Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 74 CIVIL COVER SHEET 1844 (Rev. 12l12) The 15 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither provided lace nor supplement the mine and service of pleadin local rules ofcourt. This form, approved by the Judtctal Con erence of the purpose ofinitiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS 0N NEXTPAGE OF THIS mew . gs or other papers as need States In September 1914. is requlred for the use of the re uiredb law. cite Clerk of ourt forth]: I. PLAINTIFFS Joseph DiNol'e County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Philadelphia County (EWEPT IN US. CASES) Attorneys {Finn Nome. drum. and Terr-mare Number) Tan i Law PLLC Geor - 4 East Pratt Street. Sun: 849. Baltimore, Brittany Weincr (pro hac vice pendl 450 Seventh Ave. Suite 1408. New MD 21202 812) 397-1000 r5). Imbest Law P. . orlt. NY 10123 (212) 736-000? DEFENDANT NOTE: Attorneys (Hum) Uber Technologies. Inc and Raiser. LLC County of Residence of First Listed Defendant . 0.8. PWNITFF IN LAND CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF THE Matthew]. Hank. Paul C. Lands. and Wendy Bucki Littler Mendelson P.C.. 1601 Ch Philadelphia. PA 19102 267402-30 Street. Suite 1 OF LAND INVOLVED It?? BASIS OF JURISDICTION {Place on ?I'm One Ear Only) CITIZENSHIP 0F PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Plural "I'luOue tamer-Pralan (For Diversity Cores Only) and One ?or?u' De?rut'eur} I US. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintilf (0.8. Gunmetal! Not a Party: Citizen ol'This State 3 1 El 1 In rated or Principal Place Cl 4 of trainers In This State 2 US. Government 3 Il Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5 Defendant (Imlte'ote Current-Mp qf'l?omcs in Item Ill) oI?Business In Another Stale Citizen or Subject ore 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 15 Foreign Country IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place on In One Ber Only) I CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITUREFPENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES i I10 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY C1625 Drug Related Seizure El 422 Appeal 2: use 158 El 315 False Claims Act El I20 Marine 310 Airplane El 365 Personal Injury of Property 21 USC 881 Withdrawal El I100 State Reapportionment El I30 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability C1690 Other 28 USC [5'1 El 410 Antitrust I40 Negotiable Instrument Liability El 36? Health Care! 4210 Banks and Banking I50 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault. Libel Plralrneceutical - PROPERTY RIGHTS 450 Commerce 0: Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 460 Deportation I51 Medicare Act 3311 Federal Employenr' Product Liability 830 Patent 410 Racketeer In?uenced and 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 8-10 Tradeer Corrupt Organizations Student Loans El 340 Marine Injury Product El 480 Consumer Credit (Excludes Veterans} El 345 Marine Product Liability LAng 490 CableISat TV 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 110 Fair Labor Standards ?ol HIA (1395?l 850 Seoudtieleommodities! oi' Volornn?s Boneiits El 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act El 862 Black Lat-136123) Exchange Ian Stockholders' Suits El 355 Motor Vehicle El 311 Truth in Lending no storl'Msnasenleot as: orwcrotww (405(3)) El 890 Other Statutory Actions 190 Other Contract Producl Liability 380 Other Personal Relations El 064 SSID Title XVI 891 Agricultural Acts 195 Contract Product Liability El 360 Other Personal Property Damage D740 Railwny Labor Act El 065 RSI (40513)) 093 Environmental Matters 196 Franchise Injury 305 Property Damage Family and Medical 895 Freedom ol?lnl'orrnetiou I: 362 Personal Im'ta'y - Product Liability Leave Act Act Medical Malpractice D790 Other stor Litigation 396 Arbitration 1- REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS I . - D791 Employee Retirement FEDERALTAX SUITS . 399 Administrative Procedure 210 Land Condemnation El 440 Other Civil Rights ?attens Corpus: income Security Act El 870 Taxes (US. Plainti?? Act?leview or Appeal of D220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agency Decision D220 Rent Lease tIt Ejectnsestl 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 811 IRS?Third Party 950 Constitutionality of Torts to Land 443 Housing} Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes D245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General U290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. wI'Disobilities 535 Death Penalty Emplormcm o'hgf: Netul'lhzatton CI 4?6 Amer. wa'Diuhilitiea El 540 Mandamus Other 465 Other Immigration 550' Civtl Rights Actions 448 Education 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions or Con?nement V. ORIGIN (Place an In One Box Oluy) I Original. 2 Removed from LI 3 Remandcd from U4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from LJ 6 Multidistrict Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened her District Litigation Irwin?) Cite the US. Civil Statute under which you are ?ling (Do not citejurisdictlonolstalm?es unless diversity): VI. CAUSE OF 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(aXl). l332td), 1441. 1446. and 1453 ACTION Brief description of cause: Breach of connect. violation of the Wage Payment and Collection Law VII. REQUESTED CHECK [1:11-115 13 A CLASS ACTION DEMAND 5 CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23. JURY DEMAND: I8 Yes No RELATED M: e? 1 IF ANY JUDGE DATE, SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD Immols ?77 'Fo?n omen use ONLY RECEIPT 9 AMOUNT APPLYING JUDGE MAO JUDGE Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 74 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to Indicate the category of the case for the purpose of assignment to appropriate calendar. A(mumonnlaimm2512 S. Sartaln, Phaladelphla, PA 19143 ?duct-Defendant: 1455 Market St, Fl 4, San Francisco, CA 94103-1355 Place of Accident, Incident _or Transaction: (Use Reverse Side For Additional Space) Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock? (Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7. YesU NOE: Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities? Yescl NOE RELATED CASE. IF ANY: Case Number: Judge Date Terminated: Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions: I. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? YesD N03 2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? Yes0 No? 3. Does this case involve the validity or in??ingcment of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? Yeslj Noll 4. Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case ?led by the same individual? Yesu Noll CIVIL: (Place t/ in ONE CATEGORY ONLY) A. Federal Question Cases: B. DiversiolJarisdictior-t Cases: 1. CI Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts 1- Insurance Contract and Other Contracts 2. I: FELA 2. CI Airplane Personal Injury 3. Jones Act-Personal Injury 3 0 Assault, Defamation 4. Antitrust 4 Marine Personal Injury 5. Patent 5 El Motor Vehicle Personal Injury 6. Labor-Management Relations 6. El Other Personal Injury (Please specify) Civil Rights 7 El Products Liability 8. El Habeas Corpus 8 El Products Liability Asbestos 9. Securities Act(s) Cases 9. IX All other Diversity Cases 10. Social Security Review Cases (Please specify) 28 U. . . Sections 11. El All other Federal Question Cases 1332 (1), 1332 1441,1446 1453 (Please specify) ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION (Check Appropriate Category) counsel of record do hereby certify; Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of $150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs; Relief other than monetary damages is sought. DATE: Attorney-at-Law Attorney NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only iftherc has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38 I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action In this court except as noted above. November 13, 2015 a 86086 A ey-at-Law Attorney cw. 609 (5:20: 2) Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 3 of 74 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of assignment to appropriate calendar. Addmsormain?m 2512 S. Sartaln, Phlladelphla, pp; 19148 1455 Market St, Fl 4, San Francisco, CA 94103-1355 Place of Accidt. Incident or Transaction: (Use Reverse Side For-Additional Space) Docs this civil action involve a corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock? (Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. (an YesEl Nolji Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities? YesD Nola RELATED CASE. 1F ANY: Case Number: Judge Date Terminated: Civil Cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions: I. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? Yescl N03 2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? Yetta New 3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously terminated action in this coon? chEI Null 4. Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case ?led by the same individual? I YesU NolI CIVIL: (Place t/ in one CATEGORY ONLY) A. Federal Question Cores; 8. Diversity Jurirdiction Cases: 1. El Indemnity Contract. Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts 1. El Insurance Contract and Other Contracts 2. FELA 2. El Airplane Personal Injury 3. Jones Act-Personal Injury 3. Assault, Defamation 4. Antitrust 4. El Marine Personal Injury 5. CI Patent 5. Motor Vehicle Personal Injury 6. Labor-Management Relations 6. Other Personal Injury (Please specify) 7. El Civil Rights 7. El Products Liability 8. El Habeas Corpus 8. El Products Liability Asbestos 9. Securities Act(s) Cases 9. Eli All other Diversity Cases 10. El Social Security Review Cases (Please specify) 28 U. . . Sections 11. CI All other Federal Question Cases 1332 (1) I 1332 1441! 1446: 1453 (Please specify) ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION (Check Appropriate Category) I. counsel of record do hereby certify: El Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section that to the best of my knowledge and belief. the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of $150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs; Relief other than monetary damages is sought. DATE: Attorney-at-Law Attorney NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with 38. I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case Is not related to any case now pending or within one year previoust terminated action in this court except as noted above. mumblevember 13, 2015 ?777? 4 86086 Attorne?t- Law Attorney CW. 609 (50012) Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 4 of 74 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM Joseph DiNOfa CIVIL ACTION v. Uber Technologies Inc and Raiser, LLC In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of ?ling the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said designation, that defendant shall, with its ?rst appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned. SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS: Habeas Corpus Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. 2241 through 2255. Social Security Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Bene?ts. Arbitration Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2. Asbestos Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from exposure to asbestos. Special Management Cases that do not fall into tracks through that are commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special management cases.) (0 Standard Management Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks. November 13 2015 again-1:? Defendants Date Atto?iey-at-law Ntmmey for 402-3054 (267) 402-3131 mhank@litt1er.com T_elephone FAX Number E-Mail Address (Clv. 660) 10102 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 5 of 74 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF JOSEPH DINOFA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Case No. Plaintiffs, Judge v. . Removed ?'om Court of Common Pleas, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC and I Philadelphia County RAISER, LLC, Civil Action No. 150902252 Defendants. NOTICE OF REMOVAL Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (?Uber?) and Rasier, LLC (?Rasier?) (collectively, ?Defendants?), hereby remove this action from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(l), 1332(d), 1441, 1446, and 1453. In support of this Notice of Removal (?Notice?), Defendants state as follows: I. PROCESS, PLEADINGS, AND ORDERS 1. Plaintiff Joseph DiNofa (?Mn DiNofa? or ?Plaintiff? ?led a Complaint on or about September 22, 2015, designated Case No. 150902252 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. Mr. DiNofa?s Complaint is attached as Exhibit A. 2. Mr. DiNofa served Defendants with a Summons and a copy of the Complaint on October 16, 2015. A true and correct copy of the Af?davit of Service ?led by Mr. DiNofa verifying service on Defendant Uber is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A true and correct copy of Raiser, LLC was misspelled in Plaintiff?s Complaint ?led in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County. The LLC is actually called ?Rasier,? not ?Raiser? LLC. Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 6 of 74 the Af?davit of Service ?led by Mr. DiNofa verifying service on Defendant Rasier is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 3. The Complaint alleges the following claims: tortious interference with contract and business relations; (ii) breach of contract; unjust enrichment; (iv) conversion; unfair competition; (vi) ?aud and misrepresentation; (vii) violations of the Labor Law, including: failure to provide prompt payment of wages upon termination and resignation, failure to provide meal and rest periods, unlaw?JI retention of gratuities, failure to maintain required payroll records, and failure to pay minimum wage. 4. In the Complaint, Mr. DiNofa alleges that ?Defendant Raiser [sic] is a subsidiary of Uber and is the equivalent of Uber for the purposes of this action.? (Complaint, 6.) 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(a), the attached exhibits constitute all process, pleadings and orders served upon Defendants or ?led or received in this action by Defendants. II. VENUE 6. Because the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County lies in the Eastern District of this Court is the appropriate venue for removal. See 28 U.S.C. 118(a) and 1441(a). DIVERSITY JURISDICTION EXISTS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) 7. Under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), federal courts have original jurisdiction over actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 7 of 74 A. Diversity 0f Citizenship Exists 8. For diversity purposes, an individual is a citizen of the state in which he or she is domiciled with the intent to remain. Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc, 540 F.3d 179, 182 (3d Cir. 2008). To be domiciled in a state, a person must reside there and intend to remain inde?nitely. See Krasnov v. Dinan, 465 F.2d 1298, 1300-01 (3d Cir. 1972). A person may only have one domicile, and thus, may be a citizen of only one state for diversity jurisdiction purposes. See Williamson v. Osenton, 232 US. 619, 625 (1914). Mr. DiNofa alleges that he is a citizen of the Commonwealth of and a resident of Philadelphia County. (Complaint, 11 4.) Accordingly, Mr. DiNofa is a citizen of the Commonwealth of for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. 9. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of the state in which it was incorporated and the state where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1). A corporation?s principal place of business is its ?nerve center? the place ?where a corporation?s of?cers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation?s activities.? Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 1192 (2010). 10. Defendant Uber is incorporated in the State of Delaware, and its principal place of business is San Francisco, California. Accordingly, Uber is a citizen of Delaware and California, and not for diversity purposes. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1), In support of these assertions, the Declaration of Michael Colman, an Operations Specialist with Uber, is attached as Exhibit (hereinafter ?Colman 11. Defendant Rasier is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber and a limited liability company. As such, it is a citizen of each state in which its members are citizens. Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d Cir. 2010); Johnson v. SmithKline Beecham Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 8 of 74 Corp, 724 F.3d 337, 348 (3d Cir. 2013). Rasier?s sole member is an employee of Uber who works at Uber?s Headquarters in San Francisco and is a citizen of California. (Colman Decl. at 11 2.) Accordingly, Rasier is a citizen of California, not for diversity purposes. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1), B. The Amount In Controversy Exceeds $75,000 12. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(c), Defendants need only establish by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement. 13. Mr. DiNofa?s Complaint does not allege a speci?c amount in controversy, but states that, in addition to interest and attorneys? fees, he seeks to recover compensatory, punitive, treble, and liquidated damages. (Complaint, pp. 11-12 [Request For Relief] .) 14. Where removal is based on diversity of citizenship and the initial pleading seeks a money judgment but does not demand a speci?c sum, ?the notice of removal may assert the amount in controversy,? and a removing defendant need only establish that it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(2)(A). 15. For jurisdictional purposes, ?determining the amount in controversy begins with a reading of the complaint ?led in the state court.? See Samuel-Basset: v. Kia Motors America, Inc, 357 F.3d 392, 398 (3d Cir. 2004). The court, however, does not merely accept a plaintiff?s contentions regarding the amount in controversy, but is required to analyze the legal claims to determine if a plaintiff?s actual monetary demands exceed the $75,000 threshold. Morgan v. Guy, 471 F.3d 469, 474-75 (3d Cir. 2006). Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 9 of 74 16. Although Defendants deny the validity and merit of Mr. DiNofa?s claims and allegations, and deny that Mr. DiNofa is entitled to any relief, Mr. DiNofa?s claims establish an amount in controversy in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 17. For example, Mr. DiNofa alleges that October of 2014, . . . [he] began driving for Uber,? and that he ?has incurred between $50 to $300 each week in expenses.? (Complaint, 1111 21, 24.) Accordingly, if Mr. DiNofa were to recover on his claim for conversion, where he seeks ?tips and money spent for expenses? and in which he believes he and his fellow class members ?are entitled to restitution for their full share of proceeds, as well as treble damages,? he could recover $17,100.00 for this claim alone.2 (Id.,1l1l 18. Mr. DiNofa further alleges that he initially ?drove eight (8) to twelve (12) hours per week? and in May 2015, he began ?driving between forty (40) and ?fty (50) hours per week.? 11 22.) Mr. DiNofa claims that after paying his expenses in the beginning, he ?earned approximately $80 per week.? 1i 24.) Thus, if Mr. DiNofa were to recover on his claim for unpaid overtime, he could recover at least 19. If Mr. DiNofa were to recover liquidated damages under the Wage Payment and Collection Law,5 he could potentially recover an amount equal to twenty-?ve 2 This amount does not include treble damages that Plaintiff is seeking for himself and his fellow class members. (1d. at 1] 48.) 3 57 weeks $300.00 per week in expenses $17,100.00. 4 $380.00 per week 50 hours per week $7.6/hour; $7.6 1.5 $11.40 overtime rate; $11.40 - $7.60 $3.80 allegedly unpaid overtime premium pay/hour; $3.80 10 hours of overtime per week 27 weeks (May 1, 2015 to present) $1,026.00. 5 In the Complaint, Mr. DiNofa refers to liquidated damages under the Labor Law? without citing to a particular statute, but Defendants believe Mr. DiNofa is referring to the Wage Payment and Collection Law, which has a provision for liquidated damages. (Complaint, p. Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 10 of 74 percent of the total amount of wages due or $500.00, whichever is greater, and thus, he could recover $500.00.6 See 43 P.S. 260.10. 20. Accordingly, the amount in controversy with respect to three of Mr. DiNofa?s claims is $18,626.00.? Additionally, Mr. DiNofa seeks attorneys? fees, which must also be taken into account when determining whether the amount in controversy is met. 8 Saber v. Corp., 104 F.3d 578, 585 (3d Cir. 1997) (holding that ?attorney?s fees are necessarily part of the amount in controversy if such fees are available to successful plaintiffs under the statutory cause of action?) (citing to Missouri State Li?z Ins. Co. v. Jones, 290 US. 199 (1933)); Raspa v. The Home Depot, 533 F. Supp. 2d 514, 522 (D.N.J. 2007) (stating that attorneys? fees ?alone can exceed six ?gures?). 21. Based on the foregoing and taking into consideration Mr. DiNofa?s claims for gratuities, attorneys? fees, punitive and treble damages, and his other claims,9 Mr. DiNofa?s claims exceed $75,000. Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). IV. CAFA JURISDICTION EXISTS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1332(d) 22. Removal jurisdiction also exists because this Court has original jurisdiction over this action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). CAFA grants federal district courts original jurisdiction over civil class action lawsuits in which any 6 $1,026.00 .25 $256.50, so $500.00 is greater under the Statute. 7 $17,100.00 $1,026.00 $500.00 $18,626.00. 8 Mr. DiNofa is also seeking attorneys? fees pursuant to 43 P.S. 260%. Under that statute, a court may, in awarding ajudgrnent to a plaintiff, allow costs for reasonable attorneys? fees to be paid by the defendant. Mr. DiNofa asserts that he is seeking the imposition of penalties on Defendants pursuant to 43 P.S. 255.3, however, that law falls under the Railroad Employee Wage Payment Law and only applies to railroad employees, not the Defendants, Plaintiff, or individuals similarly situated to Mr. DiNofa. (Complaint, 11 62.) Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 11 of 74 plaintiff is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, and where the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). CAFA authorizes removal of such actions in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1446. As set forth below, this case meets each CAFA requirement for removal, and is timely and properly removed by the ?ling of this Notice. Speci?cally, this Court has jurisdiction over this case under CAFA because it is a putative civil class action where: (1) the proposed class contains at least 100 members; (2) Defendants are not a state, state of?cial, or other governmental entity; (3) there is diversity between at least one class member and one Defendant; and (4) the amount in controversy for all class members exceeds $5,000,000.00. 23. As a preliminary matter, Mr. DiNofa purports to bring this case as a class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated pursuant to Section 1702 of Title 231 of the Code. This statute authorizes an action to be brought by one or more representative persons as a class action. As such, this action is properly considered a putative class action under CAFA. A. The Proposed Class Contains At Least 100 Members 24. Mr. DiNofa de?nes the putative class as ?all other similarly situated Uber drivers.? (Complaint, 1] 9.) A preliminary investigation has revealed that no fewer than 31,267 individuals, including Mr. DiNofa, have used Defendants? software application to generate leads in the State of between May 2012 (the date when Uber launched in and the present. (Colman Decl., 1] 3.) Accordingly, the putative class contains more than 100 members. Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 12 of 74 B. Defendants Are Not Governmental Entities 25. Defendant Uber is incorporated in the State of Delaware, and maintains a principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Defendant Rasier is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber. Rasier is a Delaware limited liability, and its sole member is an employee of Uber who works at Uber?s Headquarters in San Francisco and is a citizen of California. Neither Defendant is a state, state of?cial or any other governmental entity. (Colman Decl., 1] 2.) C. Plaintiff?s Citizenship 15 Diverse From Defendants? Citizenship 26. minimal diversity requirement is satis?ed, inter alia, when ?any member of a class of Plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant.? See 28 U.S.C. l332(d)(2)(A), 1453(b). As addressed above, Mr. DiNofa is a citizen of the State of and Defendants are citizens of Delaware and California. Accordingly, diversity of citizenship exits. D. Amount In Controversy 27. Defendants need only establish that Mr. DiNofa?s claims and the claims of the putative class exceed the jurisdictional minimum. The Act authorizes the removal of putative class actions in which, among the other factors mentioned above, the aggregate amount in controversy for all class members exceeds ?ve million dollars Although Defendants deny the validity and merit of Mr. DiNofa?s claims and allegations, and vigorously deny that Mr. DiNofa and the putative class members are entitled to any relief, and (ii) Mr. DiNofa is a representative of the putative class, the damages claimed exceed the jurisdictional minimum. Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 13 of 74 28. For example, assuming that Mr. DiNofa?s claims are representative of the putative class (which, as stated above, Defendants dispute), each class member would seek an average of at least $17,100.00 in damages arising from Mr. DiNofa?s conversion claim, and $1,526.00 in unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages (in addition to other damages claimed by Mr. DiNofa on behalf of himself and putative class members).lo In other words, the amount in controversy as to Mr. DiNofa?s conversion claim totals approximately $534,665,700.00 for the class.? Similarly, the amount in controversy as to Mr. DiNofa?s unpaid overtime claim and liquidated damages totals approximately $47,713,442.00 for the class. '2 29. Accordingly, for these three claims alone, the amount in controversy is ssa2,379,142.00.I3 30. Based on the foregoing, the CAFA amount in controversy requirement is satis?ed here, even without taking into consideration Mr. DiNofa?s claims for gratuities, attorneys? fees, punitive damages, or his other claims. V. COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 31. This Notice of Removal is timely ?led pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b), as it is being ?led on November 13, 2015, which is within thirty days of Defendants? receipt of the Complaint. 32. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1446(d), Defendants have ?led this Notice with this Court, are serving a copy of this Notice upon counsel for Mr. DiNofa, and are ?ling a copy of this Notice in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. 10 $1,026.00 (unpaid overtime compensation) $500.00 (liquidated damages) $1,526.00 31,267 potential putative class members $17,100.00 $534,665,700.00 ?2 31,267 potential putative class members $1,526.00 $47,713,442.00. ?3 $534,665,700.00 $47,713,442.00 $582,379,142.00. Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 14 of 74 33. Defendants reserve the right to submit ?thher evidence supporting this Notice should Mr. DiNofa move to remand. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, having ?Jl?lled all statutory requirements, Defendants pray the instant action pending against them in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, be removed to this Court and request that this Court assume full jurisdiction over this matter as provided by law. Respectfully submitted, Matthew 1.11m (PA #86086) Paul C. Lantis (PA #309240) Wendy Buckingham (PA #320259) Littler Mendelson, P.C. Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19102.1321 267.402.3000 telephone 267.402.3131 facsimile mhank@littler.com plantis@littler.com wbuckingham@littler.com Attorneys for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Dated: November 13, 2015 RASIER, LLC Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 15 of 74 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF JOSEPH DINOFA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Case No. Plaintiffs, Judge v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Removed from Court of Common Pleas, RAISER, LLC, I Philadelphia County Civil Action No. 150902252 Defendants. NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL AND CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE TO PROTHONOTARY OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(d), Defendants hereby give written notice to Plaintiff that a notice of removal based upon diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1832(a) and original jurisdiction through the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), was ?led in the above-captioned matter on November 13, 2015. Defendants, through counsel, also certify that a notice of said ?ling and a copy of the notice of removal were ?led with the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on November 13, 2015. Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 16 of 74 Dated: November 13, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 079.1614?: Matthew J. Flank (PA #86086) Paul C. Lantis (PA #309240) Wendy Buckingham (PA #320259) Littler Mendelson, P.C. Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19102.1321 267.402.3000 - telephone 267.402.3131 facsimile mhank@littler.com plantis@littler.com wbuckingham@littler.com Attorneys for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RASIER, LLC Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 17 of 74 EXHIBIT A Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 18 of 74 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, JOSEPH DINOFA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, Case No: v. Class Action UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC and RAISER, LLC, COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants. Plaintiff JOSEPH by his attorneys Imbesi Law RC. and Napoli Law PLLC, brings this action on behalf of himself and all other individuals who have worked or are currently working as drivers for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. (?Uber?) and RAISER LLC ("Raiser") (collectively, "Defendants" or "Uber"), an Uber subsidiary in the Commonwealth of Plaintiff seeks damages and other appropriate relief for their claims of violations of common law and Labor Law. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff, current and former drivers for Uber, bring this action alleging Uber?s violations of common law and Labor Law, including, without limitation, Uber's failure to pay reasonable expenses incurred by Plaintiffs, including but not limited to mileage accrued on personal vehicles and gas; (ii) unlawful withholding of gratuities intended for drivers but retained by Uber in violation of Labor Law?333.103; unpaid minimum wages in violation of Labor Law {5333. 104; (iv) tortious interference of contract; breach of contract; and (vi) unjust enrichment. Case ID: l50902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 19 of 74 2. Plaintiff alleges that Uber has failed and continues to fail to comply with Labor Law requirements due to its misclassi?cation of drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. 3. Plaintiff seeks damages and other appropriate relief on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated aggrieved individuals who have worked for or who are currently working for Defendants. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff JOSEPH DINOFA is citizen of the Commonwealth of and resident of Philadelphia County. Plaintiff DIN OFA currently works for Uber as a driver. 5. Defendant Uber is a foreign corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. Defendant is authorized to conduct business and does conduct business throughout the Commonwealth of 6. Defendant Raiser is a subsidiary of Uber and is the equivalent of Uber for the purposes of this action. 7. At all relevant times, Uber was an ?employer? within the meaning of all applicable statutes. 8. At all relevant times, the work performed by Plaintiff and similarly situated employees was directly essential to Uber?s business operations. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 9. Plaintiff brings this proposed Class action pursuant to Pa. Code 1702, on behalf of him5elf and all other similarly situated Uber drivers. 10. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and discovery, the foregoing de?nition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or Case ID: 50902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 20 of 74 amended complaint. Excluded ?-om the Class are Defendants and their af?liates, parents, subsidiaries, employees, of?cers, agents, and directors; government entities or agencies, their af?liates, employees, of?cers, agents, and directors in their governmental capacities; any judicial of?cer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and class counsel. This action is properly maintainable as a class action. As set forth in Pa. Code 1702, the proposed Class ?is so numerous thatjoinder of all members, whether otherwise required or permitted, is impracticable.? As provided in in Pa. Code 1702, ?there are questions of law or fact common to the Class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.? 12. Among the questions of law and fact that are common to the class include, but are not limited to: 3. Whether Defendants have charged customers a gratuity for class members? services; b. Whether Defendants failed to distribute the total proceeds of those gratuities to the class members; c. Whether Defendants have informed customers that gratuity is included in the price of the Uber service and so there is no need to tip the drivers; (1. Whether class members have suffered damages based upon Uber?s representation to customers that there is no need to tip the drivers; e. Whether Defendants improperly classi?ed class members as independent contractors rather than employees; Case ID: l50902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 21 of 74 f. Whether class members have been required to pay the expenses of their employment, including the cost of a vehicle, repairs, gas and tolls; g. Whether Uber unlaw?illy denied to compensate its employees, Uber?s drivers, those expenses; and a h. Whether class members were denied employee bene?ts as required by law. 13. As provided in Pa. Code 1702, the proposed lead Plaintiffs? representative claims are typical of those of the prOposed Class because the proposed lead Plaintiffs? damages are based upon the same legal theories. The proposed representative Plainti?'s? grievances, like the proposed Class grievances, arise out of the same business practices and course of conduct of Defendants. Further, Plainti?'s? damages arise out of a pattern of nearly identical and repetitive business practices conducted by Defendants. Finally, the representative Plaintiffs have no Special circumstances that would put them in con?ict with the other members of the Class. 14. As provided by Pa. Code 1702, the representative Plaintiffs can adequately represent the Class. No con?ict of interest exists between the representatives and the Class members or with respect to the claims for relief requested. 15 . The representatives and their chosen attorneys are familiar with the subject matter of the lawsuit and have full knowledge of the allegations contained in this complaint so as to be able to assist in its prosecution. In addition, the representatives? attorneys are competent in the relevant areas of the law and have sumcient experience to vigorously represent the Class. Furthermore, the resources available to Class counsel ensure that the litigation will not be hampered by a lack of ?nancial capacity. Plaintiffs? attorneys have suf?cient ?nancial resources and are willing to absorb the costs of this litigation. Case ID: l50902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 22 of 74 16. As provided by Pa. Code 1702, a class action is superior to any other available method for adjudicating this controversy. This prOposed class action is the surest way to fairly and expeditiously compensate so large a number of injured persons; to keep the courts from becoming paralyzed by hundreds, perhaps thousands of repetitive cases, and to reduce transaction costs so that the injured Class can obtain the most compensation possible. Class treatment of this controversy presents a superior mechanism for fairly resolving similar issues and claims without repetitious and waste?il litigation. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Pa. Code 5322 because Defendant Uber is a foreign business corporation that is authorized to conduct business in the Commonwealth of and does conduct business in the Commonwealth of and Defendant Raiser is a business corporation that is authorized to conduct business in the Commonwealth of and does conduct business in the Commonwealth of 18. Venue is proper in this case pursuant to Pa. Code 1006 because the cause of action arose in Philadelphia County. STATEMENT OF FACTS 19. Uber compensates its drivers weekly. Uber takes a percentage of the total fares driven and the driver receives the remainder of the fare. Because Uber classi?es its drivers as independent contractors, Plaintiffs had to pay expenses, including gas, tolls, car repairs and lease payments, from their portion of the fare. Case ID: l50902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 23 of 74 20. Uber also deducts a $1 ?safe ride? fee ?'om each fare which is allegedly used to pay for background checks, driver safety education and development of safety features in its mobile application an expense the employer should pay, not the employee. A. Plainti?? Joseph Dinofa 21. In October of 2014, Plaintiff JOSEPH DINOFA began driving for Uber as an ?UberX? driver. 22. Initially, Plaintiff DINOFA drove eight (8) to twelve (12) hours per week. In or about May of 2015, Plaintiff DINOFA increased his hours to ?rll-time, driving between forty (40) and ?fty (50) hours per week. 23. Plaintiff compensation varied depending on the amount of hours worked per week. 24. Plaintiff DINOFA has incurred between $50 to $300 each week in expenses, including gas, tolls, lease payments and car repairs. In the beginning, after paying for the expenses, Plaintiff DINOFA earned approximately $80 per week. 25. During his employment, Plaintiff DINOFA was not compensated for any employment related expenses. A. Misclassi?cation of Drivers 26. Plaintiffs allege that Uber unifonnly misclassi?es all of its drivers as independent contractors when they should be classified and treated as employees. 27. Uber exerts signi?cant control over its drivers. For example, upon signing a license agreement to work for Uber, all new drivers must watch a training video demonstrating how Uber wants its drivers to interact with customers. Case ID: l50902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 24 of 74 28. Uber also unilaterally sets the fares for all rides and drivers are required to charge the cost determined solely by Uber. 29. 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. 30. As a result of its misclassi?cation, Uber failed to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly aggrieved employees with itemized wage statements, minimum wages, law?rl meal and rest periods, and reimbursement for necessary employment related expenses. Uber also failed to keep accurate payroll records showing aggrieved employees? hours worked and wages paid. 31. Uber also retained all gratuities owed to aggrieved employees despite representing to its customers and advertising that gratuity is included in the total cost of the car service. 32. Uber speci?cally advertises to its customers that tips are included in the cost of the fare: DO I NEED TO TIEP MY 33. Despite Uber?s representation that gratuity is included in the cost of the fare, Uber drivers are not compensated for gratuities. Signi?cantly, Uber speci?cally instructed its drivers to refuse a cash gratuity if offered. Case ID: 150902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 25 of 74 COUNT I TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT BUSINESS RELATIONS 34. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 35. Defendants? website sets forth: DO I NEED TO TIP MY wean tile-there'sncneed who 36. Defendants? conduct, in failing to remit the total proceeds of gratuities to drivers, constitutes unlawful tortious interference with the contractual and/or advantageous relationship that exists between the drivers and customers, under state common law. 37. Defendants? conduct, informing customers ?there is no need to tip,? constitutes unlawful tortious interference with the contractual and/or advantageous relationship that exists between the drivers and customers, under common law. 38. Defendants had a contract with Plaintiffs, were aware of those contracts, intentionally procured the breach of those contracts, and caused Plaintiffs damages thereby. COUNT II BREACH OF CONTRACT 39. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the preposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 40. Defendants? conduct constitutes a breach of contract under state common law. Defendants have a contract with the drivers to remit to them the total proceeds of all gratuities. Case lD: 50902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 26 of 74 41. At all times, Uber Withheld and continues to withhold gratuities given by customers to Uber drivers and/or gratuities that are incorporated into the set fare. 42. Uber?s withholding of these gratuities constitutes a breach of contract. COUNT ST ENRICHNIENT 43. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if ?rlly set forth herein. 44. Defendants unlawfully retained gratuities owed to the drivers. 45. As a result, Defendants have been unjustly enriched through their retention of a portion of the gratuities owed to the drivers. 46. Plaintiffs and the class members are entitled to restitution for their full share of the proceeds of the improperly retained gratuities. COUNT IV CONVERSION 47. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if ?illy set forth herein. 48. Defendants unlaw?rlly took Plainti?'s' property, namely tips and money spent for expenses, without Plaintiffs' permission. 49. As a result, Plaintiffs were banned and class members are entitled to restitution for their ?rll share of proceeds, as well as treble damages. COUNT UNFAIR COMPETITION 50. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if ?illy set forth herein. Case ID: l50902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 27 of 74 51. Defendants? activities have caused confusion with, or have been mistaken for, Plaintiffs' activities in the mind of the public, or are likely to cause such confusion or mistake; or Defendants have acted unfairly in some manner. 52. Plaintiffs' property rights, speci?cally gratuities and expenses, were by Defendants for their commercial advantage. 53. Defendants unjustly pro?ted by Plaintiffs' expenditure of time, labor and talent. COUNT VI FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION 54. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 55. Defendants made a material representation of fact, that Plaintiffs would receive gratuities, which was untrue, which Defendants knew was an untrue statement at the time, with the intent to deceive, which Plaintiffs justi?ably relied upon, causing Plaintiffs to incur damages. 56. Defendants also informed Plaintiff and proposed class members that they would receive a cancellation fee refund if a passenger cancelled, which Defendants knew was an untrue statement at the time, with the intent to deceive, which Plaintiff ustifiably relied upon, causing Plaintiff to incur damages. 57. Defendants made a material representation of fact, that Plaintiff would receive a card for discounted gas, which Defendants knew was an untrue statement at the time, with the intent to deceive, which Plaintiff justi?ably relied upon, causing Plaintiff to incur damages. COUNT VIOLATIONS OF LABOR LAW 10 Case ID: [50902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 28 of 74 58. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the prOposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 59. Despite the existence of an agreement indicating Plaintiffs are independent contractors, the treatment of Plaintiffs and control exercised by Uber indicate that Plaintiffs are Plaintiffs seek damages pursuant to Labor Law for violations of the failure to provide prompt payment of wages to driver employees upon termination and resignation in violation of Labor Law ?260.5; failure to provide meal and rest periods to its female drivers in violation Labor Law 1 07; failure to pay portions of gratuities intended for driver employees in violation of Labor Law ?333.103; failure to keep required payroll records in violation of Labor Law ?260.8; failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Labor Law ?333.104. employees. 60. following sectionsresult of Uber?s violations, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages associated with the wages and bene?ts withheld in violation of Labor Law, as well as attorneys? fees pursuant to Labor Law ?260.9a. 62. In addition, Plaintiffs seek the imposition of penalties on the Defendants with respect to the applicable provisions of Labor Law ?255.3. RE UEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, request relief against the Defendants as follows: 11 Case ID: I50902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 29 of 74 a. An award of damages, including compensatory, punitive, and treble damages, in an amount to be determined at trial; b. Notice to the Classes of the action; c. An injunction against Defendants prohibiting Defendants from engaging in each of the unlaw?Jl practices, policies and patterns set forth herein; d. Liquidated damages, pursuant to the Labor Law; e. Reasonable attorneys? fees and costs of this action; f. Pro-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and g. An Order requiring that Defendants return to Plaintiffs any gratuities and any other ?inds wrongfully kept by Defendants; and h. Such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND Plainti?'s, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, demand a trial by jury on all claims so triable. Dated: Baltimore, Maryland September 21, 2015 ReSpectfully submitted, NAPOLI LAW PLLC George Tankard, Esq. 400 East Pratt Street, Suite 849 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (212) 397-1000 IMBESI LAW P.C. Brittamg Wefner Brittany Weiner (pro hac vice pending) 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, New York 10123 (212) 736-0007 (Phone) Attorneys for Plafnnf 12 Case ID: l50902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 30 of 74 EXHIBIT To: Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 31 of 74 NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS, INC. SERVICE OF PROCESS SUMMARY TRANSMITTAL FORM SHIRIN SCHOKRPUR UBER TECHNOLOGIES. INC. 1455 Market St Fl 4 San Francisco. CA 94103-1355 sor Transmittal 528001277 213-337-4615 - Telephone Entity Served: LIBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Domestic State: DELAWARE) Enclosed herewith are legal documents received on behalf of the above captioned entity by National Registered Agents, Inc. or its Af?liate in the State of CALIFORNIA on this 16 day of October, 20l5. The following is a summary of the document(s) received: I. 11. Title of Action: JOSEPH DINOFA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC and RAISER, LLC, D?s. SUMMONS COMPLAINT Document(s) Served: Other: Cover Sheet, Praecipe, Veri?cation Court of Jurisdiction/Case Number: PHILADELPHIA COUNTY - COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, PA Case 150902252 Amount Claimed, if any: Method of Service: Personally served by: Process Server Delivered Via: Certi?ed Mail Other (Explain): Date and Time of Receipt: 10.062015 02:50:00 PM CST AppearanceIAnswer Date: None Speci?ed George Tankard NAPOLI LAW PLLC 400 East Pratt Street Suite 849 Baltimore, MD 2 202 212-397-1000 Special Comments: Received From: 50? Papers WIlh Transmittal. via Fed Ex 2 Day Image SOP Email Noti?cation, SALLE YOO COM Email Noti?cation, Alan Grubbe alan.grubbe@uber com Email Noti?cation, Claudia Moreno claudia.moreno@ubercorn Email Noti?cation. Karen Toro L1oro@ubercom NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS, INC. Deputy Sheriff U. 8 Marshall Regular Mail Facsimile 9. Federal Express Airbill 781532628593 10. Call Made to: Not required CopiesTo: The Information contained in this Summary Transmittai Form is prowded by National Registered Agents. Inc for informational purposes only and should not be conSIdered a legal opinion It is the responsrbility of the parties receiving this form to review the legal documents forwarded and to take appropriate action ORIGINAL Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 32 of 74 NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS, INC. SER WCE OF PROCESS SUMMARY TRANSMITTAL FORM To: SHIRIN SCHOKRPUR UBER TECHNOLOGIES. INC. . 1455 Market St Fl 4 SOP Transmittal 528001 277 San Franmsco. CA 94103-1355 2136374615 Telephone Entity Served: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Domestic State: DELAWARE) Transmitted by Nancy Flores The information contained :11 this Summary Form 15 prowded by National Reglstercd Agents. Inc for Informallonal purposes only and should not be considered a legal opinlon It Is the responsilnilit)r of the recewmg this form to rewew the legs! documents [awarded and to take appropriate action. ORIGINAL Filed llf??S?PagEr?S-o?4 man situated cm . SUMMONS of ?ennegl?ama cmcmae CITY AND COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA Joseph Dinofa individually and COURT OF COMM 95,33. on behalf of all others similarl v. I I away: No. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC :n Uber Technologies, Inc. Raiser, LLC 1455 Market Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 You are notified that the Plaintiff?) Usred esm avimdo que el demandanre?? Has (have) commenced an action against you. Ha (Iran) iniciada uua. accian en contra suya. JOSEPH H. EVERS Prathanolary 2?2? 9 11:14lgog?wsm'? 1 Dale Nama(s) oi Delendant(s) In Name?) at Plaintims) mean (an. mo: Case ID: 1 50902252 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Term, 20 No. 1'5. SUMMONS Case ID: 150902252 Cas 21-MMB Documentl Filed 11/13/15 Page 34 0f14_ Case Document?L Filed?Lillyle IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSY LVANIA JOSEPH DINOFA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, Case No: v. Class Action UBER TECHNOLOGIES. and RAISER, LLC, COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants. Plaintiff JOSEPH by his attomeys lmbesi Law RC. and Napoli Law PLLC, brings this action on behalf of himself and all other individuals who have worked or are currently working as drivers for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. (?Uber?) and RAISER LLC "Defendants" or "Uber"), an Uber subsidiary in the Commonwealth of Plaintiff seeks damages and other appropriate relief for their claims of violations of common law and Labor Law. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff, current and former drivers for Uber, bring this action alleging Uber?s violations of common law and Labor Law, including, without limitation, Uber?s failure to pay reasonable expenses incurred by Plaintiffs, including but not limited to mileage accrued on personal vehicles and gas; (ii) unlawful withholding of gratuities intended for drivers but retained by Uber in violation of Labor Law?333.i03; unpaid minimum wages in violation of Labor Law (iv) tortious interference of contract; breach of contract; and (vi) unjust enrichment. Case ID: 150902252 Case 2:15 C?v? 06121?M?M?B?BocumeHHr 2. Plaintiff alleges that Uber has failed and continues to fail to comply with Labor Law requirements due to its misclassi?cation of drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. 3. Plaintiff seeks damages and other relief on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated aggrieved individuals who have worked for or who are currently working for Defendants. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff JOSEPH DINOFA is citizen of the Commonwealth of and resident of Philadelphia County. Plaintiff DINOFA currently works for Uber as a driver. 5. Defendant Uber is a foreign corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. Defendant is authorized to conduct business and does conduct business throughout the Commonwealth of 6. Defendant Raiser is a subsidiary of Uber and is the equivalent of Uber for the purposes of this action. 7. At all relevant times, Uber was an "employer" within the meaning of all applicable statutes. 8. At all relevant times, the work performed by Plaintiff and similarly situated employees was directly essential to Uber's business Operations. CLASS ALLE ATIONS 9. Plaintiff brings this proposed Class action pursuant to Pa. Code 1702, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Uber drivers. 10. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and discovery, the foregoing de?nition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or Case ID: 150902252 amended complaint. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, employees, of?cers, agents, and directors; government entities or agencies, their af?liates, employees. of?cers, agents, and directors in their governmental capacities; anyjudicial of?cer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families andjudicial staff; and class counsel. I I. This action is properly maintainable as a class action. As set forth in Pa. Code 1702, the proposed Class ?is so numerous thatjoinder of all members, whether otherwise required or permitted. is impracticable." As provided in in Pa. Code 1702, ?there are questions of law or fact common to the Class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.? 12. Among the questions of law and fact that are common to the class include, but are not limited to: a. Whether Defendants have charged customers a gratuity for class members' services; b. Whether Defendants failed to distribute the total proceeds of those gratuities to the class members; c. Whether Defendants have informed customers that gratuity is included in the price of the Uber service and so thete is no need to tip the drivers; d. Whether class members have suffered damages based upon Uber's representation to customers that there is no need to tip the drivers; e. Whether Defendants improperly classi?ed class members as independent contractors rather than employees; Case ID: l50902252 I Il-r- ll QR of 74 f. Whether class members have been required to pay the expenses of their employment, including the cost of a vehicle. repairs. gas and tolls; g. Whether Uber unlawfully denied to compensate its employees, Uber's drivers, those expenses; and h. Whether class members were denied employee bene?ts as required by law. l3. As provided in Pa- Code 1702, the proposed lead Plaintiffs' representative claims are typical of those of the proposed Class because the prOposed lead Plaintiffs? damages are based upon the same legal theories. The proposed representative Plaintiffs' grievances, like the proposed Class grievances, arise out of the same business practices and course of conduct of Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs? damages arise out of a pattern of nearly identical and repetitive business practices conducted by Defendants. Finally, the representative Plaintiffs have no special circumstances that would put them in con?ict with the other members of the Class. l4. As provided by Pa. Code 1702. the representative Plaintiffs can adequately represent the Class. No conflict of interest exists between the representatives and the Class members or with respect to the claims for relief requested. 15. The representatives and their chosen attorneys are familiar with the subject matter of the lawsuit and have full knowledge of the allegations contained in this complaint so as to be able to assist in its prosecution. in addition, the representatives' attorneys are competent in the relevant areas of the law and have sufficient experience to vigorously represent the Class. Furthermore. the resources available to Class counsel ensure that the litigation will not be hampered by a lack of ?nancial capacity. Plaintiffs? attorneys have suf?cient ?nancial resources and are willing to absorb the costs of this litigation. Case ID: 150902252 16. As provided by Pa. Code 1702, a class action is superior to any other available method for adjudicating this controversy. This proposed class action is the surest way to fairly and expeditiously compensate so large a number of injured persons; to keep the courts from becoming paralyzed by hundreds, perhaps thousands of repetitive cases, and to reduce transaction costs so that the injured Class can obtain the most compensation possible. Class treatment of this controversy presents a superior mechanism for fairly resolving similar issues and claims without repetitious and wasteful litigation. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Pa. Code 5322 because Defendant Uber is a foreign business corporation that is authorized to conduct business in the Commonwealth of and does conduct business in the Commonwealth of and Defendant Raiser is a business corporation that is authorized to conduct business in the Commonwealth of and does conduct business in the Commonwealth of 18. Venue is proper in this case pursuant to Pa. Code l006 because the cause of action arose in Philadelphia County. STATEMENT OF FACTS l9. Uber compensates its drivers weekly. Uber takes a percentage of the total fares driven and the driver receives the remainder of the fare. Because Uber classi?es its drivers as independent contractors, Plaintiffs had to pay expenses, including gas, tolls, car repairs and lease payments, from their portion of the fare. Case ID: 150902252 . Filed Lil?Itsl?ls?RagyLO?em..? 20. Uber also deducts a $1 ?safe ride" fee from each fare which is allegedly used to pay for background checks, driver safety education and development of safety features in its mobile application an expense the employer should pay. not the employee. A. Plaintiff Ilose-2h Dinofa 21. In October of 2014, Plaintiff JOSEPH DINOFA began driving for Uber as an ?UberX? driver. 22. Initially, Plaintiff DINOFA drove eight (8) to twelve (12) hours per week. in or about May of 2015, Plaintiff DINOFA increased his hours to full-time, driving between forty (40) and ?fty (50) hours per week. 23. Plaintiff compensation varied depending on the amount of hours worked per week. 24. Plaintiff DINOFA has incurred between $50 to $300 each week in expenses, including gas, tolls, lease payments and car repairs. In the beginning. a?er paying for the expenses, Plaintiff DINOFA earned approximately $80 per week. 25. During his employment, Plaintiff DINOFA was not compensated for any employment related expenses. A. Misclassi?cation of Drivers 26. Plaintiffs allege that Uber uniformly misclassi?es all of its drivers as independent contractors when they should be classi?ed and treated as employees. 27. Uber exerts signi?cant control over its drivers. For example, upon signing a license agreement to work for Uber, all new drivers must watch a training video demonstrating how Uber wants its drivers to interact with customers. Case ID: 150902252 Case 28. Uber also unilaterally sets the fares for all rides and drivers are required to charge the cost determined solely by Uber. 29. 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. 30. As a result of its misclassi?cation, Uber failed to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly aggrieved employees with itemized wage statements, minimum wages, lawful meal and rest periods, and reimbursement for necessary employment related expenses. Uber also failed to keep accurate payroll records showing aggrieved employees' hours worked and wages paid. Uber also retained all gratuities owed to aggrieved employees deSpite representing to its customers and advertising that gratuity is included in the total cost of the car service. 32. Uber speci?cally advertises to its customers that tips are included in the cost of the fare: DO I NEED TO TIP MY You don't need earn when you ride with Uber. ante vou arrive at your destination. your tare ts automatically charged to your treat: card on lute - there?s no need to tin, - 33. Despite Uber?s representation that gratuity is included in the cost of the fare, Uber drivers are not compensated for gratuities. Signi?cantly, Uber speci?cally instructed its drivers to refuse a cash gratuity if offered. Case 1D: 150902252 Case Dqument 1 Filed?l?ll? Pagg 42 Qt 24 COUNT TORTIOQS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT BUSINESS RELATIQNS 34. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 35. Defendants' website sets forth: DO I NEED TO TIP MY You don't need cam when you ride with Utter. Once you arrive at your oosrlnation. your taro is automatically charged to your credit card on tile - there's no need to no. 36. Defendants' conduct, in failing to remit the total proceeds of gratuities to drivers, constitutes unlawful tortious interference with the contractual and/or advantageous relationship that exists between the drivers and customers, under state common law. 37. Defendants? conduct, informing customers ?there is no need to tip," constitutes unlawful tortious interference with the contractual and/or advantageous relationship that exists between the drivers and customers, under common law. 38. Defendants had a contract with Plaintiffs, were aware of those contracts, intentionally procured the breach of those contracts, and caused Plaintiffs damages thereby. COUNT ll BREACH QF 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' conduct constitutes a breach of contract under state common law. Defendants have a contract with the drivers to remit to them the total proceeds of all gratuities. Case l50902252 At all times, Uber withheld and continues to withhold gratuities given by customers to Uber drivers and/or gratuities that are incorporated into the set fare. 42. Uber?s withholding of these gratuities constitutes a breach of contract. COUNT Ill UN UST ENRICHMENT 43. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 44. Defendants unlawfully retained gratuities owed to the drivers. 45. As a result, Defendants have been unjustly enriched through their retention of a portion of the gratuities owed to the drivers. 46. Plaintiffs and the class members are entitled to restitution for their full share of the proceeds of the improperly retained gratuities. COUNT IV CONVERSION 47. Plaintiff. on behalfof himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 4B. Defendants unlawfully took Plaintiffs' property, namely tips and money Spent for expenses, without Plaintiffs' permission. 49. As a result, Plaintiffs were harmed and class members are entitled to restitution for their full share of proceeds, as well as treble damages. COUNT QNFAIR CQMPETITION 50. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class. repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. Case ID: 150902252 Case 5 l. Dcfendants' activities have caused confusion with, or have been mistaken for, Plaintiifs' activities in the mind of the public, or are likely to cause such confusion or mistake; or Defendants have acted unfairly in some manner. 52. Plaintiffs' preperty rights, speci?cally gratuities and expenses, were misappropriated by Defendants for their commercial advantage. 53. Defendants unjustly pro?ted by Plaintiffs' expenditure of time, labor and talent. COUNT VI FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION 54. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 55. Defendants made a material representation of fact, that Plaintiffs would receive gratuities, which was untrue, which Defendants knew was an untrue statement at the time, with the intent to deceive, which Plaintiffsjusti?ably relied upon, causing Plaintiffs to incur damages. 56. Defendants also informed Plaintiff and prOposed class members that they would receive a cancellation fee refund if a passenger cancelled, which Defendants knew was an untrue statement at the time, with the intent to deceive, which Plaintiff justi?ably relied upon, causing Plaintiff to incur damages. 57. Defendants made a material representation of fact, that Plaintiff would receive a card for discounted gas, which Defendants knew was an untrue statement at the time, with the intent to deceive, which Plaintiff justi?ably relied upon, causing Plaintiff to incur damages. COUNT VII VIOLATIONS OF LABOR LAW 10 Case 1D: 150902252 Pace 58. Plaintiff. on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 59. Despite the existence of an agreement indicating Plaintiffs are independent contractors, the treatment of Plaintiffs and control exercised by Uber indicate that Plaintiffs are employees. 60. Plaintiffs seek damages pursuant to Labor Law for violations of the following sections: 61. a. d. 6. failure to provide prompt payment of wages to driver employees upon termination and resignation in violation of Labor Law ?260.5; failure to provide meal and rest periods to its female drivers in violation Labor Law ?l07; failure to pay portions of gratuities intended for driver employees in violation of Labor Law ?333.l03; failure to keep required payroll records in violation of Labor Law ?260.8; failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Labor Law {5331104. As a result of Uber?s violations, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages associated with the wages and bene?ts withheld in violation of Labor Law, as well as attomeys? fees pursuant to Labor Law ?260.9a. 62. In addition, Plaintiffs seek the imposition of penalties on the Defendants with respect to the applicable provisions of Labor Law {52553. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs. individually and on behalf of the proposed class. request relief against the Defendants as follows: i 1 Case ID: 150902252 Menu a. An award of damages, including compensatory, punitive. and treble damages, in I an amount to be determined at trial; 9 b. Notice to the Classes of the action; c. An injunction against Defendants prohibiting Defendants from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies and patterns set forth herein; d. Liquidated damages, pursuant to the Labor Law; e. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action; f. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and g. An Order requiring that Defendants return to Plaintiffs any gratuities and any other funds wrongfully kept by Defendants; and h. Such other and further relief that the Court may deemjust and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, demand a trial byjury on all claims so triable. Dated: Baltimore. Maryland September 21, 2015 Respectfully submitted, NAPOLI LAW PLLC George Tankard. Esq. 400 East Pratt Street, Suite 849 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (212) 397-1000 IMBESI LAW P.C. ls! Brittany Weiner Brittany Weiner (pro hac vice pending) 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, New York l0123 (212) 736-0007 (Phone) Attorneys for Plaintt?' Case ID: 150902252 Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Trial Division Civil Cover Sheet ass 2:15 Document 1 Filed Hit-3&5 -Page?4?7?ef??4? '3 Fromm! mg my {Met SEPTEMBER 2015 'E-?tinq um?. 1509042466 PLAINTIFFS HARE JOSEPH DINOFA WE UBEE TECHNOLOGIES ADDIIES: 2 5 1 2 SOUTH PA 1 914 OEFENWSMORESS 1455 MARKET STREET 4TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 PLAINTIFF: NAME NAHE LLC PtAtthr-"S ADDRESS ADDRESS 1 4 5 5 MARKET STREET 4TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94 1 03 ?Arte NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFFS TOTAL NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS commencement OF Ii! Petition Action Noliee of Appeal Writ of Summons Transfer Front Olher Jurisdictions I .r mourn IN comaovensr COURT PROGRAMS q) ?9 0 II Arbitration D;Commerce El Settlement ssu?om'm Jury 839113;: Action; Minor Court Appeal Minors More then 550.000.00 NDII-JUTXA {Politico-1U DtSIAIt?ory Appeals El WIINSunrival Ii! Other: CLASS ACTION. CASE TYPE AND CODE C1 - CLASS ACTION - .. . - STATUTORY ron CAUSE OF ACTION Wu )1'1 Ila-vague?, RELATED PENDING CASES av CASE AND DOCKET wuaem Is CASE SUBJECT TO Pam COORDINATION res no K. EDWARDS TO THE PROTHONOTA RY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of PlaintiffIPetitionerIA ppellant: Papers may be served at the address set forth below. me or ATTORNEY ADDRESS GEORGE . TANKARD 400 EAST PRATT STREET 5 I TB 4 9 PHONE nausea mt nausea I MORE MD 2 1 2 0 2 (443)274-5733 none entered couar IDENTIFICATION no 9 1 1 6 emu. GTenkardenapolilew.com or FILING ATTORNEY on mm GEORGE TANKARD oA'resueumeo Tuesday, September 22, 2015, 12:44 pm FINAL COPY (Approved by the Prothonolary Clerk) Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Race 48 of 74 CP BB-P BY: GEORGE TANKARD ESQUIRE 400 EAST PRATT STREET SUITE 849 BALTIMORE. MD 21202 TELEPHONE NO. (212} 397-1000 JOSEPH DINOFA. INDIVIDUALLY. AND ON BEHALF OF ALL vs- UBER TECHNOLOGIES. INC. AND RAISER. LLC Attorney for Plaintiff PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TRIAL DIVISION Praecipe for Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Writ to defendant in the above-captioned matter. BER TE HN IES INC AND KAISER LL Term. 20 853 Anomcy for Plaintiff Case ID: 150902252 Cacn Decume?nI?l Filed 11/13/15 -? 2age49 of 74 10.201 um; Case ID: 150902252 :cst6121-MMB_DocumenLL Filed 11/13/151 COMMON WEALTH 0F SS COUNTY OF PHILADIJSPHIA ATI Joseph Dincfa, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is the Plaintiff in this matter and that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleadings are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements herein are subject to the penalties of [8 Pa. 08. Section 4904 relating to nnswom falsi?cation: to authorities. eph Dinofa ate: Case ID: 150902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 51 of 74 EXHIBIT Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 52 of 74 NATIONAL REGISTERED A GENTS, INC. SERVICE OF PROCESS SUMMRY TRANSMITAL FORM To: SHIRIN SCHOKRPUR UBER TECHNOLOGIES. INC. . 1455 Market St Fl 4 SOP Transmittal 528001567 San Francisco. CA 94103-1355 Entity Served: RASIER, LLC (Domestic State: DELAWARE) 213-337-4615 - Telephone Enclosed herewith are legal documents received on behalf of the above captioned entity by National Registered Agents, Inc. or its Af?liate in the State of CALIFORNIA on this 16 day of October. 2015. The following is a summary of the document(s) received: I. Title of Action: JOSEPH DINOFA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Pitt's. vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC and KAISER, LLC. D?s. 2. Doeumen?s) Served: SUMMONS COMPLAINT Other: Cover Sheet. Praecipe. Veri?cation 3. Court of urisdictionICase umber; PHILADELPHIA COUNTY - COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, PA Case ii NONE 4. Amount Claimed, if any: NA 5. Method of Service: Personally served by: Process Server Deputy Sheri?' U. Marshall Delivered Via: Certi?ed Mail Regular Mail Facsimile Other (Explain): 6. Date and Time of Receipt: 10/16/2015 02:50:00 PM CST 7. Appearance/Answer Date: None Speci?ed 8. Received From: George Tankard 9. Federal Express Airbill 78! 532628593 NAPOLI LAW PLLC 400 East Pratt Street Suite 849 10. Call Made to: Not required Baltimore, MD 21202 212-397-1000 11. Special Comments: SOP Papers with Transmittal, via Fed Ex 2 Day Image 30? Email Notification. SALLE 1'00 Email Noti?cation, Alan Gmbbe alan.gmhhe@uber.com Email Noti?cation, Claudia Moreno claudiantoreno@uber.eom Email Noti?cation, Karen Toro ktoro@uber.com NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS, INC. CopiesTo: The infonnation contained in this Summary Tmsmillal Form is provided by National Registered Agents, Inc. for informational purposes only and should not be considered a legal opinion. It is the responsibility of the parties receiving this form to review the legal decantents forwarded and to take appropriate action. ORIGINAL Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 53 of 74 NATIONAL REGISTERED AGENTS, INC. SERVICE OF PROCESS SUM FORM To: SCHOKRPUR UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. - 1455 Mamet St Fl 4 SOP Transmittal 528001567 San Francisco. CA 94103-1355 213-337-4615 - Telephone Entity Served: RASIER, LLC (Domestic State: DELAWARE) Transmitted by Nancy Flores The information contained in this Summary Transmittal Form is provided by National Registered Agents, lne. for informational purposes only and should not be considered a legal opinion. It is the responsibility of the parties receiving this form to review the legal dowments forwarded and to take appropriate action. ORIGINAL Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page SUMMONS (Hammonfuwl?'g of ?ennagl?ama CITY AND COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA Joseph Dinofa individually and COURT OF - on behalf of all others similarly x' situated i No. VS. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC a) OUber Technologies, Inc. Raiser, LLC .1455 Market Street.r 4th Floor Sen Francisco, CA 94103 You are notified that the Plaintiffm Usted esta avimdo que a! dentandame?? Has (have) commenced an action against you. Ha (ban) im'ciado um: accion en contra suya. JOSEPH H. EVERS Prothanamtgv - By Date ?i Namets) of Dafandan?s) 3' Name?) at Plainllf?s) 10-20! (M. Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 55 of 74 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Tenn.- 20 Na. SUMMONS Case ID: 150902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 56 of 74 THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, JOSEPH DINOFA, individually. and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs. Case No: v. Class Action UBER INC and RAISER, LLC. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants. Plaintiff JOSEPH DINOFA, by his attorneys lmbesi Law RC. and Napoli Law PLLC, brings this action on behalf of himself and all other individuals who have worked or are currently working as drivers for Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. ("Uber") and RAISER LLC ("Raiser") (collectively, "Defendants" or "Uber"). an Uber subsidiary in the Commonwealth of Plaintiff seeks damages and other relief for their claims of violations of common law and Labor Law. INTR ON 1. Plaintiff. current and former drivers for Uber, bring this action alleging Uber?s violations of common law and Labor Law, including, without limitation, Uber?s failure to pay reasonable expenses incurred by Plaintiffs, including but not limited to mileage accrued on personal vehicle and gas; (ii) unlawful withholding of gratuities intended for drivers but retained by Uber in violation of Labor Law?333.l03; unpaid minimum wages in violation of Labor Law 5333.104; (iv) tortious interference of contract; breach ofcontract; and (vi) unjust enrichment. Case ID: 150902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 57 of 74 2. Plaintiff alleges that Uber has failed and continues to fail to comply with Labor Law requirements due to its misclassi?cation of drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. 3. Plaintiff seeks damages and other appropriate relief on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated aggrieved individuals who have worked for or who are currently working for Defendants. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff JOSEPH DINOFA is citizen of the Commonwealth of and resident of Philadelphia County. Plaintiff currently works for Uber as a driver. 5. Defendant Uber is a foreign corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. Defendant is authorized to conduct business and does conduct business throughout the Commonwealth of 6. Defendant Raiser is a subsidiary of Uber and is the equivalent of Uber for the purposes of this action. 7. At all relevant times, Uber was an "employer" within the meaning of all applicable statutes. 8. At all relevant times. the work performed by Plaintiff and similarly situated employees was directly essential to Uber?s business Operations. 9. Plaintiff brings this proposed Class action pursuant to Pa. Code 1702. on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated Uber drivers. 10. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and discovery, the foregoing de?nition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or Case ID: 150902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 58 of 74 amended complaint. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their af?liates, parents. subsidiaries. employees. of?cers. agents. and directors; government entities or agencies, their af?liates, employees, of?cers. agents, and directors in their governmental capacities; anyjudicial of?cer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and class counsel. I. This action is properly maintainable as a class action. As set forth in Pa. Code 1702, the proposed Class "is so numerous thatjoinder of all members, whether othemise required or permitted, is impracticable." As provided in in Pa. Code 1702, ?there are questions of law or fact common to the Class which predominate over any questions a?'ecting only individual members." 12. Among the qutions of law and fact that are common to the class include, but are not limited to: a. Whether Defendants have charged customers a gratuity for class members? services; 13. Whether Defendants failed to distribute the total proceeds of those gratuiti to the class members; 0. Whether De?ndants have informed customers that gamin is included in the price of the Uber service and so there is no need to tip the drivers; d. Whether class members have suffered damages based upon Uber?s representation to customers that there is no need to tip the drivers; e. Whether Defendants improperly classi?ed class members as independent contractors rather than employees; Case ID: 150902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 59 of 74 f. Whether class members have been required to pay the expenses of their employment, including the cost of a vehicle, repairs. gas and tolls; g. Whether Uber unlaw?rlly denied to compensate its employees, Uber's drivers, those expenses; and h. Whether class members were denied employee bene?ts as required by law. l3. As provided in Pa. Code I702, the proposed lead Plaintifl?s? representative claims are typical of those of the proposed Class because the proposed lead Plainti?'s' damages are based upon the same legal theories. The proposed representative Plainti?'s' grievances, like the proposed Class grievances, arise out of the same business practices and course of conduct of Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs? damages arise out of a pattern of nearly identical and repetitive busins practices conducted by Defendants. Finally, the representative Plaintiffs have no special circumstances that would put them in con?ict with the other members of the Class. 14. As provided by Pa. Code 1702, the representative Plaintiffs can adequately represent the Class. 'No con?ict of interest exists between the representatives and the Class members or with respect to the claims for relief requested. 15. The representatives and their chosen attorneys are familiar with the subject matter of the lawsuit and have full knowledge of the allegations contained in this complaint so as to be able to assist in its prosecution. In addition. the representatives? attorneys are competent in the I relevant areas of the law and have suf?cient experience to vigorously represent the Class. Furthermore, the resources available to Class counsel ensure that the litigation will not be hampered by a lack of ?nancial capacity. Plaintiffs' attorneys have suf?cient ?nancial resources and are willing to absorb the costs of this litigation. Case ID: 150902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 60 of 74 16. As provided by Pa. Code 1702, a class action is superior to any other available method for adjudicating this controversy. This proposed class action is the surest way to fairly and expeditiously compensate so large a number of injured persons; to keep the courts from becoming paralyzed by hundreds, perhaps thousands of repetitive cases, and to reduce transaction costs so that the injured Class can obtain the most compensation possible. Class treatment of this controversy presents a superior mechanism for fairly resolving similar issues and claims without repetitious and wasteful litigation. RISDI ON AND VEN 17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Pa. Code 5322 because Defendant Uber is a foreign business corporation that is authorized to conduct business in the Commonwealth of and does conduct business in the Commonwealth of and Defendant Raiser is a business corporation that is authorized to conduct business in the Commonwealth of and does conduct business in the Commonwealth of 18. Venue is proper in this case pursuant to Pa. Code l006 because the cause of action arose in Philadelphia County. QF FAQEE 19. Uber compensates its drivers weekly. Uber takes a percentage of the total fares driven and the driver receives the remainder of the fare. Because Uber classi?es its drivers as independent contractors, Plaintiffs had to pay expenses, including gas. tolls, car repairs and lease payments, from their portion of the fare. Case ID: 150902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 61 of 74 20. Uber also deducts a $1 ?safe ride? fee from each fare which is allegedly used to pay for background checks, driver safety education and deveIOpment of safety features in its mobile application ?an expense the employer should pay. not the employee. A. 21mm Joseph Binge 2 I. In October of 20?, Plaintiff JOSEPH DINOFA began driving for Uber as an ?UberX? driver. 22. Initially, Plaintiff DINOFA drove eight (8) to twelve (12) hours per week. In or about May of 201 5. increased his hours to full-time. driving between forty (40) and fifty (50) hours per week. 23. Plaintiff compensation varied depending on theamount of hours worked per week. 24. Plaintiff DINOFA has incurred between $50 to $300 each week in expenses. including gas. tolls. lease payments and car repairs. In the beginning, a?er paying for the expenses, Plaintiff DINOFA earned approximately $80 per week. 25. During his employment, Plaintiff DINOFA was not compensated for any employment related expenses. A. of Drivers 26. Plaintiffs allege that Uber uniformly misclassi?es all of its drivers as independent contractors when they should be classi?ed and treated as employees. 27. Uber exerts signi?cant control over its drivers. For example, upon signing a license agreement to work for Uber, all new drivers must watch a training video demonstrating how Uber wants its drivers to interact with customers. Case ID: 150902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 62 of 74 28. Uber also unilaterally sets the fares for all rides and drivers are required to charge the cost determined solely by Uber. 29. 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. 30. As a result of its misclassi?cation, Uber failed to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly aggrieved employees with itemized wage statements. minimum wages, lawful meal and rest periods, and reimbursement for necessary employment related expenses. Uber also failed to keep accurate payroll records showing aggrieved employees' hours worked and wages paid. 31. Uber also retained all gratuities owed to aggrieved employees despite representing to its customers and advertising that gratuity is included in the total cost of the car service. 32. Uber Speci?cally advertises to its customers that tips are included in the cost of the fare: DO I NEED TO TIP MY You don't need urn when you ride with Uber. Once you arrive at vow cost-nulon. your taro is aunth warm to your credit are on me - there?s no need to do. 33. Despite Uber?s representation that gratuity is included in the cost of the fare, Uber drivers are not compensated for gratuities. Signi?cantly, Uber Speci?cally instructed its drivers to refuse a cash gratuity if offered. Case ID: 150902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 63 of 74 RFER NESSREL TI 34. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if hilly set forth herein. 3S. Defendants' website sets forth: DO I NEED TO TIP MY You don't need cash when you ride with Utter. Once you arrive at your destination. your turn ls alumnqu cursor! to your credit nrdonfile-there?soomcdtoti?. 36. Defendants' conduct, in failing to remit the total proceeds of gratuities to drivers, constitutes unlawful tortious interference with the contractual and/or advantageous relationship that exists between the drivers and customers, under state common law. 37. Defendants' conduct, informing customers ?there is no need to tip," constitutes unlaw?rl tortious interference with the contractual and/or advantageous relationship that exists between the drivers and customers, under common law. 38. Defendants had a contract with Plaintiffs. were aware of those contracts. intentionally procured the breach of those contracts, and caused Plaintiffs damages thereby. COUNT II OF CONTRAQII 39. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the prOposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 40. Defendants' conduct constitutes a breach of contract under state common law. Defendants have a contract with the drivers to remit to them the total proceeds of all gratuities. Case ID: 150902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 64 of 74 41. At all times, Uber withheld and continues to withhold gratuities given by customers to Uber drivers and/or gratuities that are incorporated into the set fare. 42. Uber?s withholding of these gratuities constitutes a breach of contract. COUNT Ill QEIQST ENRICHMENT 43. Plaintiff. on behalf of himself and the proposed class. repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 44. Defendants unlaw?rlly retained gratuities owed to the drivers. 45. As a result, Defendants have been unjustly enriched through their retention of a portion of the gratuities owed to the drivers. 46. Plaintiffs and the class members are entitled to restitution for their full share of the proceeds of the improperly retained gratuities. COUNT IV QQNVEEIQN 47. Plaintiff?. on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 48., Defendants unlaw?rlly took Plaintiffs' property, namely tips and money spent for expenses, without Plaintiffs' permission. 49. As a result, Plaintiffs were harmed and class members are entitled to restitution for their full share of proceeds, as well as treble damages. COUNT MP ON 50. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. Case ID: 350902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 65 of 74 SI. Defendants? activities have caused confusion with, or have been mistaken for. Plaintiffs' activities in the mind of the public, or are likely to cause such confusion or mistake; or Defendants have acted unfairly in some manner. 52. Plaintiffs' property rights. speci?cally gratuities and expenses, were misappropriated by Defendants for their commercial advantage. S3. Defendants unjustly pro?ted by Plaintiffs? expenditure of time, labor and talent. COUNT VI FRAUD Ml REPRESENTATI 54. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if ?rlly set forth herein. 55. Defendants made a material representation of fact, that Plaintiffs would receive gratuities, which was untrue, which Defendants knew was an untrue statement at the time, with the intent to deceive. which Plainti??sjusti?ably relied upon. causing Plaintiffs to incur damages. 56. Defendants also informed Plaintiff and proposed class members that they would receive a cancellation fee refund if a passenger cancelled, which Defendants knew was an untrue statement at the time, with the intent to deceive. which Plaintiifjusti?ably relied upon, causing Plaintiff to incur damages. 57. Defendants made a material representation of fact, that Plaintiff would receive a card for discounted gas, which Defendants knew was an untrue statement at the time. with the intent to deceive, which Plaintiff justi?ably relied upon, causing Plaintiff to incur damages. COUNT VII PE IA AW IO Case ID: 150902252 Ca_s_? Dgcument 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 66 of 74 58. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed class, repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs as if ?tlly set forth herein. 59. Despite the existence of an agreement indicating Plaintiffs are independent contractors, the treatment of Plaintiffs and control exercised by Uber indicate that Plaintiff's are employees. 60. Plaintiffs seek damages pursuant to Labor Law for violations of the following sections: a. failure to provide prompt payment of wages to driver employees upon termination and resignation in violation of Labor Law b. failure to provide meal and rest periods to its female drivers in violation Labor Law {3107; c. failure to pay portions of gratuities intended for driver employees in violation of Labor Law ?333.103; d. failure to keep required payroll records in violation of Labor Law (5260.8; e. failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Labor Law 5333.104. 61. As a result of Uber?s violations. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages associated with the wages and bene?ts withheld in violation of Labor Law, as well as attorneys' fees pursuant to Labor Law ?260.9a. 62. In addition, Plaintim seek the imposition of penalties on the Defendants with respect to the applicable provisions of Labor Law ?255.3. REQQEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the proposed class. request relief against the Defendants as follows: I 1 Case ID: 150902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 67 of 74 a. An award of damages, including compensatory, punitive. and treble damages, in an amount to be determined at trial; b. Notice to the Classes of the action; c. An injunction against Defendants prohibiting Defendants from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies and patterns set forth herein; d. Liquidated damages, pursuant to the Labor Law; e. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action; f. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; and g. 'An Order requiring that Defendants return to Plaintiffs any gratuities and any other ?lnds wrong?rlly kept by Defendants; and it. Such other and further relief that the Court may deem just and proper. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselv and the proposed class. demand a trial byjury on all claims so triable. Dated: Baltimore, Maryland September 21, 2015 Respectfully submitted, NAPOLI LAW PLLC George Tankard, Esq. 400 East Pratt Street, Suite 849 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (212) 397-l 000 LAW P.C. 15/ Brittany Weiner (pro hac vice pending) 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite I408 New York. New York 10123 (212) 736-0007 (Phone) Attorneys for Plainu?' 12 Case ID: [50902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 68 of 74 Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Twin": 5; writ-?w . u" 3.: Trial Divi '1 smam e9"? 1 002-252 a ?39 amt-3? -.. mumm am we DIHOFA DEER TECHNOLOGIES 03mm 2512 8001'}! 1455 mm am am FLOOR PHILADELPHIA PA 19118 BAN FRINCIBCD CA 94103 mm?: new: we M1883, LLC mamas 1455 HARRET 41H FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 91103 mama-mus nereuumrs we Manama 0mm: Tom. men or mums Tom. am or OHM doing or senor: 1 [gagsbgim Petition Action Notice nl'Appul Eg?w?i??iiumgr _Q?anum mm downwva mum mom gigs Arbitration a 'EgCom Sealemnl WW 1111')! '33 Minor Conn AppuI Minot: Mon: Iluu mm NW A ID?ShluloryAppcals WIDISm-viul cum cuss NI mewremocooe _.c1..-.cuss.mmn. - .1 Huntsman; nmwmumn maEDWARDS TO THE PROTHONOTA RY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Plaintif?PetitionerIAppellam: Papers may be sewed at the address set forth below. mar MWW AfrdauEY mm GEORGE G. Tm]; 400 EAST PRATT STREET SUITE 84 9 no": mu m: BALTIMORE MD 21202 (443)274-5733 none entered masons? Mankardlnapolilaw . com 91186 mmsman Tuesday, September 22, 2015, 12:44 pm summit: as AWNEY on PARTY GEORGE TANKARD FINAL cow (Appmw by the Pmlhonolnry cum) Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 69 of 74 CP 884? GEORGE TANKARD ESQUIRE 400 EAST PRATT STREET SUITE 849 BALTIMORE. MD 21202 Attorney for Plaintiff TELEPHONE NO. (212) 397-1000 JOSEPH DINOFA. INDIVIDUALLY. AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY-SITUATED, PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS vs. TRIAL DIVISION UBER TECHNOLOGIES. INC. AND RAISER. LLC Term. 20 No. Praecipe for Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: KindlyissucaWritto TE HN INCA LL asa defendant in the above-captioned matter. Allameyfor Plain")? Case ID: 150902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 70 of 74 mm can. mu Case ID: 50902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 71 of 74 COMMON WEALTH OF SS COUNTY OF PHILADLEPHIA Joseph Dinofa, being duly sworn according to law. dcposea and says that he is the tothebestofhisknowledgo, informationandbe?e? mbject to the penalties of i 8 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to mom falsi?cation: to Dinofa Ear/I7 authoriti. Case ID: 150902252 Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 72 of 74 EXHIBIT Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 73 of 74 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF JOSEPH DINOFA, Plaintiff, 2 Case No. v. Judge UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Removed from Court of Common Pleas, RAISER, Philadelphia County 2 Civil Action No. 150902252 Defendants. DECLARATION OF MICHAEL COLMAN 1N SUPPORT OF REMOVAL OF CI:er AETIDHEBQM. STATE COURT 1, MICHAEL COLMAN, hereby declare and state: 1. I am currently an Operations Specialist for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. and I work out of Uber?s San Francisco location. I have been employed by Uber since October I9, 2011, and have worked as an Operations Specialist since February 2013. In this role, I consult with local operations teams about various aspects of Uber?s operations and have comprehensive personal knowledge of Uber?s general business model, as well as the operations of Uber?s wholly-owned subsidiary, Rasier, LLC (?Rasier?). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration, and 1 can and would testify to those facts if called and sworn as a witness. 2. Uber is a privately held corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware. Its headquarters and principal place of business is in San Francisco, California. Uber?s primary administrative and ?nancial functions, including human resources, bene?ts and payroll, are all managed at Uber?s headquarters in San Francisco. As stated above, Rasier is a wholly owned Raiser, LLC was misspelled in Plaintiff? Complaint ?led in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County. The LLC is actually called ?Rasier,? not ?Raiser? LLC. Case Document 1 Filed 11/13/15 Page 74 of 74 subsidiary of Uber. Rasier is a Delaware limited liability company, and its principal place of business is in San Francisco, California. Rasier?s sole member is an employee of Uber who works at Uber?s Headquarters in San Francisco and is a citizen of California. Uber and Rasier are not governmental entities. 3. Information in Uber?s database indicates that no fewer than 31,267 individual transportation providers, including Plaintiff DiNofa, have used Uber's software application to generate leads in the State of from the time Uber launched in in May of 2012 to the present. The data from which this information was derived is maintained in the regular course of Uber's business as a regular practice. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California, this 1L day of November 2015. MICHAEL COLMAN 'luJ