relatively modest when compared to the verdict value, the non-monetary relief is of 

limited benefit to the class, and the settlement does nothing to clarify the status of drivers as 

employees versus independent contractors, the settlement of the non-PAGA claims does not 

substantially vindicate PAGA. In these circumstances, the adequacy of settlement as a whole 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 32 of 35
33

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

turns in large part on whether the PAGA aspect of the settlement can stand on its own. 

Here, the Court cannot find that the PAGA settlement is fair and adequate in view of the 

purposes and policies of the statute. Plaintiffs propose settling PAGA for only 0.1% of the 

potential verdict value, a reduction that the LWDA has found has no rational basis.

21

 This 99.9% 

reduction does not adequately reflect the parties‟ respective risks, particularly when the PAGA 

claim would not be subject to the same arbitration risk that this Court has found justifies in part

the 90% discount in the verdict value of the non-PAGA claims. Instead, the risks at issue rest

primarily on the merits of drivers‟ labor codes claims and the discretionary reduction of statutory 

penalties, not on the risk of compelled arbitration. However, as discussed above, those risks are 

not limited to Plaintiffs; Uber also takes on a significant risk that should a representative PAGA 

claim be litigated and adjudicated, it could lose on this question (especially given that this Court 

has found a presumption of employee status, see March 11, 2015 Summary Judgment Ord. at 15),

and such an adverse judgment would carry not only a direct monetary penalty, but potentially 

could affect other litigation including arbitrations. Instead of adequately considering these risks to 

Uber and the full value of the PAGA claim, in settling the PAGA claim herein, Plaintiffs appear to 

treat the PAGA claim simply as a bargaining chip in obtaining a global settlement for Uber‟s 

benefit, even though the PAGA claim alone is worth more than half of the full verdict value of all 

claims being released. The Court shares the LWDA‟s view that there is “no rationale for 

allocating $1 million of the proposed settlement fund to the PAGA claim . . . other than that this is 

a „round‟ number and a large figure in comparison to other PAGA settlements,” LWDA Resp. at 

3. Given the sweeping consequences of the proposed PAGA waiver, viewed in the context of a 

relatively modest settlement of the non-PAGA claims, the Settlement Agreement is not as a whole 

is fair, adequate and reasonable.

Even if the PAGA claim were not separately scrutinized, viewing all the claims combined 

 

21 Even if the Court was to add all $10 million from Plaintiffs‟ counsel‟s proposed reduction, 

making the PAGA settlement $11 million, this would only represent 1.1% of the potential verdict 

value. Moreover, this would effectively take away $10 million that could otherwise have been 

distributed to the drivers, putting the burden of supporting the public interest on the employee 

rather than the employer. 

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 33 of 35
34

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

(PAGA and non-PAGA), the Settlement Agreement yields less than 5% of the total verdict value 

of all claims being released. Although the litigation risks to the plaintiffs are substantial, absent 

the sweeping releases conferred by the Settlement Agreement, Uber faces significant risks and 

costs, regardless of the outcome of pending interlocutory appeals. The settlement as a whole as 

currently structured is not fair, adequate, and reasonable.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs‟ motion for preliminary approval. 

Although the Court denies Plaintiffs‟ motions for preliminary approval and thus refuses to 

vacate its Rule 23(d) orders pursuant to the parties‟ stipulation, it will TERMINATE its Rule 

23(d) orders. The legal landscape no longer requires the protection afforded by the Orders. See

Docket No. 522; Case No. 14-5200, In re Uber FCRA Litig., Docket No. 175. Thus, Uber is 

permitted to issue the December 2015 Agreement to new drivers without satisfying the enhanced 

notice provisions required by the Court. Uber may also re-issue the December 2015 Agreement to 

current drivers, with the exception of the certified O’Connor class and claims (which, according to 

Uber, they did not intend the December 2015 Agreement to affect to begin with, see Docket No. 

408, Exh. C; Docket No. 410 at 4; Docket No. 428 at 38:24-39:7). The Court will not, however, 

retroactively vacate its Rule 23(d) orders, and thus it will not deem the December 2015 Agreement 

effective as to drivers who did not timely opt out of the arbitration agreement during the pendency 

of the Rule 23(d) orders; the Court does not rule on the enforceability of the December 2015 

Agreement. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 34 of 35
35

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Because the Court denies Plaintiffs‟ motion for preliminary approval, Uber‟s motion to 

stay filed on April 6, 2016 remains pending. Docket No. 506. The parties are ordered to meet and 

confer to discuss how they wish to proceed with that motion, as well as the general status of this 

case in light of the Court‟s ruling and the pendency of the appeals pending in the Ninth Circuit. A 

joint status report will be due on September 8, 2016, and a Status Conference will be held at 10:30 

a.m. on September 15, 2016.

This order disposes of O’Connor, Docket No. 518 and Yucesoy, Docket No. 206.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00262-EMC Document 240 Filed 08/18/16 Page 35 of 35