United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN DULBERG, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and RASIER,

LLC,

Defendants. /

No. 17-00850 WHA

ORDER RE UNOPPOSED

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

APPROVAL OF REVISED

SETTLEMENT

INTRODUCTION

In this breach-of-contract class action, plaintiff moves for preliminary approval of a

revised settlement agreement. Defendants do not oppose. To the extent stated below, the

revised class settlement is PRELIMINARILY APPROVED. Nonetheless, the motion will not be

granted until the parties revise the settlement agreement so that the class notice will be mailed,

not e-mailed. Further modifications to the class notice are also required.

STATEMENT

The background of this action is set forth in prior orders (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 52). In

short, plaintiff Martin Dulberg brought this class action on behalf of Uber drivers against

defendants Uber Technologies and Rasier, LLC (collectively, “Uber”), asserting Uber breached

its contract with Uber drivers. Uber’s policy changed in late 2016. Plaintiff alleged the new

policy violated his contract with Uber because Uber calculated costs to passengers by

estimating time and distance amounts before the ride and then compensated drivers based on
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

actual time and distance amounts — keeping the difference for itself. In January 2018, an order

certified the following class (Dkt. No. 80 at 8): 

All natural persons nationwide who (1) drove for UberX

or UberSELECT; (2) opted out of arbitration; (3)

transported a passenger who was charged an upfront Fare

before May 22, 2017, when Uber issued its updated fee

addendum; and (4) made less money overall on rides

where they transported passengers who were charged an

upfront Fare because they were paid on a Fare calculated

based on actual time and distance values instead of the

upfront Fare calculated based on estimated time and

distance values.

Plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement in the amount of

$345,622 (Dkt. No. 107 at 9). Defendants did not oppose. After some court-ordered changes to

the settlement agreement, including direction to alter the “released claims” section, an order

preliminarily approved the settlement agreement (Dkt. No. 121). Thereafter, an order approved,

as to form and content, the notice of class action settlement and a schedule governing the

remaining proceedings in the action (Dkt. No. 123). In November 2018, the settlement

administrator e-mailed the proposed class settlement notice to 4,584 class members — fiftyseven did not deliver. Eight class members subsequently requested to be excluded from the

settlement, and one class member informally objected to the settlement via e-mail to class

counsel but never followed the process delineated by the class action notice (Dkt. No. 142 ¶¶

4–9). 

In February 2019, plaintiff moved for final approval of the proposed class settlement of

$345,622. Plaintiff also requested attorney’s fees and reimbursement for expenses (Dkt. No.

139). In April 2019, a hearing was held. Two separate requests for information subsequently

issued to the parties (Dkt. Nos. 149, 151). Unsatisfied with the parties’ justifications for the low

proposed class-settlement, an order rejected it (Dkt. No. 153). More specifically, over 25% of

the class subject to the proposed settlement would have recovered less than the estimated

administrative costs of mailing the checks ($1.75). Many of the checks to be issued would have

been for one cent. The potential benefit of the settlement to the class as a whole could not be

justified. The high percentage of very low recovery was not reasonable (id. at 1). 
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Now, plaintiff tries again. His motion is unopposed. Specifically, the revised settlement

agreement has made three changes. First, each class member will now receive the minimum

payment of $20. Those class members who would have received more than $20, will still

receive the same amount as before. This change increases the total settlement amount from

$345,622 to approximately $395,000. Second, plaintiff’s counsel agreed to limit its request for

attorney’s fees to 25% of the net settlement amount. Third, Uber agreed to pay the

administrative costs of sending the revised class notice to class members. The expenses would

not come out of the settlement fund (Dkt. No. 156 at 3–5). This order follows a second oral

argument. 

ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that “[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of

a certified class . . . may be settled . . . only with the court’s approval.” Preliminary approval is

appropriate if “the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, noncollusive 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.” In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007)

(Chief Judge Vaughn Walker) (citation omitted). The parties’ proposed settlement agreement

satisfies these requirements. 

1. BENEFIT TO CLASS MEMBERS.

The issue raised at the final approval hearing stemmed from the mere pennies that would

be sent to approximately 25% of the class. This proposed settlement agreement establishes a

maximum settlement amount of approximately $395,000 paid directly to a maximum number of

4,594 class members. Under the revised settlement, the settlement amount remains $345,622. 

After the expenses and fees have been taken out of the settlement, Uber will add approximately

$50,000 to ensure no class member will receive less than $20. This cash infusion will go only to

the class who would have received less than $20 after the fees and expenses have been taken out. 

