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 

JOINT RESPONSE TO ORDER 

REQUESTING INFORMATION 

3:17-CV-00850-WHA 

RANDALL W. EDWARDS (S.B. #179053) 

redwards@omm.com 

MATTHEW D. POWERS (S.B. #212682) 

mpowers@omm.com 

DAMALI A. TAYLOR (S.B. #262489) 

dtaylor@omm.com 

ADAM M. KAPLAN (S.B. #298077) 

akaplan@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 

Telephone: (415) 984-8700 

Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RASIER, LLC 

PAUL B. MASLO (admitted pro hac vice) 

pmaslo@napolilaw.com 

SAMUEL J. MOORHEAD (S.B. #311638) 

smoorhead@napolilaw.com 

NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC 

5757 W. Century Blvd., Suite 680 

Los Angeles, CA 90045 

Telephone: (310) 331-8224 

Facsimile: (646) 843-7603 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARTIN DULBERG, individually, and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and 

RASIER, LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-CV-00850-WHA 

JOINT STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO 

ORDER REQUESTING ADDITIONAL 

INFORMATION REGARDING 

SETTLEMENT [ECF No. 110] 

Case 3:17-cv-00850-WHA Document 117 Filed 09/20/18 Page 1 of 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 

- 1 - 

JOINT RESPONSE TO ORDER 

REQUESTING INFORMATION 

3:17-CV-00850-WHA 

In response to the Court’s September 13, 2018 questions about the proposed Settlement 

Agreement (ECF No. 110), Plaintiff Martin Dulberg and Defendants Uber Technologies Inc. and 

Rasier, LLC submit the following responses, which they believe support preliminary approval of 

the settlement. The Parties will be prepared to address these, and any other questions the Court 

may have, at the hearing on September 27, 2018. 

1. Will there be members of the class giving releases that will receive no money? 

All class members who provide a release under the proposed Settlement Agreement will 

receive monetary compensation. The amount of the monetary compensation will be determined 

by taking the class members’ pro rata portion of the Settlement Fund Balance, which is the 

Settlement Fund ($345,622.00) less any amounts awarded by the Court for attorneys’ fees and 

costs, administrative expenses, and any service award to Plaintiff Dulberg. The pro rata amounts, 

as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, are determined based on the damages figures submitted 

at class certification and the calculations described in the expert report of Dr. Brigham R. 

Frandsen. (ECF Nos. 73-6, 106-3). 

2. What is the specific maximum number of class members who will be releasing 

claims under the proposed settlement? 

Based on the analysis by Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Frandsen, of the ride data produced by 

Uber in this case, the maximum number of class members releasing claims under this proposed 

Settlement Agreement is 4,594. 

3. The proposed settlement’s release provides not only for the release of all 

causes of action and claims in this action, but also for “all other actions, under any law or 

theory, that relate to the alleged breach of Paragraph 4.1 of the [agreement].” How does this 

release comport with the requirement that the release should be limited only to the claims 

certified for class treatment? 

The parties narrowly tailored the release to match the specific factual allegations that were 

the premise of the breach of contract claim asserted in the operative complaint and certified for 

class treatment. The Settlement Agreement defines “Released Claims” as “all causes of action 

and claims pleaded against Uber in this Action, and all other actions, under any law or theory, 

Case 3:17-cv-00850-WHA Document 117 Filed 09/20/18 Page 2 of 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 

- 2 - 

JOINT RESPONSE TO ORDER 

REQUESTING INFORMATION 

3:17-CV-00850-WHA 

that relate to the alleged breach of Paragraph 4.1 of the TSA based on Uber’s upfront pricing 

practices that are alleged in this Action against any of the Released Parties on behalf of the 

Settlement Class.” (Settlement Agreement at I.17.) The release is not intended to sweep broader 

than the factual allegations and theory of wrongdoing at issue in this case. As defined, the 

Released Claims are limited to those claims relating to the specific conduct alleged by Plaintiff to 

have constituted a breach of Paragraph 4.1 of the TSA. In particular, the phrase “Uber’s upfront 

pricing practices that are alleged in this Action” is limiting language that prevents an overbroad 

release scope. 

The Settlement Agreement does not purport to release other claims that “could have been 

brought” in this litigation. The reference to “all causes of action and claims . . . in this Action, 

and all other actions” is intended to protect Uber from the same factual allegations and theory of 

wrongdoing being asserted in another action -- indeed, it has been in at least two other actions to 

date that have been stayed pending the resolution of this action. See Van v. Rasier, LLC, 2:17-cv02550-DMG (C.D. Cal.); Beilke v. Uber Technologies, Inc., CGC-17-560916 (S.F. Sup. Ct.). 

The language “under any law or theory” is meant to protect Uber from the very same factual 

allegations and theory of wrongdoing being re-cast in another suit as, for example, an unjust 

enrichment claim or a claim for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. For those 

reasons, the release in the Settlement Agreement was not intended to be -- and in the Parties’ 

view, is not -- overbroad or problematic in the way identified by the Court’s Settlement 

Guidelines. (See ECF No. 81, § 4.) 

4. Why are the class benefits based on plaintiff’s interpretation of the contract, 

whereas the released claims are based on defendants’ interpretation of the contract? 

The Parties will be prepared to address the Court’s questions at the hearing, but they are 

not certain they fully understand this question. The Parties do not believe that the Released 

Claims as defined in the Settlement Agreement are “based on defendants’ interpretation of the 

contract.” The Released Claims are intended to be tailored specifically to Plaintiff’s factual 

allegations and theory of wrongdoing in this case and to reflect a release of only those claims 

related to that theory. 

Case 3:17-cv-00850-WHA Document 117 Filed 09/20/18 Page 3 of 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 

- 3 - 

JOINT RESPONSE TO ORDER 

REQUESTING INFORMATION 

3:17-CV-00850-WHA 

Dated: September 20, 2018 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

 By: /s/ Randall W. Edwards Randall W. Edwards 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC 

Dated: September 20, 2018 NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC 

 By: /s/ Paul B. Maslo Paul B. Maslo 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ATTESTATION OF FILING 

Pursuant to Local Rule 5.1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I, Randall W. Edwards, attest that 

concurrence in the filing of this Joint Statement in Response to Order Requesting Additional 

Information has been obtained from Paul B. Maslo. 

Dated: September 20, 2018 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

 By: /s/ Randall W. Edwards 

 Randall W. Edwards 

Case 3:17-cv-00850-WHA Document 117 Filed 09/20/18 Page 4 of 4