1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN, pro hac vice anticipated (sliss@llrlaw.com) ADELAIDE PAGANO, pro hac vice anticipated (apagano@llrlaw.com) LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 MATTHEW CARLSON (SBN 273242) (mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com) Carlson Legal Services 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 817-1470 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 13 14 15 EVAN KISSNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Plaintiff, v. DOORDASH, INC., Defendant. Case No. ___________________ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE FOR BUSINESS EXPENSES IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE §2802 2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER ITEMIZED WAGE STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE § 226(a) 3. UNLAWFUL AND/OR UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§17200-17208) 25 26 27 28 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 I. 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. This case is a class action brought on behalf of individuals who have worked for DoorDash, Inc. (“DoorDash”) as delivery drivers in California. DoorDash is a food delivery service that provides delivery drivers who can be scheduled and dispatched through a mobile phone application or through its website and who will deliver food orders from restaurants to customers at their homes and businesses. 2. 8 9 INTRODUCTION As described further below, DoorDash has misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated delivery drivers as independent contractors and, in so doing, has violated the 10 California Labor Code, including: (1) Cal. Labor Code §2802 by requiring couriers to pay 11 various expenses that should have been borne by the employer and (2) Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a) 12 by failing to provide itemized wage statements. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 13 § 382, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated DoorDash drivers, seeks damages 14 for these violations. 15 II. 3. 16 17 PARTIES Plaintiff Evan Kissner is an adult resident of Irvine, California, where he worked as a DoorDash driver in February 2015. 18 4. Defendant Doordash, Inc. (“DoorDash”) is a Delaware corporation with its 19 principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. 20 III. 21 22 23 24 25 26 JURISDICTION 5. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under Cal. Labor Code §§ 2802 and § 226 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10. IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6. DoorDash is a Palo Alto-based food delivery service, which provides food delivery services in cities throughout the country via an on demand dispatch system. 7. DoorDash offers customers the ability to request a driver on a mobile phone 27 28 2 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 2 application or online through its website, who will go to the restaurant and pick up their food, then deliver it to the customer at their home or business. 3 8. 4 5 delivered to you” and that “We deliver from the best restaurants.” 9. 6 7 8 DoorDash’s website advertises that it offers “Your favorite local restaurants DoorDash drivers receive a flat fee for each delivery completed plus any gratuities added by the customer. DoorDash does not provide proper itemized wage statements to its drivers. 10. 9 Although classified as independent contractors, DoorDash drivers like Plaintiff 10 are actually employees. Drivers are required to sign up for shifts in advance. DoorDash directs 11 drivers’ work in detail, instructing drivers where to report for their shifts, how to dress, and 12 where to go to pick up or await deliveries. Drivers are required to follow requirements imposed 13 on them by DoorDash regarding handling of the food and timeliness of the deliveries or risk 14 termination. 11. 15 In addition, DoorDash is in the business of providing food delivery services to 16 customers, and this is the very service its drivers provide. The drivers’ services are fully 17 integrated into DoorDash’s business, and without the drivers, DoorDash’s business would not 18 exist. 19 12. However, based on their misclassification as independent contractors, DoorDash 20 has required Plaintiff and other DoorDash drivers to bear many of the expenses of their 21 employment, including expenses for their vehicles, gas, parking, phone data, and other expenses. 22 23 24 25 26 V. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 13. Plaintiff Evan Kissner this case as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 on behalf of all DoorDash drivers who have worked in California. 14. Plaintiff and other class members have uniformly been deprived reimbursement of their necessary business expenditures. 27 28 3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all class members is impracticable. 16. Common questions of law and fact regarding DoorDash’s conduct in classifying drivers as independent contractors and failing to reimburse them for business expenditures exist as to all members of the class and predominate over any questions affecting solely any individual members of the class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the class are: a. Whether class members have been required to follow uniform procedures and policies regarding their work for DoorDash; 10 b. Whether class members have been subject to termination by DoorDash in its 11 discretion; 12 c. Whether the work performed by class members—providing food delivery services to 13 customers—is within DoorDash’s usual course of business, and whether such service is 14 fully integrated into DoorDash’s business; 15 d. Whether these class members have been required to bear the expenses of their 16 employment, such as expenses for vehicles, gas, bikes, and other expenses. 17 e. Whether DoorDash failed to provide proper itemized pay statements to its drivers. 18 17. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Named Plaintiff Evan Kissner is a class member, who suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s conduct and actions alleged herein. 18. Plaintiff Kissner’s claims are typical of the claims of the class, and he has the same interests as the other members of the class. 19. Plaintiff Kissner will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. He has retained able counsel experienced in class action litigation and independent contractor misclassification in particular. His interests are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, the interests of the other class members. 26 27 28 4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 2 3 4 20. over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual issues relating to liability and damages. 21. 5 6 7 8 9 The questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all class members is impractical. Moreover, since the damages suffered by individual members of the class may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation makes it practically impossible for the members of the class individually to redress the wrongs done to them. The class is readily definable and 10 prosecution of this action as a class action will eliminate the possibility of repetitive litigation. 11 There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action. 12 13 COUNT I 14 Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802 15 Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding 16 paragraphs as if fully alleged herein. DoorDash’s conduct, as set forth above, in misclassifying 17 Plaintiff and other DoorDash drivers as independent contractors, and failing to reimburse them 18 for expenses they paid that should have been borne by their employer, constitutes a violation of 19 California Labor Code 20 § 2802. 21 22 23 24 25 COUNT II Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226 Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully alleged herein. DoorDash’s conduct, as set forth above, in failing to provide itemized wage statements, as required by California state law, violates Cal. Lab. Code 26 27 28 5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 2 § 226(a). This claim is brought on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals who worked for DoorDash in the state of California. 3 4 COUNT III 5 Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq. 6 7 8 9 Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, violates the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (“UCL”). Defendant’s conduct constitutes unlawful business acts or practices, in that Defendant has violated California Labor Code Section 2802. As 10 a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and class members suffered injury in fact and 11 lost money and property, including, but not limited to business expenses that drivers were 12 required to pay. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17203, Plaintiff and 13 class members seek declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendant’s unlawful conduct and to 14 recover restitution. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, Plaintiff and class 15 members are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in 16 bringing this action. 17 18 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter the following relief: 19 a. Certify a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382 and 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 appoint Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the class; b. Declare and find that the Defendant violated Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226 and 2802 and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq. by failing to reimburse the expenses of Plaintiff and the class and failing to provide itemized wage statements; c. Award compensatory damages, including all expenses owed, in an amount according to proof; d. Award all costs and attorney’s fees incurred prosecuting this claim; 27 28 6 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 e. Interest and costs; 2 f. Injunctive relief in the form of an order directing Defendant to comply with Cal Lab. 3 Code; 4 g. Such other relief as in law or equity may pertain. 5 6 7 Respectfully submitted, 8 EVAN KISSNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 9 10 By his attorneys, 11 __________________________________ Shannon Liss-Riordan, pro hac vice anticipated Adelaide Pagano, pro hac vice anticipated LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 (617) 994-5800 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com, apagano@llrlaw.com 12 13 14 15 16 Matthew Carlson (SBN 273242) CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 17 18 19 20 21 Dated: September 23, 2015 (415) 817-1470 Email: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT