IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS
STATE OF MISSOURI
METROPOLITAN TAXICAB
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UBER INC. and UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Serve:
National Registered Agents, Inc.
120 S. Central Ave.
Clayton, MO 63105
and
JOHN AND JANE DOES,
and
NZOJIBWAMI INNOCENT
Serve:
1527 Lasalle Ln.
St Louis, MO 63104
and
MOHAMMAD NOORI
Serve:
89 Lemay Gardens Dr.
St. Louis, MO 63125
and
DAVID KELLEY
Serve:
3227 Pulaski St.
St Louis, MO 63111
and
DENNIS ELLIS
Serve:
1184 Warm Wind
O’Fallon, MO 63366

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1

Cause No.:

Division No.:

 and
REINALDO HERRERA
Serve:
1119 Forest Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63139
and
PATRICK OLIGSCHLAEGER
Serve:
9726 Cisco Dr.
St Louis, MO 63123
and
JUSTIN VAN SANT
Serve:
3818 Haverhill Pl.
St Louis, MO 63125
and
PETER KAISER
Serve:
686 Rolling Thunder Dr.
O’Fallon, MO 63368
and
JAMES MORGAN
Serve:
14 Spring Song Ct.
St Peters, MO 63376
and
SHERWOOD FARNHAM
Serve:
309 Port Way
Columbia, MO 65201
and
MICHAEL SCHNEIDER
Serve:
8300 Appleton Dr.
St Louis, MO 63132

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2

 and
DANIEL PUI
Serve:
1412 Virginia Dr.
Ellisville, MO 63011
and
LAMINE THIAM
Serve:
1015 N 10th St. #A
St Louis, MO 63101
and
JASON SIEGEL
Serve:
157 Brushy Brook Dr.
O’Fallon, MO 63366
and
JEREMY PENNYCOOK
Serve:
3354 Biscayne Blvd.
Arnold, MO 63010
and
MICAH TEMPLE
Serve:
1358 Timothy Ridge Dr.
St Charles, MO 63304
and
WAYNE BANDY
Serve:
1175 Crested View Dr.
St. Louis, MO 63146
and
JEFFREY HAYES
Serve:
4603 Sand Mark Walk #4
St. Louis, MO 63121
and

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)

SEAN REID
Serve:
1508 Partridge Ave.
Pagedale, MO 63133
Defendants.

VERIFIED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Metropolitan Taxicab Commission, by and through its
undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 92.02 RSMo and for its Application for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and for its Petition for Permanent Injunction
states as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

Metropolitan Taxicab Commission hereinafter MTC is a political subdivision

of the State of Missouri organized and existing under §67.1800 et seq. RSMo to regulate
vehicles for hire, drivers, Transportation Network Companies and vehicle for hire companies
within the district boundaries which include St. Louis City and St. Louis County.
2.

Defendant Uber, Inc. is a Delaware LLC whose sole member is Uber

Technologies, Inc, a citizen of Delaware (its state of incorporations) and California (its
Principal Place of business). Uber is located at 182 Howard Street #8, San Francisco,
California 94105. Uber Technologies, Inc. is a registered foreign corporation in the State of
Missouri.
3.

Defendant Nzojibwami Innocent is an individual residing at 1527 Lasalle Ln.

St Louis, MO 63104.
4.

Defendant Mohammad Noori is an individual residing at 89 Lemay Gardens

Dr., St Louis, MO 63125.

4

 5.

Defendant David Kelley is an individual residing at 3227 Pulaski St., St

Louis, MO 63111.
6.

Defendant Dennis Ellis is an individual residing at 1184 Warm Wind,

O’Fallon, MO 63366.
7.

Defendant Reinaldo Herrera is an individual residing at 1119 Forest Ave., St.

Louis, MO 63139.
8.

Defendant Patrick Oligschlaeger is an individual residing at 9726 Cisco Dr.,

St Louis, MO 63123.
9.

Defendant Justin Van Sant is an individual residing at 3818 Haverhill Pl., St

Louis, MO 63125.
10.

Defendant Peter Kaiser is an individual residing at 686 Rolling Thunder Dr.,

O’Fallon, MO 63368.
11.

Defendant James Morgan is an individual residing at 14 Spring Song Ct., St

Peters, MO 63376.
12.

Defendant Sherwood Farnham is an individual residing at 309 Port Way,

Columbia, MO 65201.
13.

Defendant Michael Schneider is an individual residing at 8300 Appleton Dr.,

St Louis, MO 63132.
14.

Defendant Daniel Pui is an individual residing at 1412 Virginia Dr., Ellisville,

MO 63011.
15.

Defendant Lamine Thiam is an individual residing at 1015 N 10th St. #A, St

Louis, MO 63101.
16.

Defendant Jason Siegel is an individual residing at 157 Brushy Brook Dr.,

O’Fallon, MO 63366.

5

 17.

Defendant Jeremy Pennycook is an individual residing at 3354 Biscayne

Blvd., Arnold, MO 63010.
18.

Defendant Micah Temple is an individual residing at 1358 Timothy Ridge

Dr., St Charles, MO 63304.
19.

Defendant Wayne Bandy is an individual residing at 1175 Crested View Dr.,

St. Louis, MO 63146.
20.

Defendant Jeffrey Hayes is an individual residing at 4603 Sand Mark Walk

#4, St. Louis, MO 63121.
21.

Defendant Sean Reid is an individual residing at 1508 Partridge Ave.,

Pagedale, MO 63133.
22.

This Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the parties to this

civil action under the laws of the State of Missouri in that the Defendants are either residents
of this state or have had continuous and systematic contacts within the State of Missouri and
in St. Louis City and St. Louis County and have thus submitted themselves to the jurisdiction
of Missouri courts.
23.

This Court is the proper venue for this action in that the activity giving rise to

the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission’s Petition was conducted within the County of St.
Louis and within the territorial area of the Taxicab Commission’s jurisdiction and involves
enforcement of Missouri Statutes and the MTC Vehicle for Hire Code.

FACTS
24.

The Metropolitan Taxicab Commission regulates the vehicle for hire industry

and Transportation Network Companies by enacting and enforcing regulations that exist to
protect consumers and keep the public safe. The Metropolitan Taxicab Commission,
pursuant to §67.1812 (g) RSMo adopted a comprehensive code known as the Vehicle for
6

 Hire Code, version 8.3, adopted February 28, 2010, effective March 15, 2010 as revised and
amended September 18, 2015 and October 2, 2015. See Exhibit 1.
25.

Chapter 14 of the Code defines a Transportation Network Company as an

entity licensed pursuant to this chapter and operating in the St. Louis City or St. Louis
County that uses a digital network or software application service to connect passengers to a
transportation network company services provided by transportation network company
drivers. Vehicles transporting passengers dispatched by Uber Inc. and Uber Technologies,
Inc. through a transportation network company service are “vehicles for hire” as defined by
§101.58 and 14.1 of the Vehicle for Hire Code.
26.

Through Uber Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. a passenger uses an Uber X

mobile application to request a vehicle for hire at a designated location in St. Louis City or
County. Defendant Uber then uses the Uber X mobile application to send the request to
available Uber X drivers who have contracted with Uber to accept its electronic dispatches.
27.

If an Uber X driver chooses to accept the dispatch, the Uber X driver sends an

electronic notification to the passenger that includes the driver’s name, the type of vehicle,
license plate and the expected time of arrival. The Uber X driver then picks up the passenger
in the City of St. Louis or St. Louis County and transports the passenger in exchange for
compensation.
28.

The compensation that the passenger is expected to pay is computed by Uber

Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. using information from the mobile application’s GPS
system, based on a metrics of distance and time.
29.

The compensation is paid to Uber Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. via the

passenger’s credit card or debit card, which must be previously registered with Uber.
Defendant Uber Inc remits a percentage of the compensation to the driver and keeps a
percentage as its fee.
7

 30.

Uber Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. has been operating its mobile

application in the City of St. Louis and County since September 18, 2015. Uber has been
offering vehicle for hire services in open disregard of the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission
Vehicle for Hire Code, specifically §201-215 and the provision of Chapter 14 of the Vehicle
for Hire Code. A copy of newly enacted Chapter 14 to said code is attached hereto marked
Exhibit #1 and incorporated by reference.
31.

Uber X has advertised its service and has publically recruited drivers to

provide Transportation Network Company Services in the territorial jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Taxicab Commission in St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis.
32.

Section 67.1808 (8) RSMo authorizes the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission

to enforce its Code for the purposes of improving the quality of taxicab services within the
district. Uber, Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. has implemented an aggressive campaign in
the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County specifically offering, arranging for, and
dispatching vehicles for hire to customers who have signed up for Uber X services and who
request a vehicle. Defendant Uber, Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. encourages, facilitates,
solicits and promotes owners and drivers of vehicles to violate the Metropolitan Taxicab
Commission’s Vehicle for Hire Code pertaining to the vehicle for hire industry through its
Uber X services. Uber, Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. retain a portion of the profits made
by the unlawful operation of these vehicles for hire.
33.

Before Uber X driver may lawfully operate a vehicle in the City of St. Louis

or St. Louis County, a driver must acquire a Metropolitan Taxicab Commission vehicle for
hire driver’s license. These licenses are only issued to drivers who qualify based upon the
Metropolitan Taxicab Commission standards as specified by § 14.6 of the Vehicle for Hire
Code.

8

 34.

In direct violation of §14.06 of the Vehicle for Hire Code, Uber X drivers are

operating vehicles for hire without first having obtained a vehicle for hire driver’s license.
35.

On September 21, 2015, at or around 7:56 PM, Uber X dispatched Defendant

Innocent to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations within Saint
Louis County. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Innocent operated wholly
within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Innocent does not have a Metropolitan Taxicab
Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that Defendant Innocent used to
provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire. Defendant Innocent transported a
passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and §14.6 of the Vehicle for Hire
Code. See Exhibits 2a and 2b.
36.

On September 21, 2015, at or around 9:25 PM, Uber X dispatched Defendant

Noori to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations within Saint
Louis City. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Noori operated wholly
within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Noori does not have a Metropolitan Taxicab
Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that Defendant Noori used to
provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire. Defendant transported a passenger
in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and §14.6 of the Vehicle for Hire Code. See
Exhibits 3a and 3b.
37.

On September 21, 2015, at or around 10:11 PM, Uber X dispatched

Defendant Kelley to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations
within Saint Louis City. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Kelley operated
wholly within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Kelley does not have a Metropolitan
Taxicab Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that Defendant Kelley
used to provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire. Defendant Kelley

9

 transported a passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and §14.6 of the
Vehicle for Hire Code. See Exhibits 4a and 4b.
38.

On September 21, 2015, at or around 11:17 PM, Uber X dispatched

Defendant Ellis to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations
within Saint Louis County. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Ellis
operated wholly within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Ellis does not have a
Metropolitan Taxicab Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that
Defendant Ellis used to provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire. Defendant
Ellis transported a passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and §14.6 of the
Vehicle for Hire Code. See Exhibits 5a and 5b.
39.

On September 27, 2015, at or around 7:26 PM, Uber X dispatched Defendant

Herrera to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations within Saint
Louis City. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Herrera operated wholly
within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Herrera does not have a Metropolitan Taxicab
Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that Defendant Herrera used to
provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire. Defendant Herrera transported a
passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and §14.6 of the Vehicle for Hire
Code. See Exhibit 6.
40.

On September 27, 2015, at or around 4:07 PM Uber X dispatched Defendant

Oligschlaeger to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations within
Saint Louis County. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Oligschlaeger
operated wholly within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Oligschlaeger does not have a
Metropolitan Taxicab Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that
Defendant Oligschlaeger used to provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire.

10

 Defendant Oligschlaeger transported a passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of
§14.5 and §14.6 of the Vehicle for Hire Code. See Exhibits 7a and 7b.
41.

On September 27, 2015, at or around 9:48 AM, Uber X dispatched Defendant

Van Sant to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations within
Saint Louis City. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Van Sant operated
wholly within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Van Sant does not have a Metropolitan
Taxicab Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that Defendant Van
Sant used to provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire. Defendant Van Sant
transported a passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and §14.6 of the
Vehicle for Hire Code. See Exhibits 8a and 8b.
42.

On September 27, 2015, at or around 12:25 PM, Uber X dispatched

Defendant Kaiser to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations
within Saint Louis County. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Kaiser
operated wholly within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Kaiser does not have a
Metropolitan Taxicab Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that
Defendant Kaiser used to provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire.
Defendant Kaiser transported a passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and
§14.6 of the Vehicle for Hire Code. See Exhibits 9a and 9b.
43.

On September 27, 2015, at or around 5:15 PM, Uber X dispatched Defendant

Morgan to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations within Saint
Louis City. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Morgan operated wholly
within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Morgan does not have a Metropolitan Taxicab
Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that Defendant Morgan used to
provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire. Defendant Morgan transported a

11

 passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and §14.6 of the Vehicle for Hire
Code. See Exhibits 10a and 10b.
44.

On September 27, 2015, at or around 4:13 PM, Uber X dispatched Defendant

Farnham to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations within Saint
Louis County. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Farnham operated wholly
within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Farnham does not have a Metropolitan Taxicab
Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that Defendant Farnham used to
provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire. Defendant Farnham transported a
passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and §14.6 of the Vehicle for Hire
Code. See Exhibits 11a and 11b.
45.

On September 23, 2015, at or around 3:54 PM, Uber X dispatched Defendant

Schneider to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations within
Saint Louis City. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Schneider operated
wholly within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Schneider does not have a Metropolitan
Taxicab Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that Defendant
Schneider used to provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire. Defendant
Schneider transported a passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and §14.6
of the Vehicle for Hire Code. See Exhibit 12.
46.

On September 23, 2015, at or around 2:55 PM, Uber X dispatched Defendant

Pui to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations within Saint
Louis City. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Pui operated wholly within
St. Louis City and County. Defendant Pui does not have a Metropolitan Taxicab
Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that Defendant Pui used to
provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire. Defendant Pui transported a

12

 passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and §14.6 of the Vehicle for Hire
Code. See Exhibit 13.
47.

On September 23, 2015, at or around 12:27 PM, Uber X dispatched

Defendant Thiam to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations
within Saint Louis City. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Thiam operated
wholly within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Thiam does not have a Metropolitan
Taxicab Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that Defendant Thiam
used to provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire. Defendant Thiam
transported a passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and §14.6 of the
Vehicle for Hire Code. See Exhibit 14.
48.

On September 25, 2015, at or around 11:33 AM, Uber X dispatched

Defendant Siegel to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations
within Saint Louis City. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Siegel operated
wholly within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Siegel does not have a Metropolitan
Taxicab Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that Defendant Siegel
used to provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire. Defendant Siegel
transported a passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and §14.6 of the
Vehicle for Hire Code. See Exhibit 15.
49.

On September 25, 2015, at or around 11:59 AM, Uber X dispatched

Defendant Pennycook to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at
locations within Saint Louis City. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant
Pennycook operated wholly within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Pennycook does
not have a Metropolitan Taxicab Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle
that Defendant Pennycook used to provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire.

13

 Defendant Pennycook transported a passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5
and §14.6 of the Vehicle for Hire Code. See Exhibits 16a and 16b.
50.

On September 26, 2015, at or around 6:12 PM, Uber X dispatched Defendant

Temple to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations within Saint
Louis County. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Temple operated wholly
within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Temple does not have a Metropolitan Taxicab
Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that Defendant Temple used to
provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire. Defendant Temple transported a
passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and §14.6 of the Vehicle for Hire
Code. See Exhibit 17.
51.

On September 30, 2015, at or around 12:01 PM, Uber X dispatched

Defendant Bandy to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations
within Saint Louis County. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Bandy
operated wholly within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Bandy does not have a
Metropolitan Taxicab Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that
Defendant Bandy used to provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire.
Defendant Bandy transported a passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and
§14.6 of the Vehicle for Hire Code. See Exhibits 18a and 18b.
52.

On September 30, 2015, at or around 11:36 AM, Uber X dispatched

Defendant Hayes to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations
within Saint Louis City. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Hayes operated
wholly within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Hayes does not have a Metropolitan
Taxicab Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that Defendant Hayes
used to provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire. Defendant Hayes

14

 transported a passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and §14.6 of the
Vehicle for Hire Code. See Exhibits 19a and 19b.
53.

On September 30, 2015, at or around 12:54 PM, Uber X dispatched

Defendant Reid to provide vehicle for hire services to a customer/passenger at locations
within Saint Louis City. The vehicle for hire service provided by Defendant Reid operated
wholly within St. Louis City and County. Defendant Reid does not have a Metropolitan
Taxicab Commission vehicle for hire driver’s license and the vehicle that Defendant Reid
used to provide the ride is not an MTC licensed vehicle for hire. Defendant Reid transported
a passenger in a vehicle for hire in direct violation of §14.5 and §14.6 of the Vehicle for Hire
Code. See Exhibits 20a and 20b.
54.

Through their actions, Defendants have demonstrated that Uber X and its

drivers have no intention of complying with the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission Vehicle
for Hire Code.
55.

On September 25, 2015 the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission issued a Cease

and Desist order to Uber Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. regarding its Uber X operations.
See Exhibit 21 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Uber has continued to operate
Uber X in defiance of the order of the St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission and
continues to operate and advertise for additional drivers.
56.

Defendants’ actions put the general public in the City of St. Louis and St.

Louis County at an immediate risk of harm because the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission
has no current means to verify the safety of the vehicles for hire or to confirm that the drivers
are appropriate candidates for operation of vehicles for hire in the City of St. Louis and St.
Louis County.
57.

An actual controversy exists regarding the legal rights and relationships

between the parties to this action.
15

 APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
58.

Through the actions described above, Defendants have engaged in conduct

that both violates and interferes substantially with enforcement of Missouri state statutes and
the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission Vehicle for Hire Code, Chapters 101, 201, 301, 401
which puts the general public in the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County at an immediate
risk of harm.
59.

Defendants’ conduct resulted in irreparable harm to the Metropolitan Taxicab

Commission because Defendants disregard for the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission
Vehicle for Hire Code will materially and detrimentally impact the Metropolitan Taxicab’s
ability to exercise its police power to protect the public.
60.

Defendants’ conduct presents harm to the public because Defendants Noori,

Kelley, Herrera, Van Sant, Kaiser, Pui, Thiam, Siegel, Temple and Bandy are operating their
Vehicles for Hire with Class F Missouri driver’s licenses and therefore are not operating with
a valid driver’s Class E license for the purposes of carrying passengers in commerce.
61.

Defendants’ conduct presents harm to the public because a proper

background check of Defendant Innocent would have shown Summons #T121374170
pending in the City of Wellston, MO, which is listed as “Suspended – Warrant” for a moving
violation.
62.

Defendants’ conduct presents harm to the public because a proper

background check of Defendant Noori would have shown Case #N00096665-8 which is a
conviction for “Larceny-$50 to $199.”
63.

Defendant’s conduct presents harm to the public because a proper

background check of Defendant Herrera would have shown that he has a suspended Missouri
driver’s license.
16

 64.

If Defendants and their employees, agents and servants are not restrained and

enjoined, they will continue to engage in conduct that both violates and interferes
substantially with the enforcement of the Vehicle for Hire Code of the Metropolitan Taxicab
Commission and Missouri statute.
65.

While the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission will suffer irreparable harm if

Defendants are not enjoined pending a hearing on the preliminary injunction filed herewith,
Defendants will not be harmed by being compelled to comply with Missouri Statute and the
Metropolitan Taxicab Commission Vehicle for Hire Code regulations and for cause refers to
the Affidavit of Ronald Klein attached hereto which supports the facts alleged showing
immediate and irreparable harm in the absence of a TRO.
66.

The public interest would be advanced by enjoining Defendants and their

employees, agents and servants because an injunction will stop Defendants’ illegal conduct
and the harm that conduct is causing the public.
67.

The Metropolitan Taxicab Commission has no adequate remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission respectfully requests that the
Court grant the following relief:
A.

Enter a Temporary Restraining Order restraining and enjoining Defendant

Uber, Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc., its employees, agents and servants from operating
it’s Transportation Network Company known as Uber X in the City of St. Louis and St.
Louis County;
B.

Enter a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining Defendants John and Jane

Does, Ellis, Innocent, Noori, Kelley, Herrera, Oligschlaeger, Van Sant, Kaiser, Morgan,
Farnham, Schneider, Pui, Thiam, Siegel, Pennycook, Temple. Bandy, Hayes and Reid and
the Transportation Network operation that Uber Technologies, Inc. is running in St. Louis

17

 County and City unless and until Defendants come into full compliance with all of the
Metropolitan Taxicab Commission Vehicle for Hire Code regulations; and
C.

Set this matter for hearing at a time and date selected by the Court and that at

said evidentiary hearing, the Court require Defendants show cause why a preliminary
injunction should not be granted restraining and enjoining Defendants in the matters set forth
in Paragraphs A-C above.
D.

For other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
PETITION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

68.

Plaintiff incorporates the proceeding paragraphs 1-67 as if fully rewritten

69.

Through the actions described above, Defendants and their employees, agents

herein.

and servants have engaged in conduct that both violates and interferes substantially with
enforcement of Missouri Statutes and the MTC Vehicle for Hire Code which puts the general
public in St. Louis County and St. Louis City at an immediate risk of harm in that Defendants
conduct fails to satisfy the basic safety requirement of the Vehicle for Hire Code.
70.

Defendants’ conduct is not enjoined will result in irreparable harm to the

Metropolitan Taxicab Commission because Defendants disregard for the MTC Vehicle for
Hire Code and continuous violation of that code detrimentally impacts the MTC’s ability to
exercise its police power to protect the public.
71.

If Defendants and their employees, agents and servants are not enjoined, they

will continue to engage in conduct that violates and interferes with the enforcement of the
Vehicle for Hire Code.
72.

While the MTC will suffer irreparable harm if Defendants are not enjoined,

Defendants will not be harmed by being compelled to comply with the regulations of the
MTC Vehicle for Hire Code and Missouri Statute.
18

 73.

The public interest is advanced by enjoining Defendants because an

injunction will stop Defendants repeated illegal conduct and the harm that conduct is causing
the public.
74.

The Metropolitan Taxicab Commission has no adequate remedy at law.

WHEREFORE, the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission respectfully requests that the
Court grant the following injunctive relief:
A.

Enter an order permanently enjoining Defendant Uber, Inc. and Uber

Technologies, Inc., its employees, agents and servants from operating its Transportation
Network Company known as Uber X in St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis;
B.

Enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants John and Jane Does, Ellis,

Innocent, Noori, Kelley, Herrera, Oligschlaeger, Van Sant, Kaiser, Morgan, Farnham,
Schneider, Pui, Thiam, Siegel, Pennycook, Temple, Bandy, Hayes and Reid from operation
of vehicle for hire services as a transportation network driver in St. Louis County and City
until Defendants come into full compliance with the MTC Vehicle for Hire Code; and
C.

For all other relief including Plaintiff’s costs and attorney’s fees that the

Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,
BRUNTRAGER & BILLINGS, P.C.
/s/ Charles H. Billings
Charles H. Billings, #26789
Neil J. Bruntrager #29688
1735 South Big Bend Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63117
(314) 646-0066
(314) 646-0065-facsimile

19

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 5th day of October, 2015 the foregoing Verified
Application for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction and
Petition for Permanent Injunctive Relief, was filed electronically with the Clerk of
Court to be served by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system upon all attorneys
of record.
/s/ Charles H. Billings

20