} 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

TSI USA, LLC 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

Defendant. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CAUSE NO. 

JURY DEMANDED 

 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff TSI USA, LLC (“TSI” or “Plaintiff”), for its Complaint against Uber 

Technologies, Inc. (“Uber” or “Defendant”), alleges as follows: 

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

 1. This is an action by TSI to recover damages from Uber for breach of 

contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, tortious interference with contract and 

defamation in connection with TSI’s implementation and performance of 

business travel products and services for Uber. After inducing TSI to spend 

capital and deploy personnel to create and implement an international travel 

services program covering 46 different countries, Uber now refuses to pay TSI the 

contractually-mandated payment that came due upon its pre-mature termination 

of TSI. Uber repeatedly delayed the full contractual launch of TSI’s program, 

constantly added and changed specifications, and ultimately terminated TSI, 

precluding it from recouping its start-up costs and depriving it of the benefit of its 

bargain with Uber. 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 1 of 23
2 

 2. Moreover, Uber extended its improper conduct beyond its 

relationship with TSI. After terminating TSI, Uber directed its new travel services 

vendor to hire away at least one of TSI’s employees, which it did in breach of that 

employee’s contract with TSI. In addition, after TSI requested the contractual 

early termination payment, Uber’s management personnel began to make false, 

defamatory and damaging comments to at least one TSI client, costing TSI 

business and damaging its reputation. 

II. PARTIES

3. Plaintiff TSI USA, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal 

place of business located at 8111 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway, Suite 900, 

Dallas, Texas 75243. 

4. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with 

its principal place of business located at 1455 Market Street, Suite 400, San 

Francisco, California 94103. 

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) because Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of 

different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of 

interest and costs. 

6. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) 

because a substantial part of events giving rise to the claims herein occurred in 

this district. 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 2 of 23
3 

7. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Uber based on, without 

limitation, its continuous course of doing business in Texas generally and its 

specific conduct within this state from which the causes of action herein arose. 

IV. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

A. Uber Engages TSI To Provide Worldwide Travel Services For Its 

 Management Personnel. 

 

8. Uber describes itself as “an American international transportation 

network company.” Upon information and belief, through its software 

applications, Uber connects riders to automobile drivers in approximately 150 

cities in 50 countries and collects 20% of the fees for each ride. By some 

published estimates, Uber generates about $2 billion in annual fee revenues 

(on approximately $10 billion in transaction revenues). See

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-revenue-projection-in-2015-2014-11. 

9. TSI is a business travel management company that contracts with 

businesses and individuals to manage, schedule, book and optimize their 

airline, hotel, and related travel needs. TSI has developed and deploys for its 

customers proprietary web-based and mobile travel management software 

applications, as well as booking, auditing, reporting and payment-processing 

personnel and techniques. 

10. In or about November of 2014, Uber engaged TSI to perform travel 

services for Uber’s management employees, initially in 46 countries throughout 

the world. Accordingly, TSI and Uber entered into (i) a Services Agreement 

dated November 24, 2014 (the “Services Agreement”) and (ii) a Statement of 

Work for Uber Global Travel Management Services of even date (the “Statement 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 3 of 23
4 

of Work” or “SOW”) (collectively, the “Agreements”). True copies of the Services 

Agreement and SOW are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, and 

both are incorporated herein by this reference. 

B. Uber Demands Service In Short Order, Placing Immediate And Heavy 

Demands On TSI’s Resources And Personnel. 

 

11. During the negotiation of the Agreements, Uber insisted upon a 

global launch commencing on January 2, 2015, for the full range of services 

Uber required of TSI. This required 40-days of virtually non-stop work by TSI 

personnel. Uber management informed TSI, in substance, that TSI must work 

like Uber works -- around the clock, sacrificing holidays and personal time to 

achieve results in accordance with Uber’s standards and expectations. 

12. In order to launch the program in the very short time frame that 

Uber claimed was essential, TSI was required to commence performance 

pursuant to the implementation criteria set forth in the SOW immediately upon 

execution of the Agreements. TSI personnel had to work overtime, forego 

vacation time and work holidays. TSI deployed 20 employees in the U.S. and 

20 more internationally, and worked virtually around the clock, effective 

immediately upon execution of the Agreements. 

13. The 17-page Statement of Work (Exhibit 2) reflects the details of 

Uber’s requirements of TSI for the launch of a fully-staffed, technologicallyintegrated international travel services plan. As reflected in the fee structure of 

the SOW, Uber informed TSI that the volume of its travel needs would be over 

$30 million spent annually on travel services through TSI. 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 4 of 23
5 

14. By way of example, TSI trained and deployed of 19 designated and 

dedicated travel and support consultants in 12 global ticketing hub locations. 

These consultants provided program implementation, travel assistance, online 

technical support, service issue resolution, account management, travel 

consulting, data consolidation, security configuration, marketing 

communications, and undertook extensive travel to and from Uber offices 

throughout the world. 

15. TSI also designed and implemented the extensive global 

technologies listed in the SOW, which entailed, among other services, extensive 

software development. 

C. Uber Requests Services Beyond The Scope Of The SOW And Delays 

 The Launch Date. 

 

16. As set forth above, TSI commenced performance pursuant to the 

Agreements immediately upon the execution thereof, in order to timely render 

the travel services set forth in the SOW. 

17. Additionally, immediately following the execution of the 

Agreements, Uber began requesting, and TSI delivered, services that were 

outside the scope (“OTS”) of the SOW. 

18. TSI was not separately compensated for these OTS services, which 

included, by way of example and without limitation, devising and implementing 

a “single sign-on” portal and mobile app delivery (as set forth in more detail 

below) to enable its traveling employees to efficiently and securely access 

multiple travel software programs and travel agents around the world; and 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 5 of 23
6 

devising and implementing Uber marketing materials, videos and voicerecordings to answer dedicated travel service phone lines. 

19. Uber also requested, and TSI delivered, a mobile app and desktop 

portal for airline booking, to integrate Uber’s travel program with Concur, 

Expensify and several other travel products, all within Uber’s single sign-on 

security platform. The app and portal were reconfigured approximately 15 

times due to after-the-fact changes in Uber’s specifications. This OTS work 

cost TSI over $100,000 to perform and Uber did not separately compensate TSI 

for it. 

20. Uber also requested, and TSI delivered, 46 Uber-dedicated phone 

numbers, text numbers and global e-mail addresses, customized with agents 

who answered the phone as “Uber” travel agents. Uber did not compensate TSI 

for this OTS work. 

21. Uber also required a customized itinerary invoice system, because 

it was not happy with the Concur’s Tripit or Sabre’s TripCase systems that are 

standard in the industry. Uber demanded and TSI built a global itinerary 

system customized for Uber at a cost of over $15,000. This was also OTS work 

for which Uber did not compensate TSI. 

22. In addition, in or about June of 2015, Uber decided to offer a trip 

to all of its employees to Las Vegas, Nevada. The project was called “Ginseng.” 

Mr. Howard Jaffe of Uber requested that TSI manage the air travel for 

approximately 5,000 Uber employees, create an online travel-booking engine, 

integrated with their registration software, and perform other travel services for 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 6 of 23
7 

Ginseng, including sourcing commercial and charter discounts. Mr. Jaffe 

stated to TSI that it was very important for TSI to excel and “burn the midnight 

oil” developing this software. TSI performed the requested services, incurring 

over $100,000 in out-of-pocket costs to enable Ginseng. This was also OTS 

work for which Uber did not compensate TSI. Upon completion of this OTS, 

Uber never even viewed the work product. 

23. In part due to the foregoing (and other) OTS requests, and in part 

due to Uber’s firing and hiring a succession of travel service procurement 

managers responsible for working with TSI (as set forth in more detail below), 

Uber unilaterally pushed back the contractual January 2, 2015 launch date on 

several occasions. 

24. At Uber’s request, TSI initiated a limited “pilot” launch during 

January of 2015 (the “Pilot Launch”). The Pilot Launch was stopped and 

started by Uber numerous times, due to Uber’s internal decision-making and 

its requests for additional OTS work which took TSI time to implement. 

D. Uber Repeatedly Insists That The Contemplated Full, $30MM 

Launch Is Forthcoming. 

25. Each time it delayed the full launch, Uber gave TSI assurances not 

only that the launch was going to occur, but also that it would encompass a 

minimum of $30 million in annual travel expenses through TSI. As exemplified 

by, among other things, an e-mail dated December 31, 2014 from Margaret 

Brady of Uber to TSI, Uber acknowledged that, through no fault of TSI, it was 

delaying the full launch. Like this one, all launch delays were due to Uber’s 

internal issues, such as Uber’s lack of foreign credit cards or virtual payment 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 7 of 23
8 

system, or its terminating and/or replacing a succession of travel procurement 

managers. 

26. On or about February 11, 2015, Howard Jaffe of Uber took over 

the travel-management duties previously performed by Margaret Brady of Uber. 

On that date, Mr. Jaffe informed TSI’s CEO, Rick Kumpf, that Uber still 

planned to execute a full launch that would encompass a minimum of $30 

million of travel services spending by Uber per year. Mr. Jaffe requested that 

TSI delay billing Uber for its monthly service fees and expenses, assuring Mr. 

Kumpf that TSI would make up any losses with the profits on its business 

following the Uber launch. 

27. At Uber’s request, TSI refrained from billing Uber the contractual 

minimum monthly fees which were otherwise due pursuant to the Agreements, 

with the understanding that TSI would be compensated for such services in 

accordance with the agreed-upon fee structures once the full launch occurred. 

28. TSI continued to perform services both within and outside the 

scope of the SOW in reliance upon Uber’s continued promises and 

reassurances that it would eventually launch the full program of services 

pursuant to the Agreements. 

29. Launch dates in January, February, April, May, June and July of 

2015 were established and unilaterally canceled by Uber for various reasons 

unrelated to TSI. 

30. Exemplifying TSI’s reliance on Uber’s good faith intent to execute 

the contemplated $30 million full launch, TSI advanced out-of-pocket costs on 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 8 of 23
9 

behalf of Uber and its traveling management personnel. These included over 

$8,000.00 for airline travel between June and September 2015 as part of 

Uber’s China pilot program, which TSI had to pay due to Uber’s American 

Express card being declined, as well as an airline ticket purchased for Uber’s 

Operations and Logistics Manager, Tim Krometis, on June 3, 2015, because 

the airline he chose did not accept Uber’s American Express card. 

E. Uber Expresses Satisfaction With TSI’s Travel Service 

Implementation. 

 

 31. At the time Uber engaged TSI’s services in November of 2014, 

Uber’s travel services procurement manager was Margaret Brady. Ms. Brady 

was complimentary of the job TSI was doing and, by way of example, wrote an 

e-mail dated February 6, 2015, expressing her satisfaction with TSI at length. 

32. In addition, TSI flew managers and agents to Uber’s San Francisco, 

CA headquarters to manage and oversee the Pilot Launch. These TSI personnel 

received numerous compliments – and no complaints – from Uber’s personnel 

while at Uber’s headquarters, or at any other time. 

33. In addition, Uber conducted, and shared with TSI, its own surveys 

of its employees concerning TSI’s services. Every survey response, without 

exception, ranked TSI’s service level as better than satisfactory. 

F. Uber’s Third Travel Services Procurement Manger, Ms. Mayr, Intends 

 To Terminate TSI. 

 

34. During TSI’s engagement, Uber had a succession of three travel 

procurement managers. Ms. Brady, mentioned above, was terminated in 

February of 2015 and replaced by Ms. Jodi Hughes. 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 9 of 23
10 

35. Though Ms. Hughes set and re-set new full launch dates several 

times, she ultimately advised Uber, before being removed herself, that TSI was 

“ready to launch.” 

 36. In or about late May of 2015, Uber replaced Ms. Hughes with Ms. 

Karoline Mayr. By all evidence, Ms. Mayr never intended to carry out the 

contemplated full launch of TSI’s travel services for Uber. 

 37. Ms. Mayr’s intent to terminate TSI from the outset of her tenure as 

Uber’s travel services procurement manager was made clear in a June 5, 2015, 

e-mail she sent to Uber personnel, stating that she would keep them informed 

regarding the termination of TSI and her engagement of a new travel services 

company. This e-mail was inadvertently forwarded to TSI approximately one 

month later. 

 38. Despite Uber’s intent not to go forward with the full contractual 

launch, Uber continued, even after Ms. Mayr’s June 5, 2015 e-mail, to give TSI 

assurances that the full launch was forthcoming. Uber continued to request, 

and TSI performed, travel services for Uber at great expense to TSI through 

June of 2015. 

39. On or about July 6, 2015, a scheduled launch date, Ms. Mayr 

again informed TSI that the full launch was forthcoming, now conditioned 

upon TSI’s successful implementation of the Ginseng project, described above. 

Subsequent Ms. Mayr’s false assurances, Steve Sharlow of Uber, as Director of 

Procurement, took over the management relationship with TSI from Ms. Mayr. 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 10 of 23
11 

Mr. Sharlow was the fifth and final Uber manager to work on TSI’s launch for 

Uber. 

40. Despite TSI’s full performance of all of the tasks Uber requested for 

the Ginseng project, whether OTS or within the SOW, Uber refused to carry out 

the contemplated full launch of TSI’s services and, ultimately, as set forth 

further below, terminated TSI without cause. 

G. Uber Prematurely Terminates TSI Without Cause, Trigging The 

Contractual Damage Provisions. 

 41. The contractual term of the Agreements is for 2 years from the 

Effective Date of November 24, 2014, as set forth in the Services Agreement, ¶ 

10 (Ex. 1 hereto) and the Statement of Work (Ex. 2 hereto). 

 42. Uber sent TSI a notice of termination dated August 28, 2015 (the 

“Termination Notice”). The Termination Notice was actually received at TSI’s 

offices via overnight mail on September 8, 2015, having been sent on 

September 7, 2015. The Termination Notice contains no complaints or 

allegations that TSI breached the Agreements in any way, and included a check 

to TSI in the amount of $201,226.30. 

 43. This amount constituted a repayment of the advanced airline travel 

expense for Mr. Krometis and, upon information and belief, $200,000.00 

against service fees (which were outstanding at that time in the amount of 

approximately $740,000.00, as set forth below). By letter dated September 11, 

2015, TSI informed Uber that further sums were due and owing from Uber to 

TSI under the Agreements. 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 11 of 23
12 

 44. In response, Mr. Sharlow requested additional invoices and further 

breakdowns of TSI’s services and costs, both in connection with the Ginseng 

project and with its technology buildout, which TSI provided. 

 45. Mr. Sharlow was subsequently terminated from Uber and Uber has 

failed to remit the remaining amounts it owes TSI under the Agreements. 

 46. The Services Agreement provides, at Paragraph 11.1, that: 

Uber may at its sole discretion terminate all or any 

part of this Agreement or SOW hereunder by providing 

Consultant 90 days written notice. Uber will provide 

90 day written notice and Consultant shall be entitled 

to its costs already incurred in the performance of the 

Services. Any termination claim must be submitted 

within thirty (90) [sic] days after the effective date of 

termination. 

Ex. 1 at 6, ¶11.1. 

 47. In accordance with the notice and termination provisions of 

Paragraphs 12.2 and 11.1, respectively, of the Services Agreement, Uber’s 

termination was effective as of December 7, 2015. TSI submitted its final 

termination claim to Uber, pursuant to Paragraph 11.1, on December 8, 2015. 

 48. “Services” are defined in the Service Agreement as “the services 

described in the applicable SOW.” Ex. 1 at 1, ¶ 1.4. TSI’s “costs already 

incurred in the performance of the Services” consist of, at a minimum and 

subject to further proof at trial: 

(a) $791,580.25 in implementation costs to achieve the 

implementation criteria set forth in the Statement of Work; 

(b) the separate implementation costs of Uber’s specially requested 

Ginseng project in the amount of $101,450; 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 12 of 23
13 

(c) the ongoing actual monthly cost of providing travel service to Uber, 

in the amount of $67,258.50 per month from January 2 through November 26, 

2015, or $739,843.50; 

(d) the cost of the airline ticket purchased for Mr. Krometis in the 

amount of $1,226.30; 

(e) other out-of-pocket costs of travel advanced for Uber’s benefit by 

TSI. 

49. Accordingly, TSI seeks to recover these amounts from Uber, less a 

credit for Uber’s partial payment with its Termination Notice, in addition to 

other damages as further set forth below. 

H. Uber Brokers The Hiring Of Former TSI Personnel By Its New Travel 

Services Provider. 

50. After Uber terminated TSI, it engaged the services of Egencia, 

which is the business travel division of Expedia, Inc. and BCD Travel. 

51. In or about December of 2015, shortly after Uber began using 

Egencia’s services, Egencia, at Uber’s request and direction, hired former TSI 

employee, Ms. Laura Vasquez, to work on the Uber account for Egencia. Ms. 

Vasquez was one of the TSI travel agents on the Uber account. 

 52. Ms. Vasquez was, at the time she was hired by Egencia, under 

continuing obligations set forth in a Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation and 

Employee Agreement with TSI or one of its affiliates (the “NDA”). The NDA 

provides, in relevant part: 

Employee further agrees that Employee, for a period of 

twenty-four (24) months after he/she ceases to be 

employed by Company, will not solicit or do business 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 13 of 23
14 

directly or through any business enterprise with any of 

Company’s customers or clients which were doing 

business with Company, nor will Employee do business 

with any potential customers of Company which had 

engaged in business discussions with Company or had 

otherwise contemplated doing business with Company 

during the period that Employee acted as an Employee 

of Company. 

 53. By accepting employment with Egencia to serve Uber’s travel needs 

within 24 months of leaving TSI, Ms. Vasquez violated her obligation under the 

NDA not to “do business directly or through any business enterprise with any of 

Company’s customers or clients which were doing business with Company.” 

 54. Upon information and belief, Uber was aware of the existence of Ms. 

Vasquez’ obligations under the NDA. 

 55. Upon information and belief, notwithstanding its knowledge of their 

contracts, Uber encouraged, arranged and otherwise induced the Former TSI 

Employees to leave TSI and go to work for Egencia. 

 56. Upon information and belief, notwithstanding its knowledge of their 

contracts, Uber encouraged, arranged and otherwise induced Egencia to hire the 

Former TSI Employees. 

 57. Upon information and belief, Uber engaged in the foregoing 

inducement to breach of contract knowingly and intentionally, for the purpose of 

capitalizing on the knowledge and experience the Former TSI Employees obtained 

about Uber’s travel service requirements by working for TSI on Uber’s account. 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 14 of 23
15 

I. Uber Makes Defamatory Comments To TSI’s Customer and A 

Prospective Customer. 

 

58. TSI was informed by its client, Chicago-based in-flight ISP Gogo, 

Inc., in or about September of 2015, that Mr. Steve Sharlow, at the time 

speaking as Uber’s employee, agent and representative, made disparaging and 

defamatory statements concerning TSI’s conduct of its business. These 

statements included, in substance and without limitation, asking Gogo’s 

administrative personnel why they were using TSI, and claiming that TSI was 

ineffective and incompetent as a travel service provider. 

59. During the entire time in which TSI was performing services for 

Uber, Mr. Sharlow never personally booked travel utilizing TSI’s services. 

Accordingly, he made the aforementioned defamatory statements entirely 

without regard for the truth thereof. 

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT 1

(Breach of Contract) 

 60. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by this reference Paragraphs 1 

through 59, above, as if fully set forth herein. 

 61. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into valid, legally-binding and 

enforceable contracts, including the Services Agreement and Statement of 

Work. 

 62. Defendant has breached the terms of those contracts by, inter alia: 

(a) terminating the Agreements prematurely and without cause, prior to 

the expiration of the two-year contractual term; 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 15 of 23
16 

(b) failing to remit to TSI the “costs [TSI] already incurred in the 

performance of the Services,” as required by the Services Agreement, Paragraph 

11.1 in the event of a premature termination; 

(c) failing to carry out the full launch of TSI’s services as contemplated in 

the Agreements; and 

(d) failing to compensate TSI for products and services it delivered within 

and outside the scope of the Agreements, pursuant to Uber’s requests for such 

products and services. 

63. Plaintiff has fully performed and satisfied, to the extent it has not 

legally been excused from doing so as a result of Defendant’s breaches, all 

obligations and conditions precedent under its contracts with Defendant. 

64. Defendant’s breaches were committed knowingly, intentionally, 

willfully and with the intent to unlawfully obtain benefits from Plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s breaches and 

seeks monetary recovery therefor, in an amount to be determined at trial, but 

not less than the following: 

(a) $791,580.25 in implementation costs to achieve the 

implementation criteria set forth in the Statement of Work; 

(b) the separate implementation costs of Uber’s specially requested 

Ginseng project in the amount of $101,450; 

(c) the ongoing actual monthly cost of providing travel service to Uber, 

in the amount of $67,258.50 per month from January 2 through November 26, 

2015, or $739,843.50 (subject to an offset of $200,000.00); 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 16 of 23
17 

(d) the cost of airline travel advanced the Uber China pilot launch, in 

the amount of $8,112.82; 

(e) other out-of-pocket costs of travel advanced for Uber’s benefit by 

TSI in an amount to be determined; 

(f) Plaintiff’s costs in connection with prosecuting this lawsuit, 

including its reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent permitted under the law; 

 (g) pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted under the law; and 

 (h) exemplary damages based on Defendant’s willful, intentional and 

egregious misconduct to the extent permitted under the law; 

COUNT 2

(Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit) 

65. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by this reference Paragraphs 1 

through 59, above, as if fully set forth herein. 

66. Defendant has been unjustly enriched insofar as it has received 

benefits from Plaintiff for which Plaintiff reasonably anticipated, but never 

received, compensation. 

67. Defendant knowingly used and benefited from the products and 

services provided by Plaintiff. These products and services were accepted by 

Defendant, who should have expected to pay Plaintiff for the products and 

services rendered. By failing to pay for products and services, and by receiving 

the benefits thereof, Defendant has been unjustly enriched. 

68. The reasonable value of the aforementioned products and services, 

and the financial benefit to Defendant therefrom, currently is estimated to be at 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 17 of 23
18 

least $1,450,000.00, which is a reasonable charge after all just and lawful 

offsets, payments, and credits have been allowed. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks to recover for Defendant’s unjust 

enrichment, in an amount to be proved at trial, but not less than the following: 

(a) $1,450,000.00 for the reasonable value of products and services 

Plaintiff delivered to Defendant after credit for all prior payments; 

(b) Plaintiff’s costs in connection with prosecuting this lawsuit, 

including its reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent permitted under the law; 

(c) pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted under the law; and 

(d) exemplary damages based on Defendant’s willful, intentional and 

egregious misconduct to the extent permitted under the law. 

COUNT 3

(Fraud) 

69. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by this reference Paragraphs 1 

through 59, above, as if fully set forth herein. 

70. As set forth hereinabove, during the negotiation and performance 

of the Agreements, Defendant knowingly, intentionally and with the purpose to 

deceive Plaintiff, made material misrepresentations and omitted material facts 

from its statements to Plaintiff about, inter alia, Defendant’s intent to carry out 

the full launch of Plaintiff’s travel products and services as contemplated by 

the parties, including the following: 

(a) On or about February 11, 2015, Howard Jaffe of Uber informed Rick 

Kumpf of TSI that Uber still planned to execute a full launch that would 

encompass a minimum of $30 million of travel spend by Uber per year. Mr. 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 18 of 23
19 

Jaffe requested that TSI delay billing Uber for its monthly service fees and 

expenses, assuring Mr. Kumpf that TSI would make up any losses with the 

profits on its business following the Uber launch. 

(b) Ms. Mayr and others at Uber continued to give TSI assurances in 

June and July of 2015 that the full $30 million launch of TSI’s services was 

forthcoming, including but not limited to Ms. Mayr’s July 6, 2015 statement 

that the launch would occur, conditioned upon TSI’s successful completion of 

its work on the Ginseng project. These assurances occurred notwithstanding 

Ms. Mayr’s inadvertently-disclosed June 5, 2015 e-mail to Uber personnel, 

stating that she would keep them informed regarding the planned termination 

of TSI and her engagement of a new travel services company. The launch never 

occurred, despite TSI’s successful completion of its work, i.e., the 

implementation of software for a group booking engine for the Ginseng project. 

71. The foregoing misrepresentations and omissions were part of 

Defendant’s overall scheme to induce Plaintiff to enter into and perform 

pursuant to the Agreements, to undertake work outside the scope of the 

Agreements and to deliver useful products and services that would not only 

provide immediate benefits, but also continue to provide benefits after 

Defendant terminated Plaintiff. 

72. The foregoing misrepresentations and omissions did in fact induce 

Plaintiff’s actual and justifiable reliance thereon in entering into the 

Agreements and in providing products and service within and outside the scope 

thereof. 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 19 of 23
20 

73. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s fraudulent conduct by, 

inter alia, delivering valuable products and services to Defendant, at great 

expense to Plaintiff, which products and services it would not have delivered 

and which expenses it would not have incurred, but for the fraudulent 

misrepresentations and omissions of Defendant described above. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks to recover for Defendant’s fraud, in an 

amount to be proved at trial, but not less than the following: 

(a) $1,450,000.00 for the actual harm caused to Plaintiff by 

Defendant’s fraudulent conduct; 

(b) Plaintiff’s costs in connection with prosecuting this lawsuit, 

including its reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent permitted under the law; 

(c) pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted under the law; and 

(d) exemplary damages based on Defendant’s willful, intentional and 

egregious misconduct to the extent permitted under the law. 

COUNT 4

(Tortious Interference With Contract)

74. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by this reference Paragraphs 1 

through 59, above, as if fully set forth herein. 

75. The former TSI employee, Ms. Vasquez, had, at all relevant times, a 

valid and subsisting contract which prohibited her from performing travelrelated services for Defendant for a period of 24 months following the 

termination of their employment by Plaintiff. 

76. Defendant at all relevant times had knowledge of the former TSI 

employee’s contract with Plaintiff and, in particular, that the former TSI 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 20 of 23
21 

employee was prohibited from performing travel-related services for Defendant 

for a period of 24 months following the termination of her employment by 

Plaintiff. 

77. Notwithstanding its knowledge of her contract, Defendant 

arranged, encouraged and otherwise induced the former TSI employee to 

breach her contract, by accepting employment with Defendant’s new travel 

service provider, Egencia. 

78. Notwithstanding its knowledge of the former TSI employee’s 

contract, Defendant arranged, encouraged and otherwise induced Egencia to 

cause the former TSI employee to breach her contract, by offering her 

employment as a travel service provider for Defendant. 

 79. The former TSI employee, Ms. Vasquez, in fact breached her 

contract with Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct. 

 80. Defendant’s inducement of the former TSI employee’s breaches of 

contract was intentional and willful. 

 81. Plaintiff has suffered damages from Defendant’s inducement of the 

former TSI employee’s breaches of contract in the form of, inter alia, expended, 

unreimbursed, and lost training, recruiting and advertising costs, as well as 

lost revenues from the services that would otherwise have been rendered by the 

former TSI employee. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks to recover for Defendant’s intentional and 

tortious interference with its contracts with the former TSI employee, Ms. 

Vasquez, in an amount to be proved at trial, but not less than the following: 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 21 of 23
22 

(a) $250,000 to compensate Plaintiff for its losses resulting from 

Defendant’s interference with contract; 

(b) Plaintiff’s costs in connection with prosecuting this lawsuit, 

including its reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent permitted under the law; 

(c) pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted under the law; and 

(d) exemplary damages based on Defendant’s willful, intentional and 

egregious misconduct to the extent permitted under the law. 

COUNT 5

(Defamation/Business Disparagement) 

82. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by this reference Paragraphs 1 

through 59, above, as if fully set forth herein. 

83. As set forth hereinabove, Uber verbally disseminated to thirdparties, to wit, Gogo, Inc., and thereby published, false and disparaging 

information about TSI, to wit, its allegedly poor execution and conduct of its 

travel services business. 

84. As set forth hereinabove, including at Paragraphs 60 through 62, 

Uber made the aforementioned defamatory statements with malicious intent 

and, upon information and belief, for the purpose of intimidating TSI and in 

retaliation for TSI’s demand for just compensation. Uber aforementioned 

defamatory statements were made with knowledge of their falsity and/or with 

reckless disregard for their truth, were without privilege and caused special 

damages to the TSI in the form of lost and/or decreased business. Uber 

intended by its defamatory statements to interfere with TSI’s economic 

interests. 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 22 of 23
23 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks to recover for Defendant’s defamation and 

business disparagement in an amount to be proved at trial, but not less than 

the following: 

(a) $250,000 to compensate Plaintiff for its losses resulting from 

Defendant’s unlawful statements; 

(b) Plaintiff’s costs in connection with prosecuting this lawsuit, 

including its reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent permitted under the law; 

(c) pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted under the law; and 

(d) exemplary damages based on Defendant’s willful, intentional and 

egregious misconduct to the extent permitted under the law. 

VIII. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff seeks a trial by jury on all causes of action herein so triable. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SHEBAR LAW FIRM 

By: /s/Steven M. Shebar

IL State Bar No. 6297608 

(Admitted to Practice in N.D. Tex.) 

110 N. Gables Blvd. 

Wheaton, Illinois 60187 

708.434.5669 (direct) 

630-877-6833 (mobile) 

BOYD & STAPELTON 

By: /s/ Dan Boyd

TX State Bar No. 02765500 

5001 Spring Valley Rd 

Suite 400E 

Dallas, Texas 75244 

(972) 383-1260 (telephone) 

dan@boydstap.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

Case 3:17-cv-00169-JCS Document 1 Filed 07/27/16 Page 23 of 23