ATTACHMENT A 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 1 of 26
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Document Scanning Lead Sheet 

May-20-2016 3:38pm 

Case Number: CGC-16-552156 

Filing Date: May-20-2016 3: 10 

Filed by: BOWMAN LIU 

lmage:05406695 

COMPLAINT 

SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ET AL 

001 C05406695 

Instructions: 

Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 2 of 26
0 

SUMMONS 

(CITACION JUDICIAL) 

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: 

(AVISO AL DEMANDADO): 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive. 

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: 

(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): 

SAMUEL WARD SP ANGENBBRG, an Individual, on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated. 

0 

SUM-100 

FOR COURT USE ONI.Y 

(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORn;, 

NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may deckle against you without your being heard unless you respond wllhln 30 daya. Read the Information 

below. 

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy 

served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone caH wiN not protect you. Yoll' written response must be In proper legal form If you want the court to hear your 

case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forma and more Information at the California Cota1a 

OnBne Self-Help Center (www.courl/nfO.ca.(J(Nisel/help), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the fling fee, ask 

the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not fie your response on Ume, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property 

may be taken without further warning from the court. 

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right SNta'f· If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney 

referral service. If you camot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonproftt legal services program. You can locate 

these nonprofit groups at the California legal Services Web site (www.lewheJpcallfomla.OIP), the CeDfomla Cota1s Onlne Self-Help Center 

(www.courtlnfo.ca.gov/selfhtllp), or by contacUng your local court or county bar assoclallon. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and 

costs on any seWement or arbllratlon award of $10,000 or more In a clvl case. The court's lien must be paid before the court wll dtsmlss the case. 

1A VISOI Lo han demandado. Sf no responde dentm de 30 elias, Ia cort. puede decldlr en su contra 6/n ascuchar su wrsl6n. Lea Ia lnlonnac/tJn a conttnuec/tJn. 

Tlene 30 DIAS DE CALENDAR/0 rlespuls de que /e entreguen esta citaci6n y papeles /egllles para pteaenlar una rupuesta por escrito en ests 

COife y hscer que se anlt8gue una cop/a at demBndante. una carte o una Hamtlda tefefdnlce no /o pmtegen. Su I'UpfiNta por escrtto tlene que estar en fotmato legal COI7'eCto s1 ctesea que procesen su caso en Ia cone. Es pos/ble que haya un fotmulatio que Ulfed pueda uur para su tr~spuests. 

Puede encontrar esto8 loimu/arlos de Ia corte y mls lnfotmacl6n en al Centro de Ayuda de las Cates de c.llfomle [www.auoorte.ca.gov), en Ia 

blbllotecs de /eyes de su condado o en Ia corte que /e quede mls ceroa. Sl no puede pi!I{Jtlf Ia cuota de ptesentacKm, plda at SBC18I8Ito de le corte 

que 1e c/6 un formular/o de exenc/6n de page de cuotas. Sl no presenlll su tflspuesla a t/empo, puede perrJer al ceso por lncumpllmlento y Ia COite I& 

podrd quitar su suelc/o, dinero y blenes 8/n mis advettencla. 

Hay oliOS requi:Jitos legales. Es recomendeble que flame a un abogado lnmedlatarnente. Sl no conoce a un abogado, puede /Jamar a un servlclo de 

lflmisi6n a abOgac/o$. Sl no putlde pager a un abogado, es poslble que cumpla con los 18qu/sltos para obllllner SfHVic/oa legales gratulto8 de un 

programa de stNVIclos legales sin fines de lucto. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el slllo web de Cellfomla LsgaJ Setvkes, 

j\Nww.lawhelpcalfomlaorg), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de CB/ffomle, f.vww.aucorte.ca.gov) o pon/IJndose en contacto con Ia corte o el 

coleglo de abogtldos locales. AVISO: Por ley, le cotte tiene derecho a rec/amer IN cuotas y los costos exenloa por tmponer un {1I'8V8I7J8n sobte 

cuelquler f8CfJPfii'BCI(m de $10,000 6 mls de valor reclblda mediante un acuerdo o une conces/6n de atbltni,Je en un caao de dereCho civiL Tlene que 

pagar el gravamen de Ia cotte antes de que Ia corle pueda desechar el case. 

The name and address of the court Is: CASE NUMBER: 

fMln*o dill Cltaot (B nombre y dlreccl6n de Ia corte es): San Francisco Superior Court 

400 McAllister Street tn"-,'-

San Francisco, CA 94102 

The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff wilhout an attorney, is: 

(B nombre, Ia dlr8ccl6n y el nflmero de teiMono del abog8do del demandante, o del demandante que no tfen6 abogado, es): 

Barbara E. Figari, The Figari Law Firm, 117 E. Colorado Blvd., Ste 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 (626)486-2620 

DATE: 05/20116.A" 2 . DE':)UTY C' r!'nl( Clerk, by 

(Fecha) M ,1 · ·· 0 2016 ' u:n (S 

(For proof of service of thiS summons, use Proof of Service of Summon 

(Para prueba de entrega de esta cltat/6n use el formularlo Proof of Service ummons, (POS-01 0)). 

NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 

[SEAL] 1. 0 as an Individual defendant. 

2. 0 as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 

3. D on behalf of (specify): 

, Deputy 

(Ad) unto) 

.BOWMANUU 

EYFAX 

under: 0 CCP 416.10 (corporation) 0 CCP 416.60 (minor} 

0 CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) D CCP 416.70 (conservatee) 

D CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) D CCP 416.90 (authorized person) 

Form Adaplad lor MlnlaiDiy liM Judicial COuncl of Cellfarria 

SUM-100 [RaY. J,.1, 2009J 

0 other (specify): 

4. 0 by personal delivery on (date): 

SUMMONS 

p toft 

Cod• or ct\dii'IDclldln IS 412.20, 41111 

-.~ ... .grew 

WWW.PDFLEGAL.COM 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 3 of 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 

BARBARA E. FIGARI (SBN 251942) 

THE FIGARI LAW FI1nf 

A Professional Corporation 

117 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600 

Pasadena, California 91101 

Telephone (626) 486-2620 

Facsnnile (877). 459-3540 

barbara@figanlaw.com 

Att91}1~S for Plaintiff 

SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG 

0 

F I L E 

Superior COurt of California 

County oi San Francisco 

MAY /. 2 0'~016 

CLE 

~--c=~--~~~~ 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG, an 

individual, on behalf of himself and all 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and 

DOES 1-50, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CGC-16.552156 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 

(1) WRONGFUL TERMINATION/ 

ABUSIVE DISCHARGE IN 

VIOLATION OF PUBLIC 

POLICY; 

(2) BREACH OF IMPLIED 

CONTRACT; 

(3) BREACH OF IMPLIED 

COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH 

AND FAIR DEALING; 

~~~ ~~Tfr~~ss PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF 

BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS 

CODE SECTION 17200-t!t seq.; (6) AGE DISCRIMINATION IN 

VIOLATION OF FEHA; 

(7) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION 

OFFEHA; 

(8) FAILURE TO PREVENT 

DISCRIMINATION IN 

VIOLATIONOFFEHA· and 

(9) VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE 

SECTION 1102.5 

DE~ FOR JURY TRIAL 

PUNITIVE DAMAGES SOUGHT 

REPRESENTATIVE ACTION 

BY FAX 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 4 of 26
0 0 

1 Plaintiff alleges as follows: 

2 INTRODUCTION 

3 1. This is an action for damages as to: (1) Wrongful Termination/Abusive 

4 Discharge in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Breach of Implied Contract; (3) Breach of 

5 the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Defamation; (5) Unfair 

6 Business Practices; (6) Age Discrimination in Violation ofFEHA; (7) Retaliation in 

7 Violation ofFEHA; (8) Failure to Prevent Retaliation in Violation ofFEHA; and (9) 

8 Violation ofLabor Code Section 1102.5. 

9 2. This action arises out of events involving Plaintiff SAMUEL WARD 

10 SPANGENBERG and Defendants UBERT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DOES 1-50. 

11 THE PARTIES 

12 3. Plaintiff SAMEUL WARD SPANGENBERG (hereinafter "Plaintiff'' or 

13 "SPANGENBERG") is informed and believes and thereon alleges that UBER 

14 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "UBER" or "Defendant") was at all 

15 times relevant herein a corporation doing business in California and headquartered in 

16 California, in the County of San Francisco. 

17 4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants 

18 sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, and therefore sues them by such fictitious names. 

19 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said Defendants are in some 

20 manner legally responsible for the activities and damages alleged herein. Plaintiff will 

21 amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. 

22 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times 

23 herein mentioned each of the Defendants were acting as the partner, agent, servant, and 

24 employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things alleged herein 

25 was acting within the course and scope of such agency and with the knowledge of the 

26 remaining Defendants. 

27 

28 

2 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 5 of 26
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

c 

JURISDICTION 

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over UBER because it is a California 

resident, it is headquartered in California, it is a California corporation, it transacts a 

substantial amount of business in California, and the tortious acts UBER is herein 

alleged to have committed against SPANGENBERG occurred in California. 

VENUE 

7. Venue is proper in this Court because UBER resides in the County of San 

8 Francisco, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 

9 occurred in County of San Francisco, pursuant to, inter alia, Government Code section 

10 12965. 

11 8. Venue is further proper in this Court pursuant to Government Code section 

12 12965(b), in that UBER'S personnel records, and other records related to the unlawful 

13 practices alleged herein, are maintained at its corporate offices in San Francisco, 

14 California, within the County of San Francisco. 

15 9. The venue provisions set forth in Government Code section 12965 are 

16 applicable both to Plaintiff's causes of action for violation of the Fair Employment and 

17 Housing Act ("FEHA"), and all non-FEHA causes of action concurrently plead herein. 

18 (See Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 478. 

19 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

20 10. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the 

21 preceding paragraphs. 

22 11. UBER hired SPANGENBERG as a Forensic Investigator commencing 

23 employment on March 9, 2015. SPANGENBERG was hired at an initial salary of 

24 $175,000 per year, in addition to health and retirement benefits. As part of his 

25 compensation package, SPANGENBERG was also granted 34,133 Restricted Stock 

26 Units ("RSUs"), which were subject to a vesting schedule. The RSUs were set to vest 

27 upon SPANGENBERG's completion of one year of employment with UBER. 

28 

3 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 6 of 26
0 0 

1 12. SPANGENBERG received a favorable six-month review, which lauded 

2 his performance and contributions to the company. Thereafter, John "Four" Flynn was 

3 brought in as a new supervisor to SPANGENBERG and others. Mr. Flynn, who is 

4 much younger than SPANGENBERG, made numerous age related comments in the 

5 workplace, including comments that SPANGENBERG did not understand the 

6 technology, implied SPANGENBERG could not keep up with a youth driven culture at 

7 UBER, and derided SPANGENBERG's work performance that had just been reviewed 

8 as being a contribution to UBER SPANGENBERG reported to Mr. Flynn during their 

9 one on one meetings that he felt Mr. Flynn's comments were unprofessional and 

10 improper, and that he felt Mr. Flynn was attempting to "manage him" out of the 

11 company. SPANGENBERG later reported these same concerns to UBER Human 

12 Resources in late December 2015-just six weeks before his termination. 

13 13. In late November and early December 2015, SPANGENBERG met with 

14 Mr. Flynn and Human Resources Director Andrew Wegley, and reported numerous 

15 issues critical to the success ofUBER's Security Response Team, including but not 

16 limited to steps UBER needed to take to ensure its applications were compliant with 

17 relevant laws and regulations. After this meeting, Mr. Flynn sent SPANGENBERG an 

18 email made reference to the issues SPANGENBERG raised during the meeting with 

19 the Security Response Team, and noted that UBER values a "truth seeking culture." In 

20 this same email, Mr. Flynn- for the first time - also discussed various purported 

21 "deficiencies" with SPANGENBERG's work performance, which had never been 

22 discussed prior to SPANGENBERG's raising of certain compliance issues. 

23 14. During his employment with UBER, SPANGENBERG reimaged his 

24 laptop on at least four different occasions, as did many employees at UBER. 

25 SPANGENBERG always took extreme caution when so doing, and never deleted any 

26 emails or crashplan logs, or any other information which belonged to UBER. As part 

27 of his job duties, SPANGENBERG was tasked with investigating certain issues -

28 sometimes certain employees - and to this extent would first use himself as a "test 

4 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 7 of 26
0 0 

1 subject" to ensure his investigative tools were working properly. This practice was 

2 explicitly discussed by SPANGENBERG with supervisor Joe Sullivan, and Mr. 

3 Sullivan approved of SPANGENBERG's methods. 

4 15. Nevertheless, on February 10, 2016,just before SPANGENBERG's 

5 RSUs were to vest, UBER terminated SPANGENBERG's employment. UBER 

6 contended that SPANGENBERG violated its Code of Conduct, but to date has been 

7 unable to articulate any provision it contends SPANGENBERG actually violated. 

8 16. UBER told SPANGENBERG his termination was due to the reimaging 

