Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/227953036/ADA-Complaint-Against-Uber
Timestamp: 2014-09-30 17:55:47
Document Index: 20445492

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 12181', '§ 37', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 2201', '§12181']

ADA Complaint Against Uber
P. 1ADA Complaint Against UberADA Complaint Against UberRatings: (0)|Views: 5,466
|Likes: 0Published by jeff_roberts881complaintcomplaintMore info:Published by: jeff_roberts881 on Jun 03, 2014Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reservedAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/227953036/ADA-Complaint-Against-Uber06/04/2014pdftextoriginal 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DAN J. RAMOS, LAURA POSADAS, § TINA WILLIAMS § § Plaintiffs § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. § UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; LYFT INC.; § § § Defendants § PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1.
This is an action to enforce the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) brought pursuant to the 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181
– 12189 and more specifically 49 CFR § 37.29. Plaintiff brings this action requesting declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendants to enforce the provisions of the ADA to ensure equal treatment under the law for disabled consumers of vehicle-for-hire services. INTRODUCTION
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA) prohibits discrimination based on disability in the full use and enjoyment of the goods, services or accommodations “of any place of public accommodation by any person” who operates such a place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. 12182(a). Plaintiffs Posadas, Ramos, and Williams are mobility impaired customers of vehicles-for-hire that require wheelchair accessible vehicles for their transportation needs or other accommodating services. Defendants Uber and Lyft do not provide vehicles-for-hire services to mobility impaired consumers such as Plaintiffs who require wheelchair accessible transportation vehicles or other accommodating services. Uber and Lyft !"#$ &'()*+,*--&-. /0+12$34 ( 567$8 -9:-.:() ;"<$ ( 0= 9
2 allow their vehicles-for-hire to deny service to the disabled. In addition, Uber and Lyft provide no training or guidance to the vehicles-for-hire that use their service concerning lawfully meeting the needs of disabled consumers. 3.
Therefore, Plaintiffs bring this because Defendants Uber and Lyft have failed to offer services required by the ADA to mobility impaired individuals such as Plaintiffs Posadas, Ramos and Williams. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4.
Plaintiff’s comp
laint arises under the United States Constitution and federal statutes. This court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a) (3) and (4), and 1988. 5.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 6.
Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. PARTIES
Plaintiff Dan Ramos is citizen and resident of San Antonio, Texas. Plaintiff Ramos is Veteran of the United States Armed Services. Plaintiff Ramos is mobility impaired and requires the use of a wheelchair. Plaintiff Ramos requires the use of vehicle-for-hire that is wheelchair accessible or that provides other reasonable accommodations. Mr. Ramos is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. 8.
Plaintiff Laura Posadas is a citizen and resident of Houston, Texas. Plaintiff Posadas is mobility impaired and requires the use of a wheelchair. Ms. Posadas requires the use of vehicle-for-hire that is wheelchair accessible or that provides other reasonable accommodations. Ms. Posadas is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. !"#$ &'()*+,*--&-. /0+12$34 ( 567$8 -9:-.:() ;"<$ . 0= 9
Plaintiff Tina Williams is a citizen and resident of Houston, Texas. Plaintiff Williams is mobility impaired and requires the use of a wheelchair. Plaintiff Williams requires the use of vehicle-for-hire that is wheelchair accessible or that provides other reasonable accommodations. Ms. Williams is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. 10.
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a foreign corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located in San Francisco, California. Uber is registered with the Texas Secretary of State and is doing business in Texas. Uber may be served by service on its agent for service National Registered Agents, Inc., 1999 Bryan St. Ste. 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136. 11.
Defendant Lyft Inc. is a foreign corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located in San Francisco, California. Although Lyft engages in business in Texas, it has not designated or maintained an agent for service of process, and this suit arose from its business in Texas. FACTS
Uber operates “vehicles for hire” i
n San Antonio as defined under CSACO Section 33-003. 13.
Lyft operates “vehicles for hire” in San Antonio as defined under CSACO Section
33-003. 14.
Uber and Lyft both engage in a demand responsive system as defined by 42 U.S.C. §12181. 15.
Uber and Lyft have entered the vehicle-for-hire market in both Houston and San Antonio. Uber and Lyft customers use a smartphone app to locate, schedule, and pay for their travel. Consumers enter into contracts and business relationships whereby Uber and Lyft !"#$ &'()*+,*--&-. /0+12$34 ( 567$8 -9:-.:() ;"<$ > 0= 9
Sirius 1972 Ruling
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Facebook Service
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Innocence of Muslims .. New Complaint
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Amazon s 101 Ruling
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Google CAFC
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Crane v. Cook et al
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Getty v Microsoft
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Google Play Settlement Draft
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Yelp 9th Circuit Decision
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Microsoft Warrant Ruling
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection FTTH Comments in Support of Muni Petitions
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection UASAmericaPetition Judicial Review Petition vs FAA
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Blackberry-Typo Ruling, Aug 21
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection PTAB Streetview Patent
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Klein Derivative Complaint
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Grayson - Wheeler Letter
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Koh Rejects No-poach Settlement
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Curry v Yelp
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Hong Kong Google Ruling
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Posner Re Sherlock Holmes Estate
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Bose v Beats Electronics Et Al
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Denial of Google Motion to Dismiss
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Michelle Phan Complaint
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Texas EquuSearch