EXHIBIT 1 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 38
. r: . \ 

I • 

.J! I 

1 David W. Lunn (#0 19526) 

DKL Law, PLLC 

2 14555 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 240 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 

3 Telephone: ( 480) 500-1360 

Facsimile: (480) 500-7341 

4 david@dkllawfirm.com 

-and5 

6 

Marie Napoli (pro hac vice pending) 

Napoli Law, PLLC 

7 

1301 Avenue of the Americas, lOth Floor 

New York, NY 10019 

8 (212)397-1000 

9 -and10 Brittany Weiner (pro hac vice pending) 

lmbesi Law, P.C. 

II 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 

NewYork,NewYork 10123 

12 (212) 736-0007 

13 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

'MICHAEL K. JEANES 

Clerk of the SuPerior Court 

BY Darlene EspinJz,3, DePutY 

Date 09/18/2015 Time 16:28:37 

·DescriPtion Amwnt --- CASE# C\!2015--()5.1061 --- CIQIL t{L! COilPU\IHT 319.00 · - '· 

TOTAL AMOUNT 319.00 

ReceiPt# 24793956 

14 

15 

16 

lN THE SUPERlOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARlZONA 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA 

17 DAVID SENA, individually, and on behalf of all Case No. CV 2 0 1 5-0 54 0 61 

others similarly-situated, 

!8 COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs, 

19 

20 v. 

21 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware 

22 corporation; RAISER, LLC, a subsidiary of 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; JOHN DOES I23 V and JANE DOES 1-V; BLACK 

CORPORA T!ONS I-V; WHITE LIMITED 

24 LIABLITY COMPANIES I-V; and GREEN 

25 PARTNERSHIPS I-V, 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants. 

(Breach of Contract, Unjust 

Enrichment, Fraud, Tortious 

Interference, Conversion) 

Jury Trial Demanded 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 of 38
For their Complaint against the Defendants, Plaintiff, David Sena, on behalf of 

2 himself and all other individuals who have worked or are currently working as drivers for 

3 Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber") and Raiser LLC ("Raiser"), an Uber 

4 subsidiary ("Defendants" or "Uber") in the State of Arizona, by and through counsel, 

5 alleges the following: 

6 PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

7 I. Plaintiff David Serra is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. 

8 2. Defendant Uber is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco, 

9 California, that is authorized to conduct business and does conduct business throughout the 

J 0 State of Arizona, including in Maricopa County, Arizona. 

1 I 3. Defendant Raiser is a subsidiary ofUber and is the equivalent ofUber for the 

12 purposes of this action, and is authorized to conduct business and does conduct business 

13 throughout the State of Arizona, including in Maricopa County, Arizona. 

14 4. Defendants JOHN DOES 1-V and JANE DOES I-V; BLACK 

15 CORPORATIONS I-V; WHITE LIMITED LIABLITY COMPANIES 1-V; and GREEN 

16 PARTNERSHIPS 1-V, are fictitious Defendants whose true names or capacities, whether 

17 individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff 

18 therefore sues the Defendants by such fictitious names and will seek leave of the Court to 

19 amend this Complaint when their true names and capacities become known. 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

5. 

6. 

this Court. 

Defendants have caused events to occur in Maricopa County, Arizona. 

The amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdiction and limits of 

7. Venue is proper in Maricopa County, Arizona, because the Defendants 

conduct business in Maricopa County, Plaintiff is a resident of Maricopa County, and the 

events that give rise to Plaintiff's causes of action occurred in Maricopa County. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

8. Plaintiff brings this Class action pursuant to A.R.S. §23(a), on behalf of 

28 himself and all other similarly situated Uber drivers. 

2 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 3 of 38
I 9. Subject to additional infonnation obtained through further investigation and 

2 discovery, the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by 

3 amendment or amended complaint. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their 

4 affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, employees, officers, agents, and directors; government 

5 entities or agencies, their affiliates, employees, officers, agents, and directors in their 

6 governmental capacities; any judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of 

7 their immediate families and judicial staff; and class counsel. 

8 10. This action is properly maintainable as a class action. As provided in A.R.S. 

9 §23(a)(l), the proposed Class "is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." 

10 As provided in A.R.S. §23(a)(2), "there are questions of law or fact common to the Class." 

II 11. Among the questions of law and fact that are common to the class include, but 

12 are not limited to: 

13 a. Whether Defendants have charged customers a gratuity for class members' 

14 services; 

15 b. Whether Defendants failed to distribute the total proceeds of those gratuities 

16 to the class members; 

17 c. Whether Defendants have informed customers that gratuity is included in the 

18 price of the Uber service and so there is no need to tip the drivers; 

19 d. Whether class members have suffered damages based upon Uber's 

20 representation to customers that there is no need to tip the drivers; 

:21 e. Whether Defendants improperly classified class members as independent 

22 contractors rather than employees; 

23 f. Whether class members have been required to pay the expenses of their 

24 employment, including the cost of a vehicle, repairs, gas and tolls; and 

25 g. Whether class members were denied employee benefits as required by law. 

26 12. As provided in A.R.S. §23(a)(3), the proposed lead Plaintiff's representative 

27 claims are typical of those of the proposed Class because the proposed lead Plaintiff's 

28 damages are based upon the same legal theories. The proposed representative Plaintiff's 

3 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 4 of 38
grievances, like the proposed Class grievances, arise out of the same business practices and 

2 course of conduct of Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs' damages arise out of a pattern of 

3 nearly identical and repetitive business practices conducted by Defendants. Finally, the 

4 representative Plaintiff has no special circumstances that would put him in conflict with the 

5 other members of the Class. 

6 !3. As provided by A.R.S. §23(a)(4), the representative Plaintiff can adequately 

7 represent the Class. No conflict of interest exists between the representatives and the Class 

8 members or with respect to the claims for relief requested. 

9 14. The representative Plaintiff and his chosen attorneys are familiar with the 

I 0 subject matter of the lawsuit and have full knowledge of the allegations contained in this 

11 complaint so as to be able to assist in its prosecution. In addition, the representative's 

12 attorneys are competent in the relevant areas of the law and have sufficient experience to 

13 vigorously represent the Class. Furthermore, the resources available to Class counsel ensure 

14 that the litigation will not be hampered by a lack of financial capacity. Plaintiffs' attorneys 

15 have sufficient financial resources and are willing to absorb the costs of this litigation. 

16 15. As provided by A.R.S. §23(b), a class action is superior to any other available 

17 method for adjudicating this controversy. This proposed class action is the surest way to 

18 fairly and expeditiously compensate so large a number of injured persons; to keep the courts 

19 from becoming paralyzed by hundreds, perhaps thousands of repetitive cases, and to reduce 

20 transaction costs so that the injured Class can obtain the most compensation possible. Class 

21 treatment of this controversy presents a superior mechanism for fairly resolving similar 

22 issues and claims without repetitious and wasteful litigation. 

23 STATEMENT OF FACTS 

24 A. Background 

25 

26 

27 

28 

16. Uber is a car service that provides drivers who can be hailed and dispatched to 

through a mobile application. 

17. At all relevant times, Uber was an "employer" within the meaning of all 

applicable statutes. 

4 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 5 of 38
I 18. Uber compensates its drivers weekly. Uber takes a percentage of the total 

2 fares driven and the driver receives the remainder of the fare. Because Uber classifies its 

3 drivers as independent contractors, Plaintiff had to pay expenses, including gas, tolls, car 

4 repairs and lease payments, from his portion of the fare. 

5 19. From December of2012 through the end of2014, Plaintiff worked for Uber 

6 as an UberX driver. 

7 20. On average, Plaintiff drove sixteen (16) hours per week throughout the course 

8 of his employment with Uber. 

9 21. Initially, when Plaintiff began driving for Uber, he received 80% of the total 

I 0 fare, and Uber received the remaining 20% of the total fare. 

II 22. In the winter of 2014, Uber unilaterally changed the terms of Plaintiffs 

12 employment by substantially lowering the cost of a passenger fare. Although Plaintiff 

13 continued to earn 80% of the fare, his compensation per trip driven decreased due to Uber's 

14 decision to lower the cost of each ride. 

15 23. Plaintiff earned approximately $200 per week. From the $200, Plaintiff then 

16 had to pay his employment related expenses, including gas and tolls, which totaled between 

17 $35 and $50 per week. 

18 24. In the beginning of his employment, Plaintiffs expenses also included $I 0 

19 per week for use of a borrowed iPhone. Once the application for Uber became accessible on 

20 an Android device, Plaintiff no longer needed to pay $10 per week for the cell phone rental. 

21 25. Over the course of his employment, Uber failed to compensate Plaintiff for 

22 any employment related expenses incurred, including gas, tolls, cellular phone bills, 

23 insurance, car maintenance and repairs. 

24 

25 

26. During the course of his employment, Plaintiff did not receive gratuities. 

26 of the J 

27 

28 

DO I NEED TO TIP MY DRIVER? 

Yeo d.li';: rt"CV c~1st1 wf'lcr. YOJ nac wm·. Ubcr Once you amvc at yovr ..::c:$:ma:1on, YO\Jr ta~c s auto:n.ltiCiiiiV crar&cc ;o yot.r crC(IIi 

ca•o 0111 lc- there's. no need to ttD 

5 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 6 of 38
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

28. Despite Uber's representation that "there is no need to tip," Uber drivers are 

not compensated for gratuities. In fact, Uber specifically instructed its drivers to refuse a 

cash gratuity if offered. 

B. Misclassification of Drivers 

29. Plaintiff alleges that Uber uniformly misclassifies its drivers as independent 

contractors when they should be categorized as employees. 

30. Uber exerts significant control over its drivers. For example, upon signing a 

license agreement to work for Uber, new drivers of Uber must watch a video demonstrating 

how Uber wants its drivers to interact with customers. 

31. In addition, all drivers for Uber must maintain an average customer star 

evaluation of at least 4.5 out of a possible 5 stars. Instructions on how to improve one's star 

rating are given to drivers who fall below this average in any given week. If a driver fails to 

maintain an average customer rating of 4.5, Uber will deactivate his or her ability to use the 

application to pick up customers, an action tantamount to terminating the driver "at will," a 

hallmark of an employee-employer relationship. 

32. As a result of its misclassification, Uber failed to provide Plaintiff and other 

similarly aggrieved employees with itemized wage statements, minimum wages and 

reimbursement for necessary expenses. Uber failed to keep accurate payroll records 

evidencing drivers' hours worked and wages paid and unlawfully retained gratuities owed 

to drivers, despite representing to customers and advertising that gratuity is included in the 

total cost of the service. 

B. 

33. 

Violations of Arizona Labor Laws 

Plaintiff further alleges that Uber violated Arizona Labor Law in its (i) failure 

24 to provide prompt payment of wages to drivers upon termination and resignation in 

25 violation of A.R.S. § 23-355; (ii) retention of gratuities intended for drivers in violation of 

26 A.R.S. § 23-202; (iii) failure to keep required payroll records in violation of A.R.S. § 23-

27 364; and (iv) its failure to pay minimum wages in violation of A.R.S. § 23-363. 

28 

6 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 7 of 38
COUNT I 

2 TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT & BUSINESS RELATIONS 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

34. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all 

precec"· 

DO I NEED TO TIP MY DRIVER? 

Ycu d:>.,_., reed cash wi'\C:r. YO.J ride win; UDcr once you urnvc at yc.Jr ccsomc1t1cn. yoor ~ure .s auto1'1atlcalh• cnar&co to yowr cn~d•~ 

ccn~ on t.lt- there's no nt'CO to tiD. 

36. Defendants' conduct, in failing to remit the total proceeds of gratuities to 

8 drivers constitutes unlawful tortious interference with the contractual and/or advantageous 

9 relationship that exists between the drivers and customers. 

10 37. Defendants' conduct, infonning customers ''there is no need to tip," 

11 constitutes unlawful tortious interference with the contractual and/or advantageous 

12 relationship that exists between the drivers and customers. 

13 38. Defendants had a contract with Plaintiff, were aware of those contracts, 

14 intentionally procured the breach of those contracts, and caused Plaintiff damages thereby. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

COUNT II 

BREACH OF CONTRACT 

39. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all 

preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

40. Defendants have a contract with the drivers, requiring them to remit to the 

drivers the total proceeds of all gratuities. 

4 I. At all relevant times, Defendants did withhold, and continue to withhold, 

gratuities given by customers to drivers, and/or gratuities that are incorporated into the set 

fare. 

42. Defendants' withholding of gratuities constitutes a breach of contract. 

43. As a result of the Defendants' withholding of gratuities, Plaintiff, on behalf of 

himself and the proposed class, has suffered damages by, among other things, not realizing 

the full income he and the class are entitled to receive. 

7 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 8 of 38
. ' 

I 

2 

COUNT III 

UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

3 44. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all 

4 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

5 45. Defendants unlawfully retained gratuities owed to the drivers. 

6 46. As a result, Defendants has been unjustly enriched through their retention of a 

7 portion of the gratuities owed to the drivers. 

8 47. Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to restitution for their full share of 

9 the proceeds of the improperly retained gratuities. 

!0 COUNT IV 

11 CONVERSION 

12 48. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all 

13 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

14 49. Defendants unlawfully took Plaintiff's property, namely tips and money spent 

15 for expenses, without Plaintiff's permission. 

16 50. As a result, Plaintiff was harmed and class members are entitled to restitution 

17 for their full share of proceeds, as well as treble damages. 

18 

19 COUNTY 

20 UNFAIR COMPETITION 

21 51. Plaintiff, on behalfofhimselfand the proposed class, repeats and realleges all 

22 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

23 52. Defendants' activities have caused confusion with, or have been mistaken for, 

24 Plaintiffs activities in the mind of the public, or are likely to cause such confusion or 

25 mistake; or Defendants has acted unfairly in Arizona some manner. 

26 53. Plaintiffs property rights, specifically gratuities and expenses, were 

27 misappropriated by Defendants for their commercial advantage. 

28 

8 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 9 of 38
2 talent. 

3 

54. Defendants unjustly profited by Plaintiffs expenditure of time, labor and 

COUNT VI 

4 FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION 

5 55. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all 

6 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

7 56. Defendants made a material representation of fact, that Plaintiff would receive 

8 gratuities, which was untrue, which Defendants knew was an untrue statement at the time, 

9 with the intent to deceive, which Plaintiff justifiably relied upon, causing Plaintiff to incur 

10 damages. 

11 COUNT VII 

12 VIOLATIONS OF ARIZONA LABOR LAW 

13 57. Plaintiff, on behalfofhimsclfand the proposed class, repeats and realleges all 

14 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

15 58. Despite the existence of an agreement indicating Plaintiff is an independent 

16 contractor, the treatment of Plaintiff and control exercised by Uber indicate that Plaintiff is 

17 an employee. 

18 59. Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to Arizona Labor Law for violations of the 

19 following sections: 

20 a. Failure to provide prompt payment of wages to driver employees upon 

21 termination and resignation in violation of A.R.S. § 23-355; 

22 b. Improperly retaining portions of gratuities intended for driver employees in 

23 violation of A.R.S. § 23-202; 

24 c. Failure to keep required payroll records in violation of A.R.S. § 23-364; 

25 d. Failure to pay minimum wages in violation of A.R.S. §23-363. 

26 60. As a result of Uber's violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages 

27 associated with the wages and benefits withheld in violation of Arizona Labor Law as well 

28 as attorneys' fees pursuant to New York State Labor Law § 23-355. In addition, Plaintiff 

9 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 10 of 38
seeks the imposition of penalties on the Defendants with respect to the applicable 

2 provisions of A.R.S. § 23-341 and § 23-364. 

3 REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, requests 

5 relief against the Defendants as follows: 

6 a. An award of damages, including compensatory, punitive, and treble damages, 

7 in an amount to be determined at trial; 

8 b. Notice to the Classes of the action; 

9 c. An injunction against Defendants prohibiting Defendants from engaging in 

10 each of the unlawful practices, policies and patterns set forth herein; 

II d. Liquidated damages, pursuant to the A.R.S.; 

12 e. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action; 

13 f. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and 

14 g. An Order requiring that Defendants return to Plaintiffs any gratuities and any 

15 other funds wrongfully kept by Defendants; and 

16 h. Such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. 

17 JURY DEMAND 

18 Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, demands a trial by jury on all 

19 claims so triable. 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Dated this I&\... day of 

September, 2015 

10 

Respectfully submitted, 

DKL 

~ 

Law, PLLC 

DAVID W. LUNN 

14555 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 240 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85 254 

( 480) 500-1360 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 11 of 38
., ... 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

lO 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

II 

NAPOLI LAW PLLC 

MARIE NAPOLI (pro hac vice pending) 

1301 Avenue of the Americas, lOth Floor 

New York, NY 10019 

(212) 397-1000 

IMBESI LAW P.C. 

BRITT ANY WEINER (pro hac vice 

pending) 

450 Seventh A venue, Suite 1408 

New York, New York 10123 

(212) 736-0007 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 12 of 38
... --

David W. Lunn (#019526) 

DKL Law, PLLC 

2 14555 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 240 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 

3 Telephone: (480) 500-1360 

Facsimile: (480) 500-7341 

4 david@dkllawfirm.com 

5 -and6 Hunter J. Shkolnik (NY SBN 2031458, pro hoc vice anticipated) 

7 Priya Gandhi (NY SBN 5293907, pro hac vice anticipatod) 

NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK, LLP 

8 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413 

New York, New York 10118 

9 Telephone: (212) 267-3700 

10 Fax: (212) 587-0031 

H unter@napolibem.corn 

11 Pgandhi@napolibem.corn 

MICHAEL K. JEANES. CLERK 

BY'0.. Q _ • DEP 

.u 0 lP ploi'Vl"] (.I..J 

FILED 

15 SEP 18 PH If.: 13 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA 

•, . 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 cv 2 0 1 5-0 5 4 0 6 1 

DAVID SENA, individually, and on behalf of all Case No. 

17 others similarly-situated, 

18 

19 

20 

21 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware 

corporation; RAISER, LLC, a subsidiary of 

22 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; JOHN DOES IV and JANE DOES I-V; BLACK 

CORPORATIONS I-V; WHITE LIMITED 

23 

24 LIABLITY COMPANIES I-V; and GREEN 

PARTNERSHIPS I-V, 25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants. 

CERTIFICATE OF ARBITRATION 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 13 of 38
. . .:•" 

Plaintiff, DAVID SENA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, 

2 by and through undersigned counsel, certifies that the amount in controversy, excluding interest and 

3 attorneys' fees and costs, exceeds the limits set by the Local Rules of Practice for Compulsory 

4 Arbitration. Therefore, this case is NOT subject to the Uniform Rules of Procedure for Arbitration. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Respectfully submitted this 18th day of September, 2015. 

David Lunn (SBN 019526) 

DKL LAW, PLLC 

14555 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 240 

Scottsdale, AZ 85254 

Telephone: ( 480) 500-1360 

Fax: ( 480) 500-7341 

david@dkllawfirm.com 

-andHunter J. Shkolnik (NY SBN 2031458, pro hac vice anticipated) 

Priya Gandhi (NY SBN 5293907, pro hac vice anticipated) 

NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNlK, LLP 

350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413 

NewYork,NewYork 10118 

Telephone: (212) 267-3700 

Fax: (212) 587-0031 

Hunter@napolibern.com 

Pgandhi@napolibem.com 

Allorneys for Plaintiffs 

2 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 14 of 38
In the Superior Court oft'" ..;<ate of Arizona 

In and For thf·.r.~;, •' ..,, Mari~opa 

. CV2015-054061 

Ll l' .l.l..J '-V 1' .l.!.o'..l.'- I.J:a.lo&..n ... - - •- •• 

(Please Type or Print) 

Plaintiff's Attorney David W. Lunn 

Attorney's Bar Number_.:0::..1.:.:9:c5:..:2:::6:_ _____ _ 

Plain(iff's Name(s): (List all) 

Dav1d Sena 

BY~ g _ , DEP. 

.u · lP PlAVSIJ ov 

FILED 

15 SEP l 8 PH !\; l G 

Is Interpreter Needed? 0 Yes '0' No 

If yes, language type: t:2:, ; 

Attorney/Pro Per Signature~ • 

To the best of my know1edgeratlil1fo tlOJlis ifue and correct. 

Plaintiff's Address: 

c/o David W. Lunn, DKL Law, PLLC 

14555 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 240 

Scottsdale, AZ 85254 

(List additional plaintiffs on page two and/or attach a separate sheet). 

Defendant's Name(s): (List All) 

Uber Technologies, Inc.; Raiser, LLC 

(List additional defendants on page two and/or attach a separate sheet). 

EMERGENCY ORDER SOUGHT: 0 Temporary Restraining Order 0 Provisional Remedy Dose 

0Eiection Challenge 0 Employer Sanction 0 Other---------

0 RULE 8(i) COMPLEX LITIGATION DOES NOT APPLY. (Mark appropriate box under Nature of Action). 

[)!:RULE 8(i) COMPLEX LJTIGATION APPLJES Rule 8(i) of the Rules of Civil Procedure defines a "Complex Case" 

as civil actions that require continuous judicial management. A typical case involves a large number of witnesses, a 

substantial amount of documentary evidence, and a large number of separately represented parties. (Mark appropriate box 

on page two as to complexity, in addition to the Nature of Action case category). 

NATURE OF ACTION 

(Place an "X" next to the ill!£ case category that most accurately describes your prjmary case.) 

100 TORT MOTOR VEHICLE: 

0101 Non-Death/Personal Injury 

0 1 02 Property Damage 

0103 Wrongful Death 

110 TORT NON-MOTOR VEHICLE: 

D 1 11 Negligence 

0112 Product Liability- Asbestos 

0112 Product Liability-Tobacco 

D 112 Product Liability- Toxic/Other 

0113 Intentional Tort 

D I 14 Property Damage 

D 115 Legal Malpractice 

D 115 Malpractice- Other professional 

D 117 Premises Liability 

0118 Slander/Libel/Defamation 

September 1 , 201 I 

0116 Other (Specify) 

120 MEDICAL MALP.:::RA::-:-C::T::I:-:C::E:-:--

0121 Physician M.D. 0123 Hospital 

0122 Physician D.O 0124 Other 

130 CONTRACTS: 

D 131 Account (Open or Stated) 

0132 Promissory Note 

0133 Foreclosure 

0138 Buyer-Plaintiff 

0139 Fraud 

~34 Other Contract (i.e. Breach of Contract) 

D 135 Excess Proceeds - Sale 

Construction Defects (Residential/Commercial) 

0136 Six to Nineteen Structures 

0 137 Twenty or More Structures 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 15 of 38
150-199 OTHER CIVIL CASE TYPES: 

0156 Eminent Domain/Condemnation 

0151 Forcible Detainer 

0152 Change of Name 

0153 Transcript of Judgment 

0154 Foreign Judgment 

0 158 Quiet Title 

0\60 Forfeiture 

0 \ 75 Election Challenge 

0179 Employer Sanction Action (A.R.S. §23-212) 

0180 Injunction against Workplace Harassment 

018I Injunction against Harassment 

0 I 82 Civil Penalty 

0 I 86 Water Rights {Not General Stream Adjudication) 

0 187 Real Property 

0Sexually Violent Persons (A.R.S. §36-3704) 

(Except Maricopa County) 

0Minor Abortion (See Juvenile in Maricopa County) 

0Special Action Against Lower Courts 

(See lower court appeal cover sheet in Maricopa) 

0194 Immigration Enforcement Challenge(§§l-501, 1-

502, 11-1051) . 

150-199 UNCLASSIFIED CIVIL CASE TYPES: 

0Administrative Review 

(See lower court appeal cover sheet in Maricopa) 

0150 Tax Appeal (All other tax matters must be filed 

in the AZ Tax Court) 

0155 Declaratory Judgment 

0 \57 Habeas Corpus 

0184 Landlord Tenant Dispute- Other 

0159 Restoration of Civil Rights (Federal) 

0159 Clearance of Records (A.R.S. § \3-4051) 

0190 Declaration of Factual lnnocence(A.R.S.§ 12-771) 

0 191 Declaration of Factual Improper Party Status 

0193 Vulnerable Adu\t(A.R.S. §46-451) 

0165 Tribal Judgment 

0167 Structured Settlement (A.R.S. § 12-2901) 

0169 Attorney Conservatorships (State Bar) 

0170 Unauthorized Practice of Law (State Bar) 

0171 Out-of-State Deposition for Foreign Jurisdiction 

0172 Secure Attendance of Prisoner 

0 173 Assurance of Discontinuance 

0174 In-State Deposition for Foreign Jurisdiction 

0176 Eminent Domain-Light Rail Only 

0177 Interpleader- Automobile Only 

0\78 Delayed Birth Certificate (A.R.S. §36-333.03) 

0183 Employment Dispute- Discrimination 

0185 Employment Dispute- Other 

0 195(a) Amendment for Marriage License 

0 195(b) Amendment for Birth Certificate 

0163 Other--::;:;--:-;::-:---------

(Specit)') 

COMPLEXITY OF THE CASE 

If you marked the bol{ on page one indicating that Complex Litigation applies, place an "X" in the box of no 

less than one of the following: 

0 Antitrust/Trade Regulation 

0 Construction Defect with many parties or structures 

0 Mass Tort 

0 Securities Litigation with many parties 

0 Environmental Toxic Tort with many parties 

[XI Class Action Claims 

0 Insurance Coverage Claims arising from the above-listed case types 

0 A Complex Case as defined by Rule 8(i) ARCP 

Additional Plaintiff(s) 

Additional Defendant(s) 

September I , 20 I I 2 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 16 of 38
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 

David W. Lunn (#019526) 

DKL Law, PLLC 

14555 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 240 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 

Telephone: ( 480) 500-1360 

Facsimile: ( 480) 500-7341 

david@dkllawfirm.com 

-andMarie Napoli (pro hac vice pending) 

Napoli Law, PLLC 

130 I Avenue of the Americas, lOth Floor 

New York, New York 10019 

Telephone: (212) 397-1000 

MNapoli@napolilaw.com 

-andBrittany Weiner (pro hac vice pending) 

Imbesi Law, P.C. 

450 Seventh A venue, Suite 1408 

New York, New York 10123 

Telephone: (212) 736-0007 

brittany@lawicm.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Michael K Jeanes, Clerk of Cou 

***Electronically Filed*** 

M. Mogel, Deputy 

10/9/2015 10:14:00 AM 

Filing ID 6922849 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA 

DAVID SENA, individually, and on behalf 

of all others similarly-situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a 

Delaware corporation; RAISER, LLC, a 

subsidiary ofUBER TECHNOLOGIES, 

INC.; JOHN DOES I-V and JANE DOES IV; BLACK CORPORATIONS I-V; 

WHITE LIMITED LIABLITY 

COMPANIES I-V; and GREEN 

PARTNERSHIPS I-V, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CV2015-054061 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

(Breach of Contract; Unjust Enrichment; 

Fraud; Tortious Interference; Conversion) 

Jury Trial Demanded 

(Assigned to Honorable Susan Bmovich) 

27 For their Complaint against the Defendants, Plaintiff, David Sena, on behalf of 

28 himself and all other individuals who have worked or are currently working as drivers for 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 17 of 38
1 Defendants Uber Teclmo1ogies, Inc. ("Uber") and Raiser LLC ("Raiser"), an Uber 

2 subsidiary ("Defendants" or "Uber") in the State of Arizona, by and through counsel, 

3 alleges the following: 

4 PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

5 

6 

1. 

2. 

Plaintiff David Sena is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. 

Defendant Uber is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco, 

7 California, that is authorized to conduct business and does conduct business throughout the 

8 State of Arizona, including in Maricopa County, Arizona. 

9 3. Defendant Raiser is a subsidiary ofUber and is the equivalent ofUber for the 

10 purposes of this action, and is authorized to conduct business and does conduct business 

11 throughout the State of Arizona, including in Maricopa County, Arizona. 

12 4. Defendants JOHN DOES I-V and JANE DOES I-V; BLACK 

13 CORPORATIONS I-V; WHITE LIMITED LIABLITY COMPANIES I-V; and GREEN 

14 PARTNERSHIPS I-V, are fictitious Defendants whose true names or capacities, whether 

15 individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff 

16 therefore sues the Defendants by such fictitious names and will seek leave of the Court to 

17 amend this Complaint when their true names and capacities become known. 

18 

19 

5. 

6. 

20 this Court. 

Defendants have caused events to occur in Maricopa County, Arizona. 

The amount in controversy exceeds the minimum jurisdiction and limits of 

21 7. Venue is proper in Maricopa County, Arizona because the Defendants 

22 conduct business in Maricopa County, Plaintiff is a resident of Maricopa County, and the 

23 events that give rise to Plaintiffs causes of action occurred in Maricopa County. 

24 CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

25 8. Plaintiff brings this Class action pursuant to A.R.S. §23(a), on behalf of 

26 himself and all other similarly situated Uber drivers. 

27 9. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and 

28 discovery, the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by 

2 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 18 of 38
1 amendment or amended complaint. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their 

2 affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, employees, officers, agents, and directors; govermnent 

3 entities or agencies, their affiliates, employees, officers, agents, and directors in their 

4 govermnental capacities; any judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of 

5 their immediate families and judicial staff; and class counsel. 

6 10. This action is properly maintainable as a class action. As provided in A.R.S. 

7 §23(a)(l), the proposed Class "is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." 

8 As provided in A.R.S. §23(a)(2), "there are questions oflaw or fact common to the Class." 

9 11. Among the questions of law and fact that are common to the class include, but 

10 are not limited to: 

11 a. Whether Defendants have charged customers a gratuity for class members' 

12 services; 

13 b. Whether Defendants failed to distribute the total proceeds of those gratuities 

14 to the class members; 

15 c. Whether Defendants have informed customers that gratuity is included in the 

16 price of the Uber service and so there is no need to tip the drivers; 

17 d. Whether class members have suffered damages based upon Uber's 

18 representation to customers that there is no need to tip the drivers; 

19 e. Whether Defendants improperly classified class members as independent 

20 contractors rather than employees; 

21 f. Whether class members have been required to pay the expenses of their 

22 employment, including the cost of a vehicle, repairs, gas and tolls; 

23 g. Whether Uber unlawfully denied to compensate its employees, Uber's 

24 drivers, those expenses; and 

25 h. Whether class members were denied employee benefits as required by law. 

26 12. As provided in A.R.S. §23(a)(3), the proposed lead Plaintiffs representative 

27 claims are typical of those of the proposed Class because the proposed lead Plaintiffs 

28 damages are based upon the same legal theories. The proposed representative Plaintiffs 

3 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 19 of 38
1 grievances, like the proposed Class grievances, arise out of the same business practices and 

2 course of conduct of Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs' damages arise out of a pattern of 

3 nearly identical and repetitive business practices conducted by Defendants. Finally, the 

4 representative Plaintiff has no special circumstances that would put him in conflict with the 

5 other members of the Class. 

6 13. As provided by A.R.S. §23(a)(4), the representative Plaintiff can adequately 

7 represent the Class. No conflict of interest exists between the representatives and the Class 

8 members or with respect to the claims for relief requested. 

9 14. The representative Plaintiff and his chosen attorneys are familiar with the 

10 subject matter of the lawsuit and have full knowledge of the allegations contained in this 

11 complaint so as to be able to assist in its prosecution. In addition, the representative's 

12 attorneys are competent in the relevant areas of the law and have sufficient experience to 

13 vigorously represent the Class. Furthermore, the resources available to Class counsel ensure 

14 that the litigation will not be hampered by a lack of financial capacity. Plaintiffs' attorneys 

15 have sufficient financial resources and are willing to absorb the costs of this litigation. 

16 15. As provided by A.R.S. §23(b), a class action is superior to any other available 

17 method for adjudicating this controversy. This proposed class action is the surest way to 

18 fairly and expeditiously compensate so large a number of injured persons; to keep the courts 

19 from becoming paralyzed by hundreds, perhaps thousands of repetitive cases, and to reduce 

20 transaction costs so that the injured Class can obtain the most compensation possible. Class 

21 treatment of this controversy presents a superior mechanism for fairly resolving similar 

22 issues and claims without repetitious and wasteful litigation. 

23 STATEMENT OF FACTS 

24 A. Background 

25 16. Uber is a car service that provides drivers who can be hailed and dispatched to 

26 through a mobile application. 

27 17. At all relevant times, Uber was an "employer" within the meaning of all 

28 applicable statutes. 

4 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 20 of 38
1 18. Uber compensates its drivers weekly. Uber takes a percentage of the total 

2 fares driven and the driver receives the remainder of the fare. Because Uber classifies its 

3 drivers as independent contractors, Plaintiff had to pay expenses, including gas, tolls, car 

4 repairs and lease payments, from his portion of the fare. 

5 19. Uber also deducts a $1 "safe ride" fee from each fare which is allegedly used 

6 to pay for background checks, driver safety education and development of safety features in 

7 its mobile application- an expense the employer should pay, not the employee. 

8 20. From December of 2012 through the end of 2014, Plaintiff worked for Uber 

9 as an UberX driver. 

1 0 21. On average, Plaintiff drove sixteen (16) hours per week throughout the course 

11 of his employment with Uber. 

12 22. Initially, when Plaintiff began driving for Uber, he received 80% of the total 

13 fare, and Uber received the remaining 20% of the total fare. 

14 23. In the winter of 2014, Uber unilaterally changed the terms of Plaintiffs 

15 employment by substantially lowering the cost of a passenger fare. Although Plaintiff 

16 continued to earn 80% of the fare, his compensation per trip driven decreased due to Uber's 

17 decision to lower the cost of each ride. 

18 24. Plaintiff earned approximately $200 per week. From the $200, Plaintiff then 

19 had to pay his employment related expenses, including gas and tolls, which totaled between 

20 $35 and $50 per week. 

21 25. In the beginning of his employment, Plaintiffs expenses also included $10 

22 per week for use of a borrowed iPhone. Once the application for Uber became accessible on 

23 an Android device, Plaintiff no longer needed to pay $1 0 per week for the cell phone rental. 

24 26. Over the course of his employment, Uber failed to compensate Plaintiff for 

25 any employment related expenses incurred, including gas, tolls, cellular phone bills, 

26 insurance, car maintenance and repairs. 

27 27. During the course of his employment, Plaintiff did not receive gratuities. 

28 

5 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 21 of 38
1 28. Uber specifically advertises to its customers that tips are included in the cost 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

of the fare (https://help.uber.com): 

DO I NEED TO TIP MY DRIVER? 

You don't need cash when you ride with Uber. Once you arrive at 

your destination, your fare is automatically charged to your credit 

card on file -there's no need to tip. 

8 29. Despite Uber's representation that "there's no need to tip," Uber drivers are 

9 not compensated for gratuities. In fact, Uber specifically instructed its drivers to refuse a 

1 0 cash gratuity if offered. 

11 B. Misclassification of Drivers 

12 30. Plaintiff alleges that Uber uniformly misclassifies its drivers as independent 

13 contractors when they should be categorized as employees. 

14 31. Uber exerts significant control over its drivers. For example, upon signing a 

15 license agreement to work for Uber, new drivers ofUber must watch a video demonstrating 

16 how Uber wants its drivers to interact with customers. 

17 32. In addition, all drivers for Uber must maintain an average customer star 

18 evaluation of at least 4.5 out of a possible 5 stars. Instructions on how to improve one's star 

19 rating are given to drivers who fall below this average in any given week. If a driver fails to 

20 maintain an average customer rating of 4.5, Uber will deactivate his or her ability to use the 

21 application to pick up customers, an action tantamount to terminating the driver "at will," a 

22 hallmark of an employee-employer relationship. 

23 33. Uber also unilaterally sets the fares for all rides and drivers are required to 

24 charge the cost determined solely by Uber. 

25 34. As a result of its misclassification, Uber failed to provide Plaintiff and other 

26 similarly aggrieved employees with itemized wage statements, minimum wages and 

27 reimbursement for necessary expenses. Uber failed to keep accurate payroll records 

28 evidencing drivers' hours worked and wages paid and unlawfully retained gratuities owed 

6 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 22 of 38
1 to drivers, despite representing to customers and advertising that gratuity is included in the 

2 total cost of the service. 

3 c. Violations of Arizona Labor Laws 

4 35. Plaintiff further alleges that Uber violated Arizona Labor Law in its (i) failure 

5 to provide prompt payment of wages to drivers upon termination and resignation in 

6 violation of A.R.S. § 23-355; (ii) retention of gratuities intended for drivers in violation of 

7 A.R.S. § 23-202; (iii) failure to keep required payroll records in violation of A.R.S. § 23-

8 364; and (iv) its failure to pay minimum wages in violation of A.R.S. § 23-363. 

9 COUNTI 

10 TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT & BUSINESS RELATIONS 

11 36. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all 

12 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

37. 

38. 

On its website, Defendants' specifically sets forth: 

DO I NEED TO TIP MY DRIVER? 

You don't need cash when you ride with Uber. Once you arrive at 

your destination. your fare is automatically charged to your credit 

card on file- there's no need to tip. 

Defendants' conduct, in failing to remit the total proceeds of gratuities to 

20 drivers, constitutes unlawful tortious interference with the contractual and/or advantageous 

21 relationship that exists between the drivers and customers. 

22 39. Defendants' conduct, informing customers "there is no need to tip," 

23 constitutes unlawful tortious interference with the contractual and/or advantageous 

24 relationship that exists between the drivers and customers. 

25 40. Defendants had a contract with Plaintiff, were aware of those contracts, 

26 intentionally procured the breach of those contracts, and caused Plaintiff damages thereby. 

27 I I I 

28 I I I 

7 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 23 of 38
1 COUNTIT 

2 BREACH OF CONTRACT 

3 41. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all 

4 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

5 42. Defendants have a contract with the drivers, requiring them to remit to the 

6 drivers the total proceeds of all gratuities. 

7 43. At all relevant times, Defendants did withhold, and continue to withhold, 

8 gratuities given by customers to drivers, and/or gratuities that are incorporated into the set 

9 fare. 

10 44. Defendants' withholding of gratuities constitutes a breach of contract. 

11 45. As a result of the Defendants' withholding of gratuities, Plaintiff, on behalf of 

12 himself and the proposed class, has suffered damages by, among other things, not realizing 

13 the full income he and the class are entitled to receive. 

14 COUNT Ill 

15 UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

16 46. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all 

1 7 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

18 47. Defendants unlawfully retained gratuities owed to the drivers. 

19 48. As a result, Defendants has been unjustly enriched through their retention of a 

20 portion of the gratuities owed to the drivers. 

21 49. Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to restitution for their full share of 

22 the proceeds of the improperly retained gratuities. 

23 COUNTIV 

24 CONVERSION 

25 50. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all 

26 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

27 51. Defendants unlawfully took Plaintiffs property, namely tips and money spent 

28 for expenses, without Plaintiffs permission. 

8 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 24 of 38
1 52. As a result, Plaintiff was harmed and class members are entitled to restitution 

2 for their full share of proceeds, as well as treble damages. 

3 COUNTV 

4 UNFAIR COMPETITION 

5 53. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all 

6 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

7 54. Defendants' activities have caused confusion with, or have been mistaken for, 

8 Plaintiff's activities in the mind of the public, or are likely to cause such confusion or 

9 mistake; or Defendants has acted unfairly in Arizona some manner. 

10 55. Plaintiff's property rights, specifically gratuities and expenses, were 

11 misappropriated by Defendants for their commercial advantage. 

12 56. Defendants unjustly profited by Plaintiff's expenditure of time, labor and 

13 talent. 

14 COUNTVI 

15 FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION 

16 57. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all 

17 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

18 58. Defendants made a material representation of fact, that Plaintiff would receive 

19 gratuities, which was untrue, which Defendants knew was an untrue statement at the time, 

20 with the intent to deceive, which Plaintiff justifiably relied upon, causing Plaintiff to incur 

21 damages. 

22 59. Defendants also informed Plaintiff and proposed class members that they 

23 would receive a cancellation fee refund if a passenger cancelled, which Defendants knew 

24 was an untrue statement at the time, with the intent to deceive, which Plaintiff justifiably 

25 relied upon, causing Plaintiff to incur damages. 

26 60. Defendants made a material representation of fact, that Plaintiff would receive 

27 a card for discounted gas, which Defendants knew was an untrue statement at the time, with 

28 

9 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 25 of 38
1 the intent to deceive, which Plaintiff justifiably relied upon, causing Plaintiff to incur 

2 damages. 

3 COUNTVII 

4 VIOLATIONS OF ARIZONA LABOR LAW 

5 61. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all 

6 preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

7 62. Despite the existence of an agreement indicating Plaintiff is an independent 

8 contractor, the treatment of Plaintiff and control exercised by Uber indicate that Plaintiff is 

9 an employee. 

1 0 63. Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to Arizona Labor Law for violations of the 

11 following sections: 

12 a. Failure to provide prompt payment of wages to driver employees upon 

13 termination and resignation in violation of A.R.S. § 23-355; 

14 b. Improperly retaining portions of gratuities intended for driver employees in 

15 violation of A.R.S. § 23-202; 

16 c. Failure to keep required payroll records in violation of A.R.S. § 23-364; 

17 d. Failure to pay minimum wages in violation of A.R.S. §23-363. 

18 64. As a result of Uber's violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages 

19 associated with the wages and benefits withheld in violation of Arizona Labor Law as well 

20 as attorneys' fees pursuant to New York State Labor Law§ 23-355. In addition, Plaintiff 

21 seeks the imposition of penalties on the Defendants with respect to the applicable 

22 provisions of A.R.S. § 23-341 and§ 23-364. 

23 REO VEST FOR RELIEF 

24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, requests 

25 relief against the Defendants as follows: 

26 A. An award of damages, including compensatory, punitive, and treble damages, 

27 in an amount to be determined at trial; 

28 B. Notice to the Classes of the action; 

10 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 26 of 38
1 C. An injunction against Defendants prohibiting Defendants from engaging in 

2 each of the unlawful practices, policies and patterns set forth herein; 

3 D. Liquidated damages, pursuant to the A.R.S.; 

4 E. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action; 

5 F. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and 

6 G. An Order requiring that Defendants return to Plaintiffs any gratuities and any 

7 other funds wrongfully kept by Defendants; and 

8 H. Such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. 

9 JURY DEMAND 

10 Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, demands a trial by jury on all 

11 claims so triable. 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of October, 2015. 

11 

14555 N. cottsdale Road, Suite 2 0 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 

T: (480) 500-1360 

-andNAPOLI LAW PLLC 

Marie Napoli (pro hac vice pending) 

1301 Avenue of the Americas, 1Oth Floor 

New York, NY 10019 

T: (212) 397-1000 

-andIMBESI LAW P .C. 

Brittany Weiner (pro hac vice pending) 

450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 

New York, New York 10123 

T: (212) 736-0007 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 27 of 38
Attorne.1• or Parry ll'itholft Attorne.l': 

David W. Lunn #019526 t·;rcK,<E{~tcsrtWffffl.cr<" 

DKL LAW, PLLC RECt:IVfO OCH .. 

14555 NORTH SCOTTSDALE ROAD STE 240 

O<:::v110H DEPOSITORY 

SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85254 

Telephone No: 480-500-1360 2015 NOV -4 PH 12: 0~ 

'Ref. No. or File No.: ·y FU.ED Auorn~yfor: Plaintiff SENA V. USER B f), CHILCOAT, DEP 

insert name of Court, and Judicial District and Branch Court: 

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY 

Ploinriff: DA VJD SENA 

Defendant: USER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL 

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 'Hearing Date; I Time: IDepr!Di>•; Case Number: 

SUMMONS CV20 15-054061 

1. At the rime of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party lo this action. 

2. I served copies of the SUMMONS; COMPLAINT; AMENDED COMPLAINT; CERTIFICATE OF ARBITRATION 

3. a. Party served: 

b. Person served: 

4. Address where I he party was served: 

5. I served the party: 

RAISER, LLC 

KIRSTIN ERDRALIN, PROCESS SPEC£ALIST, AUTHORIZED 

NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS 

818 WEST 7TH STREET STE 930 

LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 

a. by personal service. I personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to receive 

process for the party (J) on: Fri., Oct. 30, 2015 (2) at: I 0:45AM 

7. Person Wlro Served Papers: Fee for Service: $95.00 

a. DOUG FORREST I Declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 

• 

1511 West Beverly Blvd. 

Los Angeles, CA 90026 

Telephone (213) 250-9111 

Fax (213) 250-1197 

www.firstlegalnetwork.com 

ARIZONA that the foregoing is true and correct. 

(Dale) ~e) 

8. STATEOFAR/ZONA, COUNTY OF ______ -,. 

Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this 1.-J..?t>day of .DO V !Sh&::"72- ;u:,,<; by DOUG FORREST 

proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence tube the person who appeared before me. 

1 ~"o o o o o o o Commission# 

OD8Nl E. ~E1JsfRh~ 2104044 o t ~ • AFFIDAVITOFS!lRVICE 

SUMMONS 

~~tV, ~J 669 ~ . ·IIi Notary Public • California ~ z · Los Angeles County -

~. ;~ • • .MySoT'2· 5x~r:stp!t7}g1;J 

.26320.745096 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 28 of 38
Allomey or Pony without AttQrney: F~8ourt Use Onh• 

David W. Lunn #019526 I HAEL K. JE A.NES. Cl 

DKL LAW, RECEI'tEO CCB PLLC 

I 4555 NORTH SCOTTSDALE ROAD STE 240 DOCUMENT ll£POSITO y 

SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85254 

T•l•phon• No: 480-500-1360 ZOI5NOV -6 P.H 12: 1J 

AJtomcyfor: Plaintiff 

rRef. No. or File No.: 

SENA V.UBER 

/n.nm name o[Court, and Jutiicitll /)istriCI and Brtmch Court: FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COl !NTY BY A. CANISALES, DE Plalnrift DAVID SENA 

D•f•ndant: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AI.. 

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE· 11/eoring Dare: 117m•. r•pr/Dn·: Case N11mber: 

SUMMONS CV201S-05406 I 

1. At the tune ofsen'ICe I was at least 18 years of age and not a parry To this action. 

2. I served copies ofthe SUMMONS; COMPLAINT; AMENDED COMPLAINT; CERTIFICATE OF ARBITRATION 

3. a. Party served: 

h. Person served: 

4. Address where the party was seJTed: 

5. 1 sen·ed the party: 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

FRANCES FERNANDEZ, AGENT. AUTHORIZED 

NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS 

160 GREENTREE DRIVE 

DOVER, DE 19901 

a. by personal sen•ice. I personally dcli\'crcd the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to receive 

process for the p~ (I) on: Tuc., Oct. 27,2015 (2) at: ll:IOAM 

7. Person Who Served Papers: 

a. SEAN BOYKEVICH 

1511 West Beverly Blvd. 

Los Angeles, CA 90026 · 

Telephone (213) 250-9111 

Fruc (213) 250-1197 

www.firstlegalnetwork.com 

FeeforSen·ice: $199.00 

I Declare under penalty of pcrjul)' under the laws of the State of 

DELAWARE that the foregoing is true and correct. 

8. STATE OF DELAWARE, COUNTY OF_j~~~-/-'AW. 

Subscribed and swo,.n to (or affirmed) before me 011 tlusl.C~-

pror•etl to me on the bn.ri.,· o[.rntisfac/()ry eJ•itlence to be the person H•ho appeared be 

6 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 29 of 38
EXHIBIT 2 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 30 of 38
I 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Mark Ogden; AZ BarNo. 017018 

Cory G. Walker; AZ BarNo. 027853 

mo den Iittler.com 

cwalker ,htt er.com 

LI TLE:R MENDELSON, P.C. 

Camelback Esplanade 

2425 East Camelback Road 

Suite 900 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

Tele_phone: 602.474.3600 

Facsimile: 602.957.1801 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

David Sena, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Uber Technologies, Inc.; Raiser, LLC; John 

Does I-V and Jane Does I-V; Black 

Corporations I-V; White Limited Liability 

Companies I-V; and Green Partnerships I-V, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL 

COLMAN IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANTS' REMOVAL OF 

CIVIL ACTION FROM STATE 

.COURT 

I, MICHAEL COLMAN, hereby declare and state: 

I. I am currently an Operations Specialist for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. 

21 ("Uber"), and I work out of Uber's San Francisco location. I have been employed by Uber since 

22 October 19,2011, and have worked as an Operations Specialist since February 2013. In this role, I 

23 consult with local operations teams about various aspects of Uber' s operations and I have 

24 comprehensive personal knowledge of Uber's general business model, as well as the operations of 

25 Uber's wholly-owned subsidiary, Rasier, LLC ("Rasier"). I have personal knowledge of the facts set 

26 forth in this Declaration, and I can and would testify to those facts if called and sworn as a witness. 

27 

28 

.ITTLER MEHOELSON. P ..... , ....... e ...... "". ~ ......... (OPI&Oik 

JUHul tt"'•'"" Rud h"tUI 

~·•••" &t UGll fU til UGO 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 31 of 38
I 2. Uber is a privately held corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware. Its 

2 headquarters and principal place of business is in San Francisco, California. Uber' s primary 

3 administrative and financial functions, including human resources, benefits and payroll, are all 

4 managed at Uber's headquarters in San Francisco. As stated above, Rasier is a wholly owned 

5 subsidiary of Uber. Rasier is a Delaware limited liability company, and its principal place of 

6 business is in San Francisco, California. Rasier's sole member is an employee ofUber who works at 

7 Uber's Headquarters in San Francisco and is a citizen of California. Uber and Rasier are not 

:8 governmental entities. 

9 3. Information in Uber's database indicates that no fewer than 22,400 individual 

I 0 transportation providers, including Plaintiff Sena, have used Uber' s software application to generate 

II leads in the State of Arizona from the time Uber launched in Arizona in October 25, 2012 to the 

12 present. The data from which this information was derived is maintained in the regular course of 

13 Uber' s business as a regular practice. 

14 I declare under penalty of peijury pursuant to the laws of the United States of America that 

15 the foregoing is true and correct. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

>TTLER MEHDE~BON p, A Jotou'"""C"'•UWt• (: .... ~ ... h_, ... ~. 

lou hll r;.,,.,._~ ~.u 

lo11t 1~0 rh .... Al no•• ,~l'" u~; 

Executed at San Francisco, California, this ll day ofNovember 2015. 

MlCHAEL COLMAN 

-2-

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 32 of 38
EXHIBIT 3 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 33 of 38
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 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P. A P•oHIIIO .. ~ Co .. OOUIO' 

C101tiD1<0 E1~l•n•dt 

1115 Eul C•m•IDoc< Ro•d Suilo 'lOO 

Phoon~•. Al 1~015 

602.170600 

Mark Ogden; AZ Bar No. 017018 

Cory G. Walker; AZ Bar No. 027853 

mogden@littler.com 

cgwalke~ler.com 

LITTLER NDELSON,P.C. 

Camelback Esplanade 

2425 East Camelback Road 

Suite 900 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 Tele~hone: 602.474.3600 

Facsimile: 602.957.1801 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

COUNTY OF MARICOPA 

David Sena, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Uber Technologies, Inc.; Raiser, LLC; John 

Does I-Vand Jane Does I-V; Black 

Corporations I-V; White Limited Liability 

Companies I-V; and Green Partnerships f-V, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CV2015-054061 

NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY 

OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL 

ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT 

TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SENA AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 25, 2015, Defendants Uber 

Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC filed a Notice of Removal of Civil Action in the United 

States District Court for the District of Arizona. A copy of the Notice of Removal of Civil 

Action is served contemporaneously herewith and attached as Exhibit 1. 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 34 of 38
1 DATED this 25th day ofNovember, 2015 

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 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P. A Ploo/IUIO•" Coo>OUTOOO CamtiU<~ Etplantdt 21'15 En I cu .. lbt<~ llood 5uilo90D 

Photoi•, ~z 15016 602.410600 

Is/ Cory G. Walker 

Mark Ogden 

Cory G. Walker 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC 

E-FILED this 25th day of November, 2015 

and a copy provided this same date to: 

Hon. Susan Bmovich 

Superior Court Judge 

ViaE-Filing System 

and by mail this same date to: 

David W. Lunn 

DKLLAW,PLLC 

14555 N. Scottsdale Road #240 

Scottsdale, AZ 85254 

Marie Napoli 

NAPOLILA W, PLLC 

1301 Avenue of the Americas 

lOth Floor 

New York, NY 10019 

Brittany Weiner 

IMBESI LAW, P.C. 

450 7th Avenue, Suite 1408 

New York, NY 10123 

Is/ Ashleigh Machrol 

Finnwide: 137145692.1 073208.11 OS 

-2-

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 35 of 38
EXHIBIT4 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 36 of 38
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Mark Ogden; AZ Bar No. 017018 

Cory G. Walker; AZ Bar No. 027853 

mogden@littler .com 

ciTalkei@littler.com 

L TILER MENDELSON, P.C. 

Camelback Esplanade 

2425 East Camelback Road 

Suite 900 

Phoenix,AZ 85016 

TeleJ?hone: 602.474.3600 

Facsimile: 602.957.1801 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

COUNTY OF MARICOPA 

David Sena, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Uber Technologies, Inc.; Raiser, LLC; John 

Does I-V and Jane Does I-V; Black 

Corporations I-V; White Limited Liability 

Companies I-V; and Green Partnerships I-V, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CV2015-054061 

NOTICE TO STATE COURT OF 

REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION 

TO FEDERAL COURT 

18 11-------------------------~ 

19 TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, COUNTY OF 

20 MARICOPA: 

21 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 25, 2015, Defendant Uber Technologies, 

22 Inc. filed a Notice of Removal of Civil Action under 28 U.S. C. §§ 1331 (federal question), 

23 1332(d), 1441 and 1446, and Local Rule 3.7 in the office of the Clerk of the United States 

24 District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix Division. A copy of said Notice of 

25 Removal is attached as Exhibit 1. 

26 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the filing of said Notice of Removal with 

27 the Clerk of this Court effects the removal of this action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 

28 1446(d). 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P. A POQiiii<ONll Co"o"nON 

ComoiOao~ E•plonodo 

2425 Eul ComtiOoc~ Rood 

Soolt ~00 

Pboonox, AZ 85016 

602HU600 

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 37 of 38
1 DATED this 25th day ofNovember, 2015 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

Is/ Cory G. Walker 

Mark Ogden 

Cory G. Walker 

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC 

E-FILED this 25th day of November, 2015 

and a copy provided this same date to: 

Hon. Susan Bmovich 

Superior Court Judge 

ViaE-Filing System 

and by mail this same date to: 

David W. Lunn 

DKL LAW, PLLC 

14555 N. Scottsdale Road #240 

Scottsdale, AZ 85254 

Marie Napoli 

NAPOLI LAW, PLLC 

1301 Avenue of the Americas 

lOth Floor 

New York, NY 10019 

Brittany Weiner 

IMBESI LAW, P.C. 

450 7th Avenue, Suite 1408 

New York, NY 10123 

22 /s/ Ashleigh Machrol 

23 Firmwide:137142431.1 073208.1105 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ITTLER MENDELSON, P. A Pooru"o"~ Co,ooAIIO' Comolbock Eoplo"o~t 

?~?5 011! Camtlb"k Rood 

Suilo ~00 

P~•·•••.u sso16 602.1713600 

-2-

Case 2:15-cv-02418-DLR Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/15 Page 38 of 38