19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff incorporates ff 1-48 as though fully set forth herein.
50.

Upon information and belief Plaintiff worked more than forty (40) hours per

week during the relevant period as identified herein.
51.

Plaintiff further believes that Defendant Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick knowingly
and willfully did not pay Plaintiff overtime wage for each hour worked exceeding forty]
(40) hours per work-week.

52.

Plaintiff seeks recovery of damages for unpaid overtime compensation and/or

wages, FLSA liquated damages, costs, and any other relief the ourt deems just and

proper.

COUNT III

FSLA RECOVERY OF EQUIPMENT COSTS CLAIM
53.

Plaintiff incorporates f{ 1-52 as though fully set forth herein.

54.

~20~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



10
0

12

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

A User cannot request Plaintiff as a preferred driver (what Uber refers to as
Uber partner) using either an UberX or UberPool transportation request. The good will
for a job well done by Plaintiff effectively transfers to Ube , which Plaintiff has
witnessed being referred to by Users as a “Good Uber Driver.”

32.

The U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division published Od supports
the economic realities test to determine if a worker “is economically dependent on an|
employer who can require (or allow) employees to work and who can prevent

employees from working.” See Exhibit I.

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

33.
Contrary to Uber’s assertions in the driver (referred to as Uber artner)
agreement, Uber Technologies is not merely a technology compan providing
technology services. Uber drivers or Uber partners are essential 0tdJber earning

revenue from Users. Without Uber drivers or Uber partners, Uberould earn no

income from the alleged technology service that connects Users with Uber drivers. |
~14~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

Plaintiff incorporates J 1-42 as though fully set forth herein.
62.

Upon information and belief Uber, under the direction, authority or permission|
of Mr. Kalanick represented to Plaintiff that he would be his own Coss, have control
over his hours worked and therefore control over his earnings per statement of fact,
hereinafter, (“SOF”) { 5. Plaintiff further believes Mr. Kalanick did not have a
reasonable basis to assert that Plaintiff would be his own boss but that Mr. Kalanick
truly would be and is Plaintiffs boss. Plaintiff further believes Mr. Kalanick is
Plaintiff's boss through Mr. Kalanick’s exercising considerable control over Plaintiff}
ability to work and therefore control over Plaintiff's earOings.

63.

Furthermore, Plaintiff believes Mr. Kalanick’s representations were
intentionally made to induce Plaintiff into a contractual agreement as an Uber driver
(referred to as Uber Partner). Plaintiff believes the motive for such inducement was to
create a long or longer term Uber driver (referred to as Uber Partner)ontractual
relationship whereas Uber could earn fares for longer periods of time, all the while

avoiding payment of federal and/or state employee related tax(es) with respect to Ube

Ss

~24~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PARTIES

1.

Rasier-CA, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber Technologies
collectively herein referred to as Uber. The CEO and co-founder of Uber, is Travis
Kalanick. Mr. Kalanick is, also, a resident of the state of California. Upon information
and belief, Mr. Kalanick oversees Uber policies and driver contracts which are made or]
solidified following Mr. Kalanick’s expressed authority, approval and/or review.
Furthermore, upon information and belief Mr. Kalanick overseeshe hiring of and
establishment of direction and goals for key personnel related to virtually all if not alll
areas of the business including but not limited to marketing, advertising, and Uber
growth.

2.
Darryl Carter is an individual residing in the State of California, within the

Northern District of California, and is the Plaintiff in this action.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

~5~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20
21
2
23
24
25
26
27

28

Upon information and belief, Defendant Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick, required
Plaintiff to pay the costs and expenses for purchasing, acquiring and maintaining
insurance, and maintenance of the equipment, which equipment was essential and
required for Plaintiff to perform his job, thereby reducing Plaintiff's wages below the
prevailing minimum wage per 29 U.S.C. § 206 (a); 29 C.F.R. §531.35 .

55.

Upon information and belief Defendant Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick knowingly
and willfully violated the provision of the FSLA, whereas Plaintiff is entitled to
recover all monies paid for the required and essential equipment i.e. “tools of the
trade,” which was, specifically, acquired and used in furtherance of Uber and/or Mr.
Kalanick’s business. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks recovery of the costs of this action,

liquidated damages, and pre-judgment interest as determined.
COUNT IV

INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION

56.
Plaintiff incorporates JJ 1-42 as though fully set forth herein.

57.

~21~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

Upon information and belief, Defendant Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick’s breach of|
duty owed Plaintiff, is the direct and proximate cause of PlaintUf’s serious and
persistent emotional distress including serious anxiety with respect to his ability to
meet financial obligations for equipment purchasing specifically to work for Uber,

persistent worry, physical and mental pain and suffering, and mental anguish.

COUNT VII

BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR
DEALINGS
70.
Plaintiff incorporates {{ 1-69 as though fully set forth herein.
71.
Upon information and belief, Plaintiff entered a contractual agreement with
Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick. Plaintiff held up his end of the bargain and performed per
the terms of the agreement including Plaintiff maintaining a 4.88 driver rating, a least, 9}
compliments on Plaintiff's service as submitted to Uber by Users, a host of “badges”

accumulated such as “entertaining driver”, “excellent service”, “above and beyond”,

“neat and tidy” and so on. In doing so, the conditions were met for Uber to meet its

~27~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



10

i

12

13

14

15

16

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

Plaintiff having no reason to question Mr. Kalanick’s representations, prior to

establishing a relationship with Mr. Kalanick, relied on Mr. Kalanick’s representation

ig

as Plaintiff saw a ubiquitous presence of Uber including signage at major coliseums
and ball parks such as Oracle Arena, SAP Center, and Levi Stadium, along with radia
advertising to recruit drivers (referred to as Uber Partners) on local San Francisco bay
area radio stations, and even songs such as “Uber Everywhere.” Furthermore, Plaintiff
never worked for Mr. Kalanick in the past and was unaware that Mr. Kalanick’s
representations would be or could be false.

60.

Plaintiff, since relying on Mr. Kalanick’s representations, has been injured in
that Plaintiff has not been able to act as his own boss, by going online into “Driver
Dode” via the Uber Driver App to earn fares. Such has resulted in a significant loss in
earnings and ability to satisfy debt incurred to purchase equipment specifically to drive

for Uber.

COUNT V

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

61.
~23~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



10
i
12

13

15

16

17

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

Plaintiff further believes such a relationship has been and/or would be especially
beneficial to Uber as Uber would actively maintain Plaintiff and other Uber drivers,
longer, in turn earning a massive windfall volume of fares for Uber, with Plaintiff,

hopelessly, trying to pay down equipment debt and earn a living in the process.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNTI

FSLA MINIMUM WAGE CLAIM
43.
Plaintiff incorporates J] 1-42 as though fully set forth herein.
44.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick is, has been!
and continues to be an employer engaged in commerce (interstate) and/or in the
production of goods for commerce as defined per 29 U.S.C. § 203.

45.

~18~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

later responded essentially stating Plaintiff's Uber Driver App account was active. See
Exhibit F.
17.

Plaintiff sent Uber a follow up Uber support message begging Uber support to
resolve the issue. Plaintiff notified Uber support in the same suppt message that a
legal complaint would be filed if the security check issue continued to interfere with
Plaintiff's earnings. Uber support responded now stating that a “technical issue” was
affecting some drivers. See Exhibit G.

18.

Since initially being prevented from signing on to the Uber Driver app on or
around December 21, 2016 at 8:47 a.m., Plaintiff has attempted several times to sign |
on to the Uber Driver App, each time prevented from signing on to the Uber Driver
App due to the same security check (FACT 15).

19.

Plaintiff has not earned any fares with Uber since the initial security check

prevented him from signing onto the Uber Driver App.

20.

~10~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

VERIFICATION

The undersigned for himself declares:

I am the plaintiff in the above captioned action. I have read the foregoing
complaint and know the contents and exhibits attached thereto. With respect to the
causes of action I allege, the same is true of my knowledge, except as to those matters
which are therein stated on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe |
them to be true. |

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that th

foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was ecuted on January 2, 201

at Concord, California.