9 ofhis laptop on February 9, 2016, but as noted above, that is an action 

10 SPANGENBERG- and numerous others- have undertaken multiple times during his 

11 employment with UBER. The only time this was ever an issue was after 

12 SPANGENBERG made reports of activity which UBER intended to engage in that 

13 SPANGENBERG was concerned violated certain statutes and regulations, and right 

14 before SPANGENBERG's stock options were to vest. 

15 17. SPANGENBERG is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the 

16 stated reason for his termination was pretextual, to cover up an illegal reason for the 

17 termination. 

18 18. SPANGENBERG was initially offered a severance package, which was 

19 later rescinded. UBER has made defamatory statements about SPANGENBERG's 

20 work, his ethics while employed by the company, and made defamatory statements that 

21 SPANGENBERG deliberately engaged in actions to falsify or destroy UBER's data. 

22 These defamatory statements harm SPANGENBERG's business reputation, which he 

23 has spent years cultivating based upon his work and adherence to strict ethical 

24 standards. 

25 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

26 WRONGFUL TERMINATION/ABUSIVE DISCHARGE 

27 IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY 

28 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

5 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 8 of 26
0 0 

1 19. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the 

2 preceding paragraphs. 

3 20. Plaintiff's wrongful termination from his employment with Defendants 

4 was based upon Defendants' violation of the Public Policy of the State of California as 

5 put forward in the Fair Employment Housing Act, the California Constitution, the Age 

6 Discrimination in Employment Act, and other statutes and provisions, because it was 

7 motivated by Plaintiff's age. 

8 21. Plaintiff's wrongful termination from his employment with Defendants 

9 was an abusive discharge in violation of public policy of the State of California because 

1 o it was discriminatory based on age and because it was intended to interfere with his 

11 collection of the Restricted Stock Units to which he was entitled. 

12 22. Plaintiff's wrongful termination was in violation of the common law of the 

13 State of California, as expressed in Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 

14 167. 

15 23. It is public policy of the State of California that employees should be paid 

16 what they have earned. Labor Code sections 200, 201, 203, 210, and 216. It is an unfair 

17 business practice for a business to fail to pay an employee what he or she has earned. 

18 Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq. Equity promised to employees as 

19 compensation for their work and loyalty is recognized as "wages" per Labor Code 

20 section 200, subsection (a). 

21 24. As a proximate result of Defendants' wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered 

22 and continues to suffer substantial monetary losses incurred; and has suffered and 

23 continues to suffer emotional distress in an amount according to proof at the time of 

24 trial. 

25 25. Defendants, and each of them, did the acts alleged herein maliciously, 

26 fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff, from an 

27 improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's 

28 rights. The acts complained of were known to, authorized and ratified by Defendants. 

6 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 9 of 26
c 0 

1 Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of 

2 them, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 

3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

4 BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT 

5 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

6 26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the 

7 preceding paragraphs. 

8 27. As part of his compensation package, SPANGENBERG was granted 

9 34,133 Restricted Stock Units ("RSUs"), which were subject to a vesting schedule. The 

10 RSUs were set to vest upon SPANGENBERG's completion of one year of employment 

11 with UBER. Plaintiff accepted Defendants' offer by continuing to work for Defendants. 

12 Defendants' statements that Plaintiff would receive stock in UBER. if he continued to 

13 work for Defendants constituted an offer, which Plaintiff accepted by performance, 

14 creating a binding contract. 

15 28. At all relevant times alleged herein, Plaintiff performed his obligation 

16 under the both contracts with Defendants. Defendants breached their implied 

17 contractual commitments to Plaintiff by terminating his employment and by not 

18 providing him with stock in UBER. 

19 29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' breach, Plaintiff has 

20 economic loss in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 

21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

22 BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 

23 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

24 30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the 

25 preceding paragraphs. 

26 31. As part of his compensation package, SPANGENBERG was granted 

27 34,133 Restricted Stock Units ("RSUs"), which were subject to a vesting schedule. The 

28 RSUs were set to vest upon SPANGENBERG's completion of one year of employment 

7 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 10 of 26
c 0 

1 with UBER. Plaintiff accepted Defendants' offer by continuing to work for Defendants. 

2 Defendants' statements that Plaintiff would receive stock in UBER. if he continued to 

3 work for Defendants constituted an offer, which Plaintiff accepted by performance, 

4 creating a binding contract. 

5 32. At all relevant times alleged herein, Plaintiff performed his obligation 

6 under the both contracts with Defendants. Defendants breached their implied 

7 contractual commitments to Plaintiff by terminating his employment and by not 

8 providing him with stock in UBER. 

9 33. At all relevant times alleged herein, Plaintiff performed his obligation 

10 under the both contracts with Defendants. Defendants breached their implied 

11 contractual commitments to Plaintiff by terminating his employment and by not 

12 providing him with stock in UBER. 

13 34. Defendants unfairly interfered with Plaintiffs rights under both contracts 

14 to receive the stock by terminating his employment and by not providing him with stock 

15 in UBER. 

16 35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' breach, Plaintiff has 

17 economic loss in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 

18 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

19 DEFAMATION 

20 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

21 36. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the 

22 preceding paragraphs. 

23 3 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants, and each of them, by 

24 the herein-described acts, conspired to, and in fact, did negligently, recklessly, and 

25 intentionally cause excessive and unsolicited internal publications of defamation 

26 regarding Plaintiffs work performance, integrity, competence, honesty, and ethics. 

27 38. UBER, by and through its employees, including supervisor FLYNN, 

28 falsely stated that SPANGENBERG: 

8 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 11 of 26
0 0 

1 a. Violated UBER's Code of Conduct; 

2 b. Deliberately engaged in actions to falsify UBER's data; and 

3 c. Deliberately engaged in actions to destroy UBER's data. 

4 39. These statements were made to UBER employees, including but not 

5 limited to Plaintiffs colleagues and Human Resources Director Andrew Wegley. 

6 40. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that these statements 

7 were the basis of subsequent correspondence from Defendants' employees to Plaintiffs 

8 former colleagues and managers as to the reason he was no longer employed with 

9 Defendants. 

10 41. These emails, and all subsequent defamatory communications from 

11 Defendants, including the forced self-publication of the same, severely damaged 

12 Plaintiffs award-winning reputation that was built over 25 years within the industry. 

13 42. All of the defamatory comments alleged herein were made within one year 

14 prior to the original filing of Plaintiffs lawsuit. Plaintiff is informed and believes the 

15 statements were made on February 10,2016, and that the comments were made to 

16 vendors, customers and executives beginning on that day, and continuing to the present. 

17 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes that these publications were outrageous, 

18 negligent, reckless, intentional, and maliciously published by Defendants, and each of 

19 them. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the negligent, reckless, and intentional 

20 publications by Defendants, and each of them, were published by Defendants, their 

21 agents and employees. Plaintiff hereby seeks damages for these publications and all 

22 foreseeable republications discovered up to the time of trial. 

23 44. During the above-described time-frame, Defendants, and each of them, 

24 conspired to, and in fact did, negligently, recklessly, and intentionally cause excessive 

25 and unsolicited publication of defamation, of and concerning Plaintiff, to each other and 

26 to third persons, who had no need or desire to know. Those third persons to whom these 

27 Defendants published this defamation are believed to include, but are not limited to, 

28 

9 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 12 of 26
c 0 

1 other agents and employees of Defendants, and each of them, and the community, all of 

2 whom are known to Defendants, and each of them, but unknown at this time to Plaintiff. 

3 45. The defamatory publications consisted of oral and written, knowingly false 

4 and unprivileged communications, tending directly to injure Plaintiff and Plaintiff's 

5 personal, business, and professional reputation. The defamatory publications include 

6 false statements about SPANGENBERG'S work performance, integrity, competence, 

7 honesty, ethics and his professional conduct. 

8 46. Plaintiff is informed, believes and fears that these false and defamatory 

9 statements will continue to be published by Defendants, and each of them, and will be 

1 o foreseeably republished by their recipients, all to the ongoing harm and injury to 

11 Plaintiff's business, professional, and personal reputations. Plaintiff also seeks redress 

12 in this action for all foreseeable republications. 

13 4 7. The defamatory meaning of all of the above-described false and 

14 defamatory statements and their reference to Plaintiff, were understood by these above15 referenced third person recipients and other members of the community who are known 

16 to Defendants, and each of them, but unknown to Plaintiff at this time. 

17 48. None ofDefendants' defamatory publications against Plaintiff referenced 

18 above are true. 

19 49. The above defamatory statements were understood as assertions of fact, 

20 and not as opinion. Plaintiff is informed and believes this defamation will continue to be 

21 negligently, recklessly, and intentionally published and foreseeably republished by 

22 Defendants, and each of them, and foreseeably republished by recipients of Defendants' 

23 publications, thereby causing additional injury and damages for which Plaintiff seeks 

24 redress by this action. 

25 50. Each of these false defamatory per se publications were negligently, 

26 recklessly, and intentionally published in a manner equaling malice and abuse of any 

27 alleged conditional privilege, which Plaintiff denies existed, since the publications, and 

28 each of them, were made with hatred, ill will, and an intent to vex, harass, annoy, and 

10 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 13 of 26
0 0 

1 injure Plaintiff in order to justify the illegal and cruel actions of Defendants, and each of 

2 them, to cause further damage to Plaintiff's professional and personal reputation. 

3 51. Each of these publications by Defendants were made with knowledge that 

4 no investigation supported the unsubstantiated and obviously false statements. The 

5 Defendants published these statements knowing them to be false, unsubstantiated by any 

6 reasonable investigation and the product ofhostile witnesses. These acts of publication 

7 were known by Defendants, and each of them, to be negligent to such a degree as to be 

8 reckless. In fact, not only did Defendants, and each of them, have no reasonable basis to 

9 believe these statements, but they also had no belief in the truth of these statements, and 

10 in fact knew the statements to be false. Defendants, and each of them, excessively, 

11 negligently, and recklessly published these statements to individuals with no need to 

12 know, and who made no inquiry, and who had a mere general or idle curiosity of this 

13 information. 

14 52. The above complained-of publications by Defendants, and each of them, 

15 were made with hatred and ill will towards Plaintiff and the design and intent to injure 

16 Plaintiff, Plaintiff's good name, his reputation, employment and employability. 

17 Defendants, and each of them, published these statements, not with intent to protect any 

18 interest intended to be protected by any privilege, but with negligence, recklessness 

19 and/or an intent to injure Plaintiff and destroy his reputation. Therefore, no privilege 

20 existed to protect any of the Defendants from liability for any of these aforementioned 

21 publications or republications. 

22 53. As a proximate result of the publication and republication of these 

23 defamatory statements by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered injury to 

24 his personal, business and professional reputation including suffering embarrassment, 

25 humiliation, severe emotional distress, shunning, anguish, fear, loss of employment, and 

26 employability, and significant economic loss in the form oflost wages and future 

27 earnings, all to Plaintiffs economic, emotional, and general damage in an amount 

28 according to proof. 

11 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRlAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 14 of 26
0 0 

1 54. Defendants, and each of them, committed the acts alleged herein 

2 recklessly, maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of 

3 injuring Plaintiff, for an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and which 

4 abused and/or prevented the existence of any conditional privilege, which in fact did not 

5 exist, and with a reckless and conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. 

6 55. All actions of Defendants, and each of them, their agents· and employees, 

7 herein alleged were known, ratified and approved by the Defendants, and each of them. 

8 Plaintiff thus is entitled to recover punitive and exemplary damages from Defendants, 

9 and each of them, for these wanton, obnoxious, and despicable acts in an amount based 

10 on the wealth and ability to pay according to proof at time of trial. 

11 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

12 UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & 

13 PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200, et seq. 

14 AGAINST ALLDEFENDANTS 

15 56. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the 

16 preceding paragraphs. 

17 57. This cause of action is brought as a representative action by Plaintiff, 

18 pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200, et. seq. 

19 58. Defendants' conduct, as alleged herein, has been, and continues to be, 

20 unfair, unlawful and harmful to Plaintiff, to the general public, and Defendants' 

21 competitors. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to enforce important rights affecting the public 

22 interest within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. 

23 59. Defendants' activities as alleged herein are violations of California law, 

24 and constitute unlawful business acts and practices in violation of California Business & 

25 Professions Code section 17200, et seq. 

26 60. A violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200, et 

27 seq. may be predicated on the violation of any state or federal law. In this instant case, 

28 Defendants' policies and practices of promising stock to employees in exchange for 

12 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 15 of 26
c 0 

1 continued employment, and then terminating an employee without cause and not 

2 providing stock, violate California laws including Labor Code sections 200, 201, 203, 

3 210, and 216, and laws of contract including the obligation to keep the implied covenant 

4 of good faith and fair dealing. 

5 61. Plaintiff has been personally injured by Defendants' unlawful business 

6 acts and practices as alleged herein, including but not necessarily limited to the loss of 

7 money and/or property. 

8 62. Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et 

9 seq., Plaintiff is entitled to restitution of the unpaid compensation, including stock in 

10 UBER, withheld and retained by Defendants; a permanent injunction requiring 

11 Defendants to provide the unpaid stock due to Plaintiff; an award of attorneys' fees 

12 pursuant to California Code of Civil procedure section 1021.5 and other applicable laws; 

13 and an award of costs. 

14 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

15 AGE DISCRIMINATION 

16 VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV. CODE§§ 12940 et seq. 

17 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

18 63. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the 

19 preceding paragraphs. 

20 64. Defendants, through their agents and employees engaged in a pattern and 

21 practice of unlawful age discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing 

22 Act ("FEHA") in connection with the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment and 

23 the performance standard to which Plaintiff was held. 

24 65. At all relevant times, Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of 

25 the discriminatory conduct described and alleged herein, and condoned, ratified and 

26 participated in the discrimination. 

27 66. Plaintiff filed timely complaints against the Defendants with California's 

28 Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") alleging discrimination on 

13 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 16 of 26
0 0 

1 May 20,2016. Plaintiff received from the DFEH notification of his right to sue in the 

2 Courts of the State of California, the Defendants against which complaints had been 

3 filed. 

4 67. As a direct and proximate result of the willful, knowing, and intentional 

5 discrimination against Plaintiff, and the failure to act by Defendants, Plaintiff has 

6 suffered mental distress, anguish, and indignation. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general 

7 and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 

8 68. Defendants, and each of them, did the acts alleged herein maliciously, 

9 fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff, from an 

10 improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs 

11 rights. The acts complained of were known to, authorized and ratified by Defendants. 

12 Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of 

13 them, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 

14 69. By reason of the conduct of Defendants and each of them as alleged herein, 

15 Plaintiffs have necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiffs are 

16 therefore entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses, including expert 

17 witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing the within action. As a result of Defendants' 

18 and each of their actions, Plaintiffs sustained economic damages to be proven at trial. As 

19 a further result of Defendants' and each of their actions, Plaintiffs suffered emotional 

20 distress; resulting in damages to be proven at trial. 

21 70. The above harassing and discriminatory conduct violates FEHA, 

22 Government Code§§ 12940 and 12941 and California Public Policy and entitles 

23 Plaintiffs to all categories of damages, including exemplary or punitive damages. 

24 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

25 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV. CODE§§ 12940 et seq. 

26 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

27 71. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the 

28 preceding paragraphs. 

14 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 17 of 26
c 0 

1 72. 

2 73. Plaintiff engaged in protected activities when he made complaints about 

3 age discrimination to UBER's Human Resources Department 

4 74. Defendants, and/or their agents/employees, retaliated against Plaintiffs in 

5 violation of Government Code §12940(h) by terminating his employment after he 

6 engaged in a protected activity. 

7 75. Plaintiff's engagement in a protected activity was a substantial motivating 

8 reason for the adverse employment actions taken against them by Defendants, in 

9 violation of the FEHA. 

10 76. Plaintiffs were harmed by Defendants' actions. 

11 77. Defendants' act of subjecting Plaintiff to adverse employment actions 

12 based on his engagement in protected activities was a substantial factor in causing 

13 Plaintiff's harm. 

14 78. Defendants' actions were willful, malicious, fraudulent and oppressive, and 

15 were committed with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiffs and in conscious disregard o 

16 Plaintiff's rights. 

17 79. By reason of the conduct ofDefendants, Plaintiff has necessarily retained 

18 attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable 

19 attorney's fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees and costs, incurred 

20 in bringing the within action. 

21 80. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff sustained economic harms and 

22 losses in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. These amounts included but 

23 are not limited to lost wages, benefits, and stock options that exceed the jurisdictional 