Because no class member will now receive less than $20, this solution falls within the range of

possible approval (Dkt. No. 156-2 at 8–10).
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

This is still a low-end recovery for the class. Evidently, this is because the case itself has

turned out to be a low-end theory. It might be better for the average class member to roll the

dice and see if they could hit big with a jury rather than accept a mere twenty or so dollars. But

even a “hit” would not push the average award into three figures, now that we see how little the

case was built on. It is hard to justify the burden on the jury to try this case. For this reason, at

least enough has been provided to warrant preliminary approval and an opportunity for comment

from the class members.

2. SCOPE OF THE RELEASE.

The revised settlement agreement contains the same release of claims previously

preliminarily approved. The release of claims remains defined as: 

[A]ll causes of action and claims that were or could have

been asserted against any of the Released Parties for

alleged breach of Paragraph 4.1 of the TSA based on

Uber’s upfront pricing practices that are alleged in this

Action on behalf of the Settlement Class.

(Dkt. No. 156-2 at 5). Despite the appearance of broad language, the parties had previously

assured the Court at the prior preliminary approval hearing that this release is limited to the

certified claims. On this condition, the release falls within the range of possible approval. 

3. ATTORNEY’S FEES AND INCENTIVE AWARD.

Plaintiff’s attorneys are Danielle Marlow and Salvatore Badala of Napoli Shkolnik

PLLC. The settlement provides that plaintiff’s attorneys will move for fees and expenses. The

settlement agreement allows the Court to decide how much to compensate counsel in terms of

their fees and expenses. Yet, plaintiff’s counsel have pledged they will move for 25% of the net

settlement amount. This amount generally suffices. Additionally, all further expenses in

sending the fresh class notices will not come out of the settlement fund — Uber will pay (Dkt.

No. 156 at 3). This will allow for greater recovery to the class. 

Finally, subject to Court approval, the proposed settlement agreement provides for a

“Service Payment Allocation,” which will be subject to the Court’s discretion. Named plaintiff

seeks $5,000 (Dkt. No. 156-2 at 6). This amount — if any — will be decided at the final

approval hearing thereby giving class members a chance to be heard. The Court notes that it will
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

be hard to justify giving the named plaintiff any bonus for having “won” such a low-end

recovery.

4. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.

Plaintiff argues another factor weighing in favor of preliminary approval is that the

proposed settlement agreement followed “mediation before Judge Ryu, as well as private

negotiation sessions spanning several months” (Dkt. No. 156 at 16). The parties, however,

agreed to the first settlement months after the parties’ last appearance in front of Judge Ryu. The

revised settlement was agreed to over the phone without Judge Ryu. 

Still, the parties completed both fact and expert discovery and have tested the merits of

the claims at issue through motion practice. This background remains relevant to whether this

proposed settlement agreement appears to be “the product of serious, informed, non-collusive

negotiations.” See In re Tableware, 484 F. Supp. 2d at 1079. 

5. REQUIRED MODIFICATIONS TO CLASS ACTION NOTICE.

The parties seek to e-mail the class notice. This will not do. It will be seen by recipients

as junkmail or phishing troll work and ignored. The parties provide that if the Court insists on

the class notice being mailed, they will do so. The court insists on first-class mailing by firstclass mail. The parties must amend the settlement agreement to reflect this change. 

Turning to the notice itself, counsel shall also please resubmit the release notice for Court

approval with the following two modifications. First, Section 6 must inform the class the

specific amount of attorney’s fees, expenses, and the service payment that counsel seek. Counsel

submitted a declaration in April 2019 which sought approximately $40,000 in expenses (Dkt.

No. 141 ¶ 12). After subtracting these expenses from the settlement, 25% of the net settlement

amount translates to approximately $76,000. As these amounts are known to the parties, vaguely

writing that counsel will seek “reasonable” fees and expenses will not suffice. To this end,

Section 6 must state: “Class Counsel will move the Court for: [$XX.XX] in attorney’s fees,

[$XX.XX] in expenses incurred in the action, and to award Plaintiff a $5,000 service payment

for his participation in the case. These amounts must first be approved by the Court.” 
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

6

Second, for the same reason, between the second and third sentences in Section 7, the

notice must specifically account for the net amount each class member will recover after the

requested attorney’s fees, expenses, and named plaintiff award have been factored in. 

Specifically, a sentence must be added before the third sentence in Section 7 which states: 

“Your individual recovery has been calculated to be approximately [$XX.XX] under this

settlement after reduction for your share of attorney’s fees and costs of suit as yet to be

determined by the judge.”

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement are hereby

PRELIMINARILY APPROVED as being fair, reasonable and adequate to the members of the class,

subject to further consideration at the final approval hearing. The sole required change to the

settlement agreement remains that the notice must be mailed by first-class mail. The unopposed

motion for preliminary approval of the settlement will not be granted until the Court receives the

required modifications as to the class notice. The revised settlement agreement and revised

notice must be filed by AUGUST 1 AT NOON. All other deadlines are VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2019. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE