Page 1 – AFFIDAVIT OF FRANK DUFAY

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 

(503) 823-4047

TRACY REEVE, Oregon State Bar ID Number 891123 

City Attorney 

Email: Tracy.Reeve@portlandoregon.gov

J. SCOTT MOEDE, Oregon State Bar ID Number 934816 

Chief Deputy City Attorney 

Email: Scott.Moede@portlandoregon.gov

Kenneth A. McGair, Oregon State Bar ID Number 990148 

Senior Deputy City Attorney 

Email: Ken.McGair@portlandoregon.gov

Office of City Attorney 

1221 SW Fourth Avenue, Room 430 

Portland, OR 97204 

Tele: 503-823-4047 

Fax: 503-823-3089 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Portland 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal 

corporation of the State of Oregon, 

 PLAINTIFF, 

 v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware 

corporation, and RASIER, LLC, its wholly 

owned subsidiary, 

 DEFENDANTS.

3:14-cv-01958-SI

AFFIDAVIT OF FRANK DUFAY 

(In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand 

or, In the Alternative, Motion for a Temporary 

Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction)

STATE OF OREGON) 

 ) ss. 

County of Multnomah ) 

I, FRANK DUFAY, being first duly sworn, state: 

1. I am employed by the City of Portland, Oregon, as the Private for-hire 

Transportation Manager, with the Offstreet Parking and Regulatory Division of the City of 

Portland’s Bureau of Transportation. I am responsible for enforcement of Chapter 16.40 of the 

Portland City Code (Private for-hire Transportation) and accompanying Regulations. 

Case 3:14-cv-01958-SI Document 11 Filed 12/10/14 Page 1 of 13
Page 2 – AFFIDAVIT OF FRANK DUFAY

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 

(503) 823-4047

2. I make this affidavit in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand or, In the 

Alternative, Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. 

3. I am aware that Uber Technologies, Inc. and /or affiliated entities (“Uber”) 

declared an intent to commence operation in Portland, Oregon, on December 5, 2014. Uber 

began operating at 5:00 p.m. on that date. I have personal knowledge that Uber began arranging, 

facilitating, and/or providing vehicular transportation for compensation the evening of December 

5, 2014, within the City of Portland, Oregon, in conjunction with driver/partners as I personally 

observed its application and drivers operating through its uberX platform. 

4. The provisions of Chapter 16.40 require that all private for-hire companies, 

drivers and vehicles must have permits. 

5. To date, no company with the name Uber Technologies, Inc. nor Rasier, LLC has 

applied for a permit to provide vehicular transportation for compensation. 

6. To date, there have been no applications for permits for vehicles affiliated with 

Uber Technologies, Inc. nor Rasier, LLC to provide vehicular transportation for compensation. 

7. To date, no drivers have applied for permits affiliated with Uber Technologies, 

Inc. nor Rasier, LLC to provide vehicular transportation for compensation. 

8. Specifically, the requirements of Chapter 16.40 – along with any penalties 

assessed for violations---apply to all for-hire transportation companies, vehicles and drivers, 

whether legally and validly permitted or not. PCC 16.40.020 A. It is not a defense to any 

regulatory action (including penalties and fines) to assert that the City cannot act because the 

driver, company or vehicle does not possess a valid City-issued permit, decal or taxiplate. PCC 

16.40.020 B. 

9. Specifically, under Chapter 16.40, no person may drive a for-hire transportation 

vehicle without a valid current for-hire transportation driver’s permit issued under Chapter 16.40. 

PCC 16.40.090 A. Uber has contracted drivers to drive for-hire transportation vehicles without 

Case 3:14-cv-01958-SI Document 11 Filed 12/10/14 Page 2 of 13
Page 3 – AFFIDAVIT OF FRANK DUFAY

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 

(503) 823-4047

requiring such drivers to obtain valid, current for-hire transportation driver’s permits and Uber 

drivers have failed to obtain such permits. 

10. Again, Uber began illegally operating for-hire vehicular transportation for 

compensation through its uberX and/or Rasier, LLC platform in the City of Portland on the 

evening of December 5, 2014. To date, neither Uber nor any of its contracted drivers have 

applied for, or been granted any company, driver or vehicle permits to operate within the City of 

Portland as required by Chapter 16.40 of the Portland City Code. I have personally observed the 

following examples outlined in paragraphs 11-17, below. 

11. On December 6, 2014, I used an iphone and the Uber application to hail an Uber 

driver to the location of Morton’s Restaurant located at 213 SW Clay Street in Portland, Oregon 

97201 at approximately 7:27 p.m. 

12. The driver picked me up in a Prius sedan. The Prius did not have any of the 

Chapter 16.40 required taxicab or LPT requirements posted or displayed. 

13. The driver took me to the Airport Embassy Suites located at 7900 NE 82nd

Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97220. The trip lasted about 30 minutes. 

14. On December 6, 2014, I again used an iphone and the Uber application to hail an 

Uber driver to the location of the Airport Embassy Suites. 

15. The driver picked me up in a sedan. The sedan did not have any of the Chapter 

16.40 required taxicab or LPT requirements posted or displayed. My receipt lists the address as 

“Portland International Airport, 8155 Northeast Air Cargo Road, Portland, OR.” 

16. The driver took me to the Veritable Quandry restaurant in Portland. The address 

there is 1220 SW 1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. The address listed on my receipt is 

“1201-1221 Southwest 1st Avenue, Portland, OR.” 

17. My receipt for the two rides is attached as Exhibit A. 

////// 

Case 3:14-cv-01958-SI Document 11 Filed 12/10/14 Page 3 of 13
Page 4 – AFFIDAVIT OF FRANK DUFAY

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 

(503) 823-4047

18. Portland City Code Chapter 16.40 and the corresponding Administrative Rules 

promulgated by the Private For-Hire Transportation Board of Review regulate Private For-Hire 

Transportation within the City of Portland. 

19. Private For-Hire Transportation is defined as “providing vehicular, horse-drawn 

carriage or pedicab transportation for compensation of any kind within the Portland City Limits.” 

PCC 16.40.030 HH. 

20. Under Chapter 16.40, no person may drive a for-hire transportation vehicle 

without a valid current for-hire transportation driver’s permit issued under Chapter 16.40. PCC 

16.40.090 A. Uber has contracted drivers to drive for-hire transportation vehicles without 

requiring such drivers to obtain valid, current for-hire transportation driver’s permits and Uber 

drivers have failed to obtain such permits. 

21. In addition, all for-hire transportation companies are required to obtain a permit to 

operate. PCC 16.40.020 A, PCC 16.40.130 A, and PCC 16.40.150 A. All for-hire transportation 

companies must also obtain, comply with and maintain minimum levels of insurance to protect 

the public. PCC 16.40.410. 

22. The regulations in Chapter 16.40 of the Portland City Code make a distinction 

between Limited Passenger Transportation (LPT) vehicles (and companies) and Taxicabs (and 

Taxicab Companies) which are specifically excluded from the LPT category and regulatory 

scheme. 

23. A Taxicab Company is “any entity operating taxicabs other than as a driver and 

regardless of whether the vehicles so operated are owned by the company, leased, or owned by 

individual members of the company.” PCC 16.40.030 NN. 

24. A Taxicab is “any vehicle that carries passengers for-hire where the destination 

and route traveled may be controlled by a passenger and the fare is calculated on the basis of an 

initial fee, distance traveled, waiting time, or any combination thereof.” PCC 16.40.030 PP. 

Case 3:14-cv-01958-SI Document 11 Filed 12/10/14 Page 4 of 13
Page 5 – AFFIDAVIT OF FRANK DUFAY

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 

(503) 823-4047

25. Limited Passenger Transportation (LPT) means “providing for-hire transportation 

services with non-motorized vehicles or motorized vehicles other than taxicabs. LPTs include, 

but are not limited to, horse-drawn carriages, pedicabs, executive sedans, limousines, shuttles 

and SATs.” PCC 16.40.030 W. 

26. A Limited Passenger Transportation Company means “a for-hire transportation 

company other than a taxi company.” PCC 16.40.030 V. 

27. To operate means “driving a for-hire vehicle, using a for-hire vehicle to conduct a 

business, receiving money from the use of a for-hire vehicle, or causing or allowing another 

person to do the same.” PCC 16.40.030 Y. 

28. Effective December 5, 2014, Uber operated private for-hire transportation 

services in the City of Portland. In addition to the rides obtained on December 6, 2014, on 

December 8, 2014, the Portland Bureau of Transportation (“PBOT”) confirmed that Uber’s 

website lists the uberX service available in Portland for a base fare of $1.50, plus $.30 per 

minute, plus $1.55 per mile with a $1.00 per ride “safe ride fee.” Based upon my experience, 

Uber also applies an additional “surge pricing” model during times of peak demand. 

Additionally, the Uber application showed cars available on the evening of December 5, 2014, 

and continues to show cars and drivers available to provide for-hire transportation within the 

City of Portland as of the date of this affidavit. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a 

technology company and defendant Rasier, LLC is its wholly owned subsidiary (hereafter 

collectively “Uber”). Uber offers a smartphone based application which enables potential 

passengers to connect with Uber drivers for hire.1

 Members of the public can download the 

application and register with Uber by entering certain identifying information including a credit 

card number. Potential passengers activate the application when they wish to access private forhire transportation services. Once the application is activated, the potential passenger enters her 

 

1

 Uber solicits and contracts with these drivers. From November 4, 2014, through December 8, 

2014, Craigslist for the Portland area showed 677 Uber ads for drivers. (Reeve Aff., ¶9, Ex. G.) 

Case 3:14-cv-01958-SI Document 11 Filed 12/10/14 Page 5 of 13
Page 6 – AFFIDAVIT OF FRANK DUFAY

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 

(503) 823-4047

location and the application finds one or more Uber drivers within a certain radius. The potential 

passenger can then request that an Uber driver pick her up at that location. Uber drivers also use 

smartphones (issued to the drivers by Uber) which notify the driver when a potential passenger 

wishes to access for-hire transportation. The driver accepts the request and is then effectively 

dispatched via the software platform to the address of the passenger. The passenger is sent a 

picture of the driver, along with a picture of the vehicle en route and its license number. 

Payment is made through the Uber application and Uber receives a percentage of the payment 

for the for-hire transportation. 

29. Based upon my observations from the rides I obtained and my research, Uber also 

is in violation of the following civil and criminal provisions of Chapter 16.40. 

a. As a Taxicab Company 

● 16.40.150 Taxicab Company Permits Required − Application Process & 

Requirements. 

● 16.40.190 LPT Decals and Taxiplates Required; Application Process & 

Requirements. 

● 16.40.220 Vehicle Decal and Taxiplate Issuance or Denial. 

● 16.40.270 Minimum Standards of Service for Taxicab Companies. 

● 16.40.280 Taxicab Digital Security Camera Systems. 

● 16.40.290 Taxicab Fare Rates. 

● 16.40.300 Wheelchair Accessible Taxicabs. 

● 16.40.310 Taximeter Requirements. 

● 16.40.320 Required Taxicab Equipment. 

● 16.40.330 Identification of Taxicab Vehicles. 

● 16.40.410 LPT and Taxi Insurance Requirements. 

● 16.40.450 Limousine, Executive Sedan and Taxi Logs Required. 

● 16.40.500 Compliance with Federal, State and Local Laws. 

● 16.40.560 Criminal Penalties. 

and/or 

b. As Limited Passenger Transportation Vehicle 

● 16.40.090 LPT and Taxi Driver Permits Required – Application Process & 

Requirements. 

● 16.40.130 LPT Company Permits Required – Application Process & 

Requirements. 

● 16.40.190 LPT Decals and Taxiplates Required; Application Process & 

Requirements. 

● 16.40.220 Vehicle Decal and Taxiplate Issuance or Denial. 

Case 3:14-cv-01958-SI Document 11 Filed 12/10/14 Page 6 of 13
Page 7 – AFFIDAVIT OF FRANK DUFAY

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 

(503) 823-4047

● 16.40.410 LPT and Taxi Insurance Requirements. 

● 16.40.450 Limousine, Executive Sedan and Taxi Logs Required. 

● 16.40.500 Compliance with Federal, State and Local Laws. 

● 16.40.560 Criminal Penalties. 

30. In accordance with the provisions listed in the paragraph immediately above, 

Chapter 16.40 of the Portland City Code subjects LPT Companies and LPT vehicles to a number 

of general regulations that are also applicable to Taxicab Companies and Taxicabs. Both LPT 

and Taxicabs (vehicles and companies) are generally subject to the same treatment with regard to 

driver permitting, conduct and maximum hours, the renewal of company permits, insurance 

requirements, financial information, reporting obligations, vehicle inspection and the licensing 

and maintenance of vehicles used by the companies. PCC 16.40.090 through 16.40.170. 

31. Taxicab Companies must track the date and time of the initial reservation, and the 

initial and destination addresses. PCC 16.40.450 C. 

32. LPT Companies must track the customer name, the passenger name if different 

from the customer name, the date and time of the initial reservation, the date, start and end times 

of the trip, the initial and destination addresses, and the fare amount paid. PCC 16.40.540 B. 

33. In addition to the requirements applicable to LPT Companies and vehicles, 

Taxicab Companies and Taxicabs are subject to regulations including: 

a. Having a dispatch system in operation 24 hours per day capable of providing 

prompt service. 

b. Acceptance of any request for taxicab service received from any location within 

the City. 

c. Service city-wide, 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. 

d. Having no more than 65% of the company’s permitted vehicles within a one mile 

radius of the Portland International Airport at any given time. 

e. The company must have a minimum fleet of 15 taxicabs. 

////// 

Case 3:14-cv-01958-SI Document 11 Filed 12/10/14 Page 7 of 13
Page 8 – AFFIDAVIT OF FRANK DUFAY

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 

(503) 823-4047

f. At least two-thirds of the company’s permitted fleet must be utilized and in 

service at all times. 

g. Digital security cameras are required in all taxicabs. 

h. Taxicabs are subject to maximum rates set forth inby Portland City Code 

currently set at $2.50 initial charge for one passenger and $1.00 for each 

additional passenger, a waiting charge of $30.00 per hour, and no more than $2.60 

per mile traveled. 

i. At least 20% of a taxicab company’s fleet must be wheelchair accessible. 

j. A taxicab must limit the hours its drivers are on duty to no more than 14 hours in 

a 24-hour period. 

k. Each taxicab must be painted a unique color and display on both sides of each 

taxicab the full name of the company, the taxi number, the company telephone 

number and the word “taxi,” “cab,” or “taxicab.” 

PCC 16.40.270 through 16.40.330. 

34. LPT Companies engaged in limousine or executive sedan services are also subject 

to a $50.00 minimum trip fare between Portland’s downtown core and/or the Amtrak station and 

the Portland International Airport. The minimum rates are set in the Administrative Rules. PCC 

16.40.480 A and 16.40.480-1. The minimum flat rate currently set by Administrative Rule is 

$50.00. 

35. Portland City Code also requires limousine and executive sedan services must be 

at 35% higher than the prevailing taxicab rates for the same route. PCC 16.40.480 B. 

36. All limousine and executive sedan service must be provided on a prearranged 

basis. Prearranged is defined in Administrative Rule and means that 60 minutes must pass 

between the time that a reservation is made and the time that the customer is transported. PCC 

16.40.460 A, 16.40.460-1. 

Case 3:14-cv-01958-SI Document 11 Filed 12/10/14 Page 8 of 13
Page 9 – AFFIDAVIT OF FRANK DUFAY

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 

(503) 823-4047

37. Although Uber effectively dispatches drivers to pick up the same passengers as 

taxicabs and LPT vehicles, Uber’s drivers do not comply with the requirements set by the City of 

Portland. 

38. Uber drivers and companies violating City Code are subject to potential civil and 

criminal penalties. PCC 16.40.530 and 16.40.560. 

39. Civil penalties are provided in a table at PCC 16.40.540 which ranges in several 

thousands of dollars. Criminal penalties are also provided in PCC 16.40.560 with a fine of 

$1,000 or imprisonment for not more than six months or both. 

40. As outlined above, Uber’s drivers similarly do not conform with Portland City 

Code sections. 

41. In Portland, all for-hire vehicles must pass annual inspections showing that they 

are safe, clean and comfortable, tasks which the drivers themselves typically must complete 

although they do not earn fare revenue. Similarly, drivers are prohibited from providing taxi forhire service unless their vehicles are equipped with a digital security camera, and fare meter. 

The company is required to carry commercial liability insurance and vehicle insurance. Upon 

information and belief, the vehicles dispatched by Uber do not comply with these requirements, 

avoiding the costs imposed on drivers and other companies. (See information from Uber’s 

website attached hereto as Exhibit B.) 

42. While Uber presently employs different terminology in their promotional 

materials to describe their services than do other Taxicab and LPT providers, the services 

provided are nonetheless private for-hire transportation for compensation operated in 

contravention of applicable legal requirements: 

a. Uber effectively dispatches for-hire passenger transportation services, for 

compensation over the roads of the City of Portland. 

////// 

Case 3:14-cv-01958-SI Document 11 Filed 12/10/14 Page 9 of 13
Page 10 – AFFIDAVIT OF FRANK DUFAY

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 

(503) 823-4047

b. Uber does not hold a valid company permit for either a Taxicab Company or a 

LPT Company, nor are they permitted in any jurisdiction as a Taxicab or LPT 

service. 

c. All prospective customers of Uber must first download a Smart Phone application 

“app” and enter into an online agreement under terms dictated by Uber. Those 

terms include a waiver of any and all liability to Uber. 

d. The customer provides credit card information to Uber. 

e. Customers hail a car through the “app” instead of a human dispatcher. Uber 

charges for service are calculated by the “app” software, based on time and 

distance and billed to the customer’s credit card through the “app” rather than 

through a certified taxi meter. 

f. Drivers do not directly collect a fare from the customer. Instead, Uber charges the 

fare to the customer’s credit card through its “app.” Uber collects a portion of the 

total charges (including tip) and pays the balance to the driver. 

g. Uber drivers are drawn from the general public and use personal vehicles which 

are personally insured. Uber does not require Uber drivers to purchase 

commercial auto insurance or have local business licenses or permits. 

h. Uber does not require its drivers to comply with for-hire passenger carrier 

regulations, either state or local, including City of Portland regulations. Drivers 

are screened by Uber based on their own criteria, not through City of Portland 

employees. 

i. Unlike licensed Taxicab Company and LPT Companies lawfully permitted to 

dispatch taxicabs and LPT vehicles to passengers which must satisfy all 

applicable Code requirements, Uber exempts itself from any duty to provide fair 

and equal service. Uber only dispatches drivers to customers who can pay by 

Case 3:14-cv-01958-SI Document 11 Filed 12/10/14 Page 10 of 13
Page 11 – AFFIDAVIT OF FRANK DUFAY

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 

(503) 823-4047

credit card and have used its internet application or website to request a vehicle. 

A phone call request from a customer is not accepted, nor is cash. Uber admits it 

seeks to serve wealthy, technology-connected passengers, leaving those with less 

means in technology to be served by the regulated taxicab and LPT drivers. 

43. Currently Uber is illegally operating for-hire transportation services by providing 

vehicular transportation for compensation without a valid permit issued by the City of Portland 

or any permit issued by any local jurisdiction to authorize Taxicab and LPT services nor 

complying with the numerous additional regulations outlined above. In so doing, Uber is 

willfully refusing to comply with City of Portland Code and regulations enacted to protect people 

of the City of Portland. 

44. Neither Uber nor any of its driver/partners has applied for, or currently possess, 

the required City of Portland permits to provide for-hire transportation in the City of Portland. 

45. To my knowledge Uber has not complied with the other requirements of PCC 

Chapter 16.40, which are intended to address public safety and welfare. 

46. In fact, neither Uber nor any representative of Uber has made contact with me 

since September 2013. 

47. To the best of my knowledge (and based upon Uber’s own recent public 

declarations) with respect to vehicle safety inspection prior to bringing a vehicle into service, 

Uber requires only a superficial inspection that falls well short of the certified inspection 

required by the City. 

48. Uber requires drivers to have personal auto insurance, which may not offer 

protection for commercial operation of a vehicle. Moreover, insurance information posted by 

Uber reflects a gap in insurance coverage when the app is on and a driver is available and not on 

a trip. (See information from Uber’s website attached hereto as Exhibit B.) 

////// 

Case 3:14-cv-01958-SI Document 11 Filed 12/10/14 Page 11 of 13
Page 12 – AFFIDAVIT OF FRANK DUFAY

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 

(503) 823-4047

49. For-hire drivers are required to undergo driver background investigations. 

Depending on circumstances, this can also include FBI background information. Uber 

reportedly uses a less comprehensive private background service, apparently not fingerprintbased, and makes its own decisions about who to clear. Source: 

http://pando.com/2014/01/06/exclusive-uber-driver-accused-of-assault-passed-zero-tolerancebackground-check-despite-criminal -history/. 

50. The San Francisco Chronical has reported that California District Attorneys have 

declared Uber’s inadequate criminal background checks and other business practices “a 

continuing threat to consumers and the public.” http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-L-Athreaten-Uber-Lyft-Sidecar-with-5781328.php. 

51. City Code limits driving hours to 14 hours in a 24-hour period. There is no 

indication that Uber limits driver hours, and Uber does not consider driving time without a 

passenger to be on-duty. 

52. Uber’s claimed insurance provider has not been approved by the Oregon 

Insurance Commissioner. (See Exhibit D, Notice from Oregon Insurance Commissioner issued 

in September 2014.) 

53. Neither Uber nor any driver is known to have a business license in Portland. 

54. An injunction would be appropriate because Uber is illegally providing vehicular 

transportation for compensation without complying with numerous provisions of Portland City 

Code Chapter 16.40 designed to protect the public health, safety and welfare as outlined above. 

This list of statutory violations outlined above is not exclusive, and plaintiff reserves the right to 

rely on other and further violations of the law which are discovered in the course of discovery 

and investigation in this matter. 

55. Uber’s above-listed operation poses an immediate, real and substantial violation 

of the Portland City Code and accompanying Administrative Rules. 

Case 3:14-cv-01958-SI Document 11 Filed 12/10/14 Page 12 of 13
Page 13 – AFFIDAVIT OF FRANK DUFAY

PORTLAND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

1221 SW 4TH AVENUE, RM 430 

PORTLAND, OREGON 97204 

(503) 823-4047

56. Uber’s Operations pose an immediate, real and substantial threat to the public; 

including but not limited to, the fact that each passenger Uber diverts is being exposed to a risk 

of harm from drivers who do not have lawful commercial licenses or commercial insurance, and 

are screened only by Uber and not by local authorities. Passengers are further forced by Uber 

into giving a waiver from any and all liability, damages, jury trial and other important rights as a 

condition of Uber terms of service. The public is unwittingly deprived of the benefits and 

protections of Portland’s City Code and Administrative Rules by virtue of the fact that Uber 

willfully ignores such laws and disclaims any responsibility. 

57. Plaintiff seeks an injunction immediately enjoining Uber from conducting 

business (as defined in Portland City Code section 16.40.030 J.) or operating (as defined in 

Portland City Code section 16.40.030 Y.) within the City of Portland, Oregon, including through 

the use of the Uber smartphone application, and including contracting with unpermitted drivers, 

unless and until Uber comes into compliance with the permit, insurance and other requirements 

of Portland City Code Chapter 16.40 (Private for Hire Transportation Regulations). 

 s/ Frank Dufay Frank Dufay 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 10th day of December, 2014, by Frank 

Dufay. 

 s/ Jody L. Thoman Notary Public for Oregon 

 My commission expires: 10/29/2016 

Case 3:14-cv-01958-SI Document 11 Filed 12/10/14 Page 13 of 13