24 requirements of this Court. As a further result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff suffered 

25 emotional distress, resulting in damages in an amount according to proof at the time of 

26 trial. These amounts exceed the jurisdictional requirements of this Court. 

27 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

28 FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION 

15 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 18 of 26
c 0 

1 

2 

VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV. CODE §§ 12940 et seq. 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

3 81. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the 

4 preceding paragraphs. 

5 82. In violation of the FEHA, Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps 

6 necessary to prevent discrimination against employees. 

7 83. In perpetrating the above-described conduct, Defendants, and each of 

8 them, engaged in a pattern, practice, policy and custom of unlawful discrimination. Said 

9 conduct on the part of Defendants, and each of them, constituted a policy, practice, 

10 tradition, custom and usage which denied Plaintiff's protection of the civil rights statutes 

11 enumerated above. 

12 84. At all relevant time periods Defendants, and each of them, failed to make 

13 an adequate response and investigation into the conduct of Defendants and the aforesaid 

14 pattern and practice, and thereby established a policy, custom, practice or usage within 

15 the organization of Defendants, which condoned, encouraged, tolerated, sanctioned, 

16 ratified, approved of, and/or acquiesced in unlawful discrimination towards employees 

17 of Defendants, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff. 

18 85. At all relevant time periods there existed within the organization of 

19 Defendants, and each of them, a pattern and practice of conduct by their personnel which 

20 resulted in discrimination, including but not necessarily limited to, conduct directed at 

21 Plaintiff. 

22 86. Defendants did not provide adequate discrimination training with respect 

23 to its employees and managers. 

24 87. Defendants, and each of them, knew or reasonably should have known that 

25 the failure to provide any or adequate education, training, and information as to their 

26 personnel policies and practices regarding discrimination would result in discrimination. 

27 88. The failure of Defendants, and each of them, to provide any or adequate 

28 education, training, and information to personnel concerning policies and practices 

16 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 19 of 26
() 0 

• 

1 regarding discrimination for complaining of or resisting the same, constituted deliberate 

2 indifference to the rights of employees, including but not limited to those of Plaintiff. 

3 89. Plaintiff filed timely complaints against the Defendants with the DFEH 

4 alleging discrimination. Plaintiff received from the DFEH notification of his right to sue 

5 in the Courts of the State of California, the Defendants against which complaints had 

6 been filed. 

7 90. By reason of the conduct of Defendants and each of them as alleged 

8 herein, Plaintiff has necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the within action. 

9 Plaintiff therefore is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses, 

10 including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing the within action. 

11 91. As a result of Defendants' and each of their actions, Plaintiff sustained 

12 economic damages to be proven at trial. As a further result ofDefendants' and each of 

13 their actions, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress; resulting in damages to be proven at 

14 trial. 

15 92. The above discriminatory conduct violates California's FEHA, Cal. Gov. 

16 Code§§ 12940 et seq., and California Public Policy and entitles Plaintiff to all 

17 categories of damages, including exemplary or punitive damages. 

18 93. The conduct of Defendants and/or their agents/employees as described 

19 herein was malicious, and/or oppressive, and done with a willful and conscious 

20 disregard for Plainti:tr s rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendants' 

21 actions. Defendants and/or their agents/employees or supervisors authorized, condoned 

22 and ratified the unlawful conduct of the remaining Defendants. Consequently, Plaintiff 

23 is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants. 

24 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

25 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTION 1102.5 AND 

26 REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE 2699 et seq. 

27 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

28 

17 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 20 of 26
0 0 

1 94. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the 

2 preceding paragraphs. 

3 95. This cause of action is brought as a representative action on behalf of all 

4 aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorney's General Act, Labor Code 

5 section 2699, et seq. 

6 96. Plaintiff also satisfied all administrative prerequisite to seeking remedies on 

7 behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees pursuant to the Private 

8 Attorney's General Act ("PAGA"), Labor Code section 2699 et seq. 

9 97. Labor Code section 1102.5 prohibits employers from discharging, 

10 constructively discharging, retaliating or in any manner discriminating against any 

11 employee for making any oral or written complaint regarding what an employee 

12 reasonably believes to be unlawful or illegal conduct to a governmental agency or to their 

13 employer. 

14 98. Defendants discharged Plaintiff's employment and further discriminated 

15 and retaliated against Plaintiff after Plaintiff made oral and/or written complaints 

16 regarding what he reasonably believed to be illegal or unlawful conduct in violation of 

17 state and federal statutes, rules and regulations. Plaintiff made these complaints to his 

18 employer, by and through its agents and employees. 

19 99. Plaintiff is informed and believed, and thereon alleges that because of his 

20 making complaints regarding illegal conduct to Defendants (his employers), Plaintiff was 

21 discharged from his employment and/or otherwise discriminated or retaliated against by 

22 Defendants after he had made complaints about illegal conduct. 

23 100. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Plaintiff has 

24 suffered and will continue to suffer pain and mental anguish and emotional distress. 

25 101. Plaintiff has further suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings 

26 and other employment benefits, whereby Plaintiff is entitled to general compensatory 

27 damages in amounts to be proven at trial. 

28 

18 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 21 of 26
0 0 

1 102. Defendant's actions constituted a willful violation of the above-mentioned 

2 federal laws and regulations. As a direct result, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 

3 suffer substantial losses related to the loss of wages and is entitled to recover costs and 

4 expenses and attorney's fees in seeking to compel Defendants to fully perform its 

5 obligations under state and/or federal law, in amounts according to proof at time of trial. 

6 103. The conduct of Defendants described herein above was outrageous and was 

7 executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs 

8 rights, and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff. 

9 104. Defendants, through its officers, managing agents, employees and/or its 

10 supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein 

11 above. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an 

12 amount according to proof at the time of trial. 

13 105. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein by acting knowingly and 

14 willfully, with the wrongful and illegal deliberate intention of injuring Plaintiff, from 

15 improper motives amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights. 

16 Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover nominal, actual, compensatory, punitive, and 

17 exemplary damages in amounts according to proof at time of trial, in addition to any 

18 other remedies and damages allowable by law. 

19 106. As a proximate result of the actions and conduct described in the 

20 paragraphs above, which constitute violations of Labor Code section 1102.5, Plaintiff and 

21 other aggrieved employees have been damaged in an amount according to proof at the 

22 time of trial and seeks civil penalties on behalf of all aggrieved employees and attorney 

23 fees against Defendants as permissible under the Labor Code. 

24 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

25 WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for relief as follows: 

26 1. For general damages according to proof, however, no less than the 

27 jurisdictional limit of this court; 

28 2. For restitution in an amount according to proof; 

19 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 22 of 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 

0 0 

3. For special damages in amounts according to proof; 

4. For exemplary and punitive damages in amounts according to proof; 

5. For specific performance of the obligation to provide stock; 

6. For injunctive relief as provided by law; 

7. For declaratory relief as provided by law, including, inter alia, that 

Defendants' actions against Plaintiff violated Government Code section 

12940, et seq., Labor Code section 1102.5 and all other statutes alleged 

herein; 

8. For civil penalties as permitted pursuant to Labor Code section 2699 et 

seq. and for relief on behalf of Plaintiff and all similarly aggrieved 

employees; 

9. For interest as provided by law; 

10.For cost of suit incurred herein; 

1l.For attorneys' fees as provided by law; and 

12. For such other and further relief as the Court deems fair and just. 

Dated: May 19,2016 THE FIGARI LAW FIRM 

By: BARBARA FIGARI 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG 

20 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 23 of 26
c 0 

1 JURY DEMAND 

2 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. 

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 

Dated: May 19,2016 THE FIGARI LAW FIRM 

By: BARBARA FIGARI 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG 

21 

PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 24 of 26
c 0 , 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 25 of 26
0 

Awm~wao&rz~~yi~~Barllllllbel; tllldldrllw$J; 

THE FIGARI LAW FIRM 

117 E. Colomdo Blvd., Suite 600 

Pasadena, CA 91105 

TElEPHONE NO.: (626) 486-2620 FAX NO.: (877) 459-3540 

ATTORNEY FOR • Plaintiff SAMUEL wARD SPANGENBERG 

suPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY oF San Francisco 

STREET NlORESS: 400 McAllister Street 

MAILING ADmESS: 400 McAllister Street 

cJTYANDZIPCOOE: SanFrancisc~ CA 94102 

BRANCH NAME: Civic Center courthouse 

CASE NAME: 

S an enber v Uber Technolo ies Inc. 

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET 

[l] Unlimited D Limited 

(Amount (Amount 

Complex Case Designation 

D Counter D Joinder 

0 

FOR COURT USE ONLY 

F I L E 

SuPiifor C<>urt of califom · COUnty o'f San Franciscci8 

MAY 2 o-2018 

demanded demanded is Flied with first appearance by derendant 

exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Gal. Rules of Court. rule 3.402) DEPT: 

Items 1-6 below must be 'eted (see Instructions on p e 2 . 

1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: 

Auto Tort Contract 

E3 Auto (22) D Breach of contractlwarranly (06) 

Uninsured motorist (46) D Rule 3.740 collecUona (09) 

Other PIJPDIWD {Personal Injury/Property E3 Other collections (09) 

DamageiWrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) 

D Asbestos (04) D Other contract (37) 

E3 Product labllrty_(24) Real Property 

Medical malpracUce (45) D Eminent domain/Inverse D Other PIIPDMID (23) condemnation (14) 

Non-PIIPDIWD (Other) Tort D Wrongful eviction (33) 

D Business tort/unfair business practice (07) D Other real property (26) 

D CMI rights (08) Unlawful Detainer 

D Defamation (13) D Commercial (31) 

D Fraud (16) D Residential (32) 

D Intellectual property (19) D Drugs (38) 

D Professional negligence (25) :l.!!.f!LCial Review 

D Other non-PI/PDM'D tort (36) L.J Asset forfeiture (05) 

1

emjloyment D PetHion re: arbitration award (11) 

\1\tongful termlnallon (36) D Writ of mandate (02) 

D Other a (15) 

Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation 

(CaL Rulee of Court, rules 3.40~.403) 

D AntltrusUTrade regulallon (03) 

E3 Construction defect (10) 

Mass tort (40) 

D Securities lrtlgaUon (28) 

D EnvlronmentaVTOJdc tort (30) 

0 Insurance coverage claims arising from the 

above listed provisionally compleX case 

types (41) 

Enforcement of Judgment 

0 Enforc:ernaN of judgment (20) 

Miscellaneous ClvU Complaint 

D RIC0(27) 

D Other complaint (noi6Pf~Cifjed above} (42) 

Miscellaneous Civil Petition 

D Partnership and corporate governance (21) 

D Other peUIIon (not specffled abolle) {43) 

2. This case Is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex. mark the 

factors requiring exceptional judicial management 

a. D Large nwnber of separately represented parties 

b. D Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel 

issues that will be time-consuming to resolve 

c. D Substantial amount of documentary evidence 

3. Remedies sought (check aU that apply): a.[Z] monetary 

4. Number of causes of action (specify): Nine (9) 

d. D Large number of witnesses 

e. D Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts 

in other counties, states, or oounbies, or In a federal court 

f. D Substantial posljudgment judicial supervision 

b.[Z] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. [.l]punitive 

56 

5. This case D is [Z] Is not a class action suit. 

6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.) BY FAX 

Date: 

May 20,2016 Barbara E. Figari 

OTIC • Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except smaU claims cases or cases filed 

under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court. rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result 

. in sanctions. • Fila this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. 

• If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court. you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all 

other parUes to the action or proceeding. 

• Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onlv. if, 1 ora 

RmnMaplad ru Manclllloly Usa CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET caL RUes oiCowt. nAu 2,311, 3.220. 3.«10-3.403. 3.T40; Judldal CouncU or CalffcJrnlll caL SlllndiiRia or.Juc~cW Admlnlalnlllan, lid. s.1o CM-010 (Rev. July 1, 2007] MYW~Qt_gov 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 26 of 26