Zz

Darryl Carter
Appearing Pro Se

~33~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. Enjoin Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick from further violations of the FSA with
respect to Plaintiff.
Regarding the forth claim of relief:
1. Void the contractual agreement between Uber and/or Mr. KalanickOnd Plainti:
2. Exemplary damage per Cal. Civ. Code § 3294.

3. Economic and non-economic damages of $50,000.

Regarding the fifth claim of relief:

1. Void the contractual agreement between Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick and Plaintiff.

2. Economic and non-economic damages of $50,000.
Regarding the sixth claim of relief:
1. Void the contractual agreement between Uber and/or Mr. KalanickOnd Plainti
2. Economic and non-economic damages of $50,000.
Regarding the seventh claim of relief:
1. Economic and non-economic damages of $50,000.

2. Punitive damages.

Regarding all claims of relief:

rf,

~30~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

Plaintiff had very little cash on hand to pay for special training or schooling.

Uber required its prospective California drivers to: possess a valid class “C” driver

i)

license (for at least 1 year), possess liability insurance, pass a background check, and
vehicle 2001 or newer.
7.

Upon reviewing Uber’s marketing information as published on Uber’s website
(FACT 5), Plaintiff decided to move forward with driving for Uber. Plaintiff set up
an appointment for a vehicle or around October 19, 2016 at or around 11:00 a.m. with
an authorized Uber dealer Autocom Nissan of Walnut Creek, CA.

8.

Per Uber’s vehicle requirements, Plaintiff's 1999 Toyota Camry did not qualify,
|
merely, because the 1999 Toyota Camry was not a 2001 or newer model car. See |

Exhibit B.

9.
On same day, October 19, 2016 at or around 11:00 a.m. Plaintiff purchased a

vehicle at Autocom Nissan of Walnut Creek, CA. Under the vehicle purchasing

program, as a driver for Uber, the program allowed for a cash out of pocket down

~7~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Plaintiff seeks
judgment for declaratory and injunctive relief along with monetary damages. This
Court has jurisdiction of this civil proceeding pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b), 29
U.S.C. § 217 and 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

4.

Venue lies in the Northern District of California pursuant 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b

Moreover, Defendant Uber Technologies and/or Rasier-CA, LLC has its principal or
primary location located at 1455 Market St., Ste. 400, San Francisco CA 94103. Last!
such address as set forth ante is explicitly and specifically listed in Uber’s driver

(referred to as Uber Partner) agreement.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5.
On or around Wednesday September 14, 2016 at 1:08 p.m. at Starbucks in San
Mateo, CA, Plaintiff read Uber marketing information stating specifically and
explicitly: “Be your own boss with Uber”; “Control your earnings potential”; “Set yo)

own hours.” See Exhibit A.

6.

—

ry

~6~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

Plaintiff further believes, during the relevant times, stated herein, Defendant
Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick employed Plaintiff as an employee as deLined ir29 U.S.C.)§
203.
46.
Defendant Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick as an employer was required to pay
Plaintiff the prevailing minimum wage per the FLSA for each hour worked.
47.
Upon information and belief Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick knowingly and willfully
did not pay Plaintiff the prevailing minimum wage, for each hour worked, under the
FLSA.
48.
Plaintiff seeks recovery of damages for unpaid compensation and/or wages,

FLSA liquated damages, costs, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II

FSLA OVERTIME WAGE CLAIM

49.

~19~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13.

On or around October 21, 2016, Plaintiff began accepting User transportation
requests with Uber. The last date Plaintiff accepted a User transportation request was
November 28, 2016.

14.

On November 22, 2016 at around 5:18 p.m. Plaintiff sent a support request to
Uber with respect to an issue with a User. Plaintiff complained of being insulted,
accident safety, and a threat from the User, whom Plaintiff nderstood and believed t
be an Uber non-driver employee.

15.

On or around December 21, 2016 at around 8:47 a.m. Plaintiff, from within his
vehicle, attempted to sign on to the Uber Driver App and was unable to do so. A
“security check” prevented Plaintiff from signing on to earn fares, when PlaintifU
elected to work and earn fares. See Exhibit E.

16.

On or around December 21, 2016 at around 8:47 a.m., Plaintiff sent an Uber

support request notifying Uber of the security check issue prventing Plaintiff from

signing into the Uber Driver App in effect interfering with Plaintiff's earnings. Uber

~O~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



10

i

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and/or Mr. Kalanick’s relationship with Plaintiff, which Plaintiff fuDther believes
would be and is consistent with Uber’s growth strategy.
64.

Plaintiff having no reason to question Mr. Kalanick’s representtions, prior to
establishing a relationship with Mr. Kalanick, relied on Mr. Kalanick’s representation
as Plaintiff saw a ubiquitous presence of Uber including signage at major coliseums
and ball parks such as Oracle Arena, SAP Center, and Levi Stadium, along with radia

advertising to recruit drivers (referred to as Uber Partners) on local San Francisco bay

area radio stations, and even songs such as “Uber Everywhere.” Furthermore, Plaintiff

never worked for Mr. Kalanick in the past and was unaware that Mr. Kalanick’s
representations would be or could be false.
65.
Plaintiff, since relying on Mr. Kalanick’s representations, has Den injured in
that Plaintiff has not been able to act as his own boss, by going online into “driver
mode” via the Uber Driver App to earn fares. Such has resulted iO significant loss in

earnings and ability to satisfy debt incurred to purchase equipment specifically to driv

for Uber.

iz

~25~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



91

Darryl] Carter F I L E

2121 Meridian Park Blvd Unit #6701 J D

Concord, CA 94520 WW 13 ony,
one: 650-250-9404 Nop LER Stay hg

: . x ye ¥
ail: mdcar38t@protonmail.com EPH gg Og
cr
rc

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HSG

) Case No.:
~ oe com WS
CUR conptane# BR
LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

29 U.S.C. § 201 ET SEQ.,

29 U'S.C. § 216 (b),

29 U.S.C. $217,

28 US.C. § 2201,

INTENTIONAL
MISRESPRESENTATION
NEGLIGENT MISREPSENTATION,
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD
FAITH AND FAIR DEALINGS

Darryl! Carter,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Uber Technologies, Rasier-CA, LLC,
Travis Kalanick

Deteasanis JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SS SaESaESEeEEeaeEeaeEeOSOSEO

a as

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



10
I

12

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

At no time prior to (FACT § 23) was Plaintiff aware of Uber’s 40,000 registered

drivers prior to Plaintiff purchasing the vehicle to driver for Uber.
25.

Upon information and belief Plaintiff understands that Uber has ongoing Uber
driver recruitment efforts which Plaintiff believes acts an Uber driver (which Uber
refers to as Uber Partner) revolving door.

26.

Plaintiff has ongoing direct costs of driving for Uber (which Uber refers to as an
Uber Partner) of approximately $472 weekly. This figure included car payments,
insurance, vehicle maintenance, wear & tear, and gasoline. Plaintiff was never
reimbursed for any of the stated direct costs accrued for any week in which Plaintiff
earned fares with Uber.

27.

Plaintiff's ongoing direct costs of driving for Uber (which Uber refers to as an
Uber Partner) of approximately $472 weekly does not include any taxes whatsoever
such as self-employment tax, social security tax, or any contribution to unemployment

insurance tax.

~12~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The phrase shown in Uber Driver App, “security check” does not appear
anywhere in the contract which Plaintiff was required to agree to as a condition to
signing up to driver for Uber which Uber refers to as a “Uber Partner.”

21.

At no time was it ever disclosed to Plaintiff that Plaintiff would have to submit

to a security check or persistent security checks as a condition to signing on to earn
fares when Plaintiff elected to sign on to earn income.
22.
On December 29, 2016 at or around 8:45 a.m. Steve Matias with SFO ground
transportation compliance informed Plaintiff that Uber had 40,000 registered drivers.
23.
After learning of the 40,000 registered drivers, Plaintiff discovered Uber was
and is apparently focused on “Uber Growth” which includes increasing the volume o
Uber drivers (which Uber refers to as Uber partners) on the road receiving User
transportation requests.

24.

i}

~11~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action.

DATED: January 2, 2017

Darryl Carter
Appearing Pro Se

~32~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

An order for Defendant(s) Uber to pay Carter’s costs of the suit incurred, herein,
including attorney fees to the extent incurred pursuant the work expended for
this action.

Equitable recover of Plaintiff’s time pursuing this action.

Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

~31~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

payment of only $250. Plaintiff paid $250 and purchased the vehicle specifically to

drive for Uber.

10.

On or around October 19, 2016 at 5:57 p.m. Plaintiff signed up to drive for Ub

oO
g

(referred to as a “Uber Partner”) following successful vehicle inspection at Uber’s
vehicle inspection location at or near Martinez, CA.
11.

As part of signing up as an Uber driver (referred to as Uber Partner), Plaintiff
was required to enter a contract with Rasier-CA, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of
Uber Technologies). If Plaintiff were to disagree to the contract or any terms thereof
Plaintiff would not be able to sign up and earn fares with Uber. See Exhibit C.

12.

On or around October 26, 2016 at 9:53 a.m. Plaintiff sent an “Arbitration Opt-
Out” email to the email address identified in the contract with Rasier-CA, LLC, in
which Plaintiff specifically and explicitly expressed his intent to opt-out of any binding)

arbitration. See Exhibit D.

~B~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

Upon information and belief, Uber, under the direction, authority or permission
of Mr. Kalanick represented to Plaintiff that he would be his own boss, have contr!
over his hours worked and therefore control over his earnings per statement of fact,
hereinafter, (“SOF”) { 5. Plaintiff further believes Mr. Kalanick knew that Plaintiff
would not truly be his own boss but, in reality, Mr. Kalanick exercised considerable
control over Plaintiff's ability to work and therefore control over Plaintiff's earnings.

58.

Furthermore, Plaintiff believes Mr. Kalanick’s representations were
intentionally made to induce Plaintiff into a contractual agreement as an Uber driver
(referred to as Uber Partner). Plaintiff believes the motive for such inducement was to
create a long or longer term Uber driver (referred to as Uber Partner) contractual
relationship whereas Uber could earn fares for longer periods of time, all the while
avoiding payment of federal and/or state employee related tax(es) with respect to Uber
and/or Mr. Kalanick’s relationship with Plaintiff, which Plaintiff further believes
would be and is consistent with Uber’s growth strategy.

59.

~22~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

end of the bargain, yet Uber failed to do so through repeated bogus “security checks”
which Plaintiff believes were not in good faith but were put into place after Plaintiff
complained to Uber on November 22, 2016 of an incident whichO Plaintiff believes
involved an Uber employee.

72.

Furthermore, Plaintiff believes he had every right to receive the benefits as
outlined in the agreement and would have done so but for Uber’s interference with
Plaintiff's ability to be his own boss and exercise his suposed right to work when he
wanted to, which Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick had a duty to refrain from such
interference with Plaintiff's ability to be his own boss. Uber’s and/or Mr. Kalanick’s
interference with the benefits as outlined in the agreement has caused Plaintiff a
significant loss in earnings and Plaintiff has consistently and persistently, since first
reporting the interference to Uber, been unable to log on into “driver mode” and earn

fares.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant Uber and/or Mr.

Kalanick as follows:

~28~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT H

EXHIBIT [.u..escscssesssssssssesssseseeseseesesesessesesseseensscssescssssenecssenessesesassnenessensaseeensasensnsenees 88)

~4an

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



16
17
18
19
20
21
2
23
24
25
26
27

28

34.

Furthermore U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division policies
and/or interpretations, in certain circumstances, are, generally, entitled to some
deference. See Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000); Chevron, 46:
U.S. at 842; Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944).

35.

Even in a self-driving car scenario, specifically in the state of California, Uber
has, previously, admitted that such a technology is not ready to function without a
human operator in the vehicle that could assume control of the vehicle. Furthermore,
Uber’s permit to operate and test the self-driving car pilot program/technology was
revoked by the California DMV on or around December 21, 2016.

36.

The fares Plaintiff received as payout or wages did not account or the
significant cost of operating and maintaining equipment which equipment Plaintiff
purchased through incurring debt. Even when driving for Uber, Plaintiff noticed
quickly that the numbers did not seem to add up in terms of the prevailing minimum

wage.

SN

~15~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

39.

Uber’s “driver undesirable location” practices have led Plaintiff, on more than
one occasion, to “drive around” seeking desirable User ride request locations, in hope
of obtaining a User ride request, which, ultimately, has led to Plaintiff driving more
than 8,000 miles (in less than two short months) since acquiring the vehicle,
specifically, to drive for Uber.

40.

At a rate of 8,000 miles or more driven continuously, even if Plaintiff was
allowed by Uber to do so, would likely amount to the usefully life of the vehicle
exhausted in 3 years if not faster, whereas the debt incurred to acquire the equipment
would continue years beyond such useful equipment life.

Al.

Plaintiff further believes, the unreimbursed equipment expenses acquired to
drive, specifically, for Uber compounded with Plaintiff's compulsory tax obligations
essentially equates the relationship with Uber, per Uber’s contractual agreement, as
one of indentured servant labor whereas there is no real opportunity for profitability.

42.

a

~17~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

lon =~
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION. .cssssssscssssssssssssssssesssssesssesseeeeesneneeeeet D3
COUNT Viecsessssssscsssssscsssssssssnsssssssssnssecsssssssssnssssssunssneceeasssssnnaseseeesneceeseesaeseeeenet 26
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ....+c-ssscssssessssssseesee 26
COUNT VID csesssssssssssssssssssssssssessssessnsnssssnssassssessnssssascenneesaeeceuaceeencessneesseueeteee 27]
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR
DEALINGS ...esssssssessecteetsctneeetentsntnetnventeetisteseatsetietngeastnstnsneneisensa 27
PRAYER .vessssosssssssssssssssnssssessesssssssssnnsssnsesasnsssaenssssnsssassssaaseseuseesaceeenaeeeeneesey 28
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL wecssssssssssssssssssssssescesenssessnceesnneetinneeteneeennnteeenteen y)
VERIFICATION onccsssssssssssssssssecsssssssssessssssssnsessnnssssnsscasneeanssceansessasseeneseeuaeetee 33
EXHIBIT A cesssssssssssssssssssesssscssssesanssssnssssssessnnessansesasessaseesnaseesneeeuenseennnetieett 34
EXHIBIT B eessessssscssssssssscsnssssnssssnnescnnssenssessscessnsessusseseaeeenenseenneeenenseesnnsssenet \
EXHIBIT C cessessssscssssssssscnssssessssssnessnnsesesssssnnnssnsnsessssssaseesiaseesnaseennsenenetsenet iF
EXHIBIT D cissssssccsssssossssesssscsssssssnssssnssnsnsessnsssansesassessassssaseeenaceennesesnesesaneee J
EXHIBIT Eocsessssssssssssssscessssssssesssnsssnssssnnsssannsssnssseansseunsseunsseenacseuceeseaseeseantee 15
EXHIBIT F essssssscsssssssssssssssssesnsesssasssnsessansceaseeaseeeanseeaseesnanesneeeueneseuatee
~3~
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COUNT VI

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
66.
Plaintiff incorporates [{ 1-65 as though fully set forth herein.
67.

Upon information and belief Defendant Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick had and/or
has a duty to allow Plaintiff to “Be His Own Boss” and “Work When He Wanted to
Work” and not interfering with Plaintiffs earnings. Plaintiff further believes such duty
is evidence by Uber’s agreement with Plaintiff as an Uber driver (referred to as an
Uber Partner).

68.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick breached
such duty by, directly and/or indirectly, interfering with Plaintiff's earnings by
injecting or otherwise allowing a “technical issue” to persisthereby preventing
Defendant from going online in “Driver Mode” in exercising his prerogative to work

when he wanted to work as his own boss.

69.

~26~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



an

12

13

14

20
21
22

23

25
26
27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PARTIES ......esssscscscsesesesesssssessseesssessssssssssssssecssesssscscscsesssesssessesssssasssessssescssecesseenessenseees 5
FACTUAL BACKGROUND. .....cccsssssssssssssesctssssscsenssesssssssssssssessasassensssseseeeaseseneeneseses 6
COMMON ALLEGATIONS ........cscssssesesssssssesssssssssscssscssscsesesesseeessseseseseseceseeeseseeeseenees 4
CAUSES OF ACTION... scccsssssscssssssecessssssssseessnsscssssssssnsssesssssnesseesseseenenseeeseseseeseneesens 8
COUNT L.....secscssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssesescecesssessesesescesseeeesseseeesesessaseseneneaseneseatneeearereneaes 8
FSLA MINIMUM WAGE CLAIM........ccsccssssssssssssssssssssseeesssessseessseseseneseneaescseneees 8
COUNT Il... cscscssscssssssssssssssssssssssseseeesssesesesesesesssnsessessseseseseseseseseneseneseseensseesenenees 9
FSLA OVERTIME WAGE CLAIM. ......ccccccsscssssssssssssessssssseeseesseseeesseseseessenseesesenes 19
COUNT IIL ou. cceescscscssesssscsssessssssesscrcesssescncsesseseaesessnscsssseseaeseeensesseeseeseeeseasenensasenssesenes 20
FSLA RECOVERY OF EQUIPMENT COSTS CLAIM .....ccscsssssssssseseeeseseseeeees 20)
COUNT IV ou. sesscsesssssessscsssssscssscesssscsssesessssssscsssessssesssusssesssssseseseavsesseeeeseseeneeesenees 21
INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION .......cscsssssssssssssssscscscseseesseseseseeeeesneeees 21
COUNT Vu... ceessscssssssssssssrscssscsssesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssessseseseseeesesssssssssecesensesssnenenseseee 23]
~2~
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

Regarding the first claim of relief:

1.

2.

3.

Recovery of unpaid compensation and/or wages, FLSA liquated damages, and
costs.

Declare Plaintiff an employee of Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick. .

Enjoin Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick from further violations of the FSA with

respect to Plaintiff.

Regarding the second claim of relief:

1.

2.

3.

Recovery of unpaid compensation and/or wages, FLSA liquated damages, and
costs.

Declare Plaintiff an employee of Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick.

Enjoin Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick from further violations of the FSA with

respect to Plaintiff.

Regarding the third claim of relief:

1.

Recovery of the costs of this action, liquidated damages, and pre-judgment
interest.
Declare Plaintiff an employee of Uber and/or Mr. Kalanick.

Recovery of equipment purchasing costs of $28,000.

~29~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



10

ll

12

20

21

23

24

25

26

27

28

28.

Uber sets and controls the fare model and collection of fares from the User.
Plaintiff is not involved with the collection of or a price estimate of what a User will
pay as a fare. Uber’s fare model includes: Base (fee/fare) + Time + Distance. See
Exhibit H.

29.

Uber employs what is referred to as a five-star rating system. As of the time,
Plaintiff last earned a fare with Uber, he was required to maintUin a 4.8 ratingin which
Plaintiff's ratings are exclusively provided by Users. Plaintiff's failure to maintain th
required driver rating could result in Plaintiff being compelled for “training” and/or
deactivation from the Uber Driver App.

30.

Upon information and belief Uber serves two masters, one being the User and
the other being the driver or what Uber refers to as an Uber partner. Plaintiff believes,
in this type of relationship Plaintiff has been or easily can be exploited and “hung out
to dry” since Uber obtains revenue directly from the User.

31.

~13~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF



20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

37.

Moreover, upon information and belief, through what seemed to Plaintiff to be
an unusually high number of UberPool requests compounded with $5.00 (before
Uber’s commission of 25%) User ride cancellation fees, and wait times online in
“driver mode” there were periods or hours where Uber paid Plaintiff $3.75 or less in
fares; at no time was Plaintiff paid overtime wages.

38.

Plaintiff upon information believes Uber has a backdoor into what Plaintiff
refers to as Uber’s Ride Request Management System (“RRMS”) whereas Uber can
and does control which Uber drivers (referred to as Uber Partners) can drive and earn|
wages as Uber sees fit. Moreover, Plaintiff believes that Uber can peer into its RRMS,
and forward User ride requests to Uber drivers to pick up a User in an “undesirable
area” — which is defined as an area with low or no volume User ride requests. On mor
than one occasion, Plaintiff was sent 20, 30, 40 or more miles away to transport a Use
to an area such as Santa Cruz, CA and surrounding areas whereas Plaintiff had to driv
back to desirable or high volume User ride request areas on his own dime, in whole o:

part.

~16~

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR LEGAL, DECLARATORY, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF