SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet May-20-2016 3:38pm Case Number: CGC-16-552156 Filing Date: May-20-2016 3: 10 Filed by: BOWMAN LIU lmage:05406695 COMPLAINT SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ET AL 001 C05406695 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. 0 0 SUM-100 SUMMONS FOR COURT USE ONI.Y (SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORn;, (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive. YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBBRG, an Individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may deckle against you without your being heard unless you respond wllhln 30 daya. Read the Information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone caH wiN not protect you. Yoll' written response must be In proper legal form If you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forma and more Information at the California Cota1a OnBne Self-Help Center (www.courl/nfO.ca.(J(Nisel/help), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the fling fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not fie your response on Ume, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right SNta'f· If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you camot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonproftt legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California legal Services Web site (www.lewheJpcallfomla.OIP), the CeDfomla Cota1s Onlne Self-Help Center (www.courtlnfo.ca.gov/selfhtllp), or by contacUng your local court or county bar assoclallon. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any seWement or arbllratlon award of $10,000 or more In a clvl case. The court's lien must be paid before the court wll dtsmlss the case. 1A VISOI Lo han demandado. Sf no responde dentm de 30 elias, Ia cort. puede decldlr en su contra 6/n ascuchar su wrsl6n. Lea Ia lnlonnac/tJn a conttnuec/tJn. Tlene 30 DIAS DE CALENDAR/0 rlespuls de que /e entreguen esta citaci6n y papeles /egllles para pteaenlar una rupuesta por escrito en ests COife y hscer que se anlt8gue una cop/a at demBndante. una carte o una Hamtlda tefefdnlce no /o pmtegen. Su I'UpfiNta por escrtto tlene que estar en fotmato legal COI7'eCto s1 ctesea que procesen su caso en Ia cone. Es pos/ble que haya un fotmulatio que Ulfed pueda uur para su tr~spuests. Puede encontrar esto8 loimu/arlos de Ia corte y mls lnfotmacl6n en al Centro de Ayuda de las Cates de c.llfomle [www.auoorte.ca.gov), en Ia blbllotecs de /eyes de su condado o en Ia corte que /e quede mls ceroa. Sl no puede pi!I{Jtlf Ia cuota de ptesentacKm, plda at SBC18I8Ito de le corte que 1e c/6 un formular/o de exenc/6n de page de cuotas. Sl no presenlll su tflspuesla a t/empo, puede perrJer al ceso por lncumpllmlento y Ia COite I& podrd quitar su suelc/o, dinero y blenes 8/n mis advettencla. Hay oliOS requi:Jitos legales. Es recomendeble que flame a un abogado lnmedlatarnente. Sl no conoce a un abogado, puede /Jamar a un servlclo de lflmisi6n a abOgac/o$. Sl no putlde pager a un abogado, es poslble que cumpla con los 18qu/sltos para obllllner SfHVic/oa legales gratulto8 de un programa de stNVIclos legales sin fines de lucto. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el slllo web de Cellfomla LsgaJ Setvkes, j\Nww.lawhelpcalfomlaorg), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de CB/ffomle, f.vww.aucorte.ca.gov) o pon/IJndose en contacto con Ia corte o el coleglo de abogtldos locales. AVISO: Por ley, le cotte tiene derecho a rec/amer IN cuotas y los costos exenloa por tmponer un {1I'8V8I7J8n sobte cuelquler f8CfJPfii'BCI(m de $10,000 6 mls de valor reclblda mediante un acuerdo o une conces/6n de atbltni,Je en un caao de dereCho civiL Tlene que pagar el gravamen de Ia cotte antes de que Ia corle pueda desechar el case. The name and address of the court Is: (B nombre y dlreccl6n de Ia corte es): CASE NUMBER: San Francisco Superior Court 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 fMln*o dill Cltaot tn"-,'- The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff wilhout an attorney, is: (B nombre, Ia dlr8ccl6n y el nflmero de teiMono del abog8do del demandante, o del demandante que no tfen6 abogado, es): Barbara E. Figari, The Figari Law Firm, 117 E. Colorado Blvd., Ste 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 (626)486-2620 DATE: 05/20116.A" M . DE':)UTY C' r!'nl( 2 0 2016 ' , Deputy (Ad)unto) Clerk, by (Fecha) ,1 · ·· u:n (S (For proof of service of thiS summons, use Proof of Service of Summon (Para prueba de entrega de esta cltat/6n use el formularlo Proof of Service ummons, (POS-01 0)). NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served [SEAL] 1. 0 as an Individual defendant. 2. 0 as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 3. D Form Adaplad lor MlnlaiDiy liM Judicial COuncl of Cellfarria SUM-100 [RaY. J,.1, 2009J 0 EYFAX on behalf of (specify): under: 4. .BOWMANUU 0 0 D 0 CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) 0 D D CCP 416.60 (minor} CCP 416.70 (conservatee) CCP 416.90 (authorized person) other (specify): by personal delivery on (date): p SUMMONS toft Cod• or ct\dii'IDclldln IS 412.20, 41111 -.~....grew WWW.PDFLEGAL.COM 0 ;;. . 1 BARBARA E. FIGARI (SBN 251942) 2 A Professional Corporation 117 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600 Pasadena, California 91101 Telephone (626) 486-2620 Facsnnile (877). 459-3540 barbara@figanlaw.com 3 4 5 6 F Superior I COurtLof California E County oi San Francisco THE FIGARI LAW FI1nf MAY 2 0'~016 /. CLE ~--c=~--~~~~ Att91}1~S for Plaintiff SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 9 10 11 SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (1) WRONGFUL TERMINATION/ ABUSIVE DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; (2) BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT; (3) BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; ~~~ ~~Tfr~~ss 18 19 (6) 20 (7) 21 (8) 22 23 24 25 CGC-16.552156 (9) PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200-t!t seq.; AGE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA; RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OFFEHA; FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATIONOFFEHA· and VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTION 1102.5 DE~ FOR JURY TRIAL PUNITIVE DAMAGES SOUGHT REPRESENTATIVE ACTION 26 27 28 BY FAX PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 0 0 1 Plaintiff alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 2 3 1. This is an action for damages as to: (1) Wrongful Termination/Abusive 4 Discharge in Violation of Public Policy; (2) Breach of Implied Contract; (3) Breach of 5 the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Defamation; (5) Unfair 6 Business Practices; (6) Age Discrimination in Violation ofFEHA; (7) Retaliation in 7 Violation ofFEHA; (8) Failure to Prevent Retaliation in Violation ofFEHA; and (9) 8 Violation ofLabor Code Section 1102.5. 9 10 2. This action arises out of events involving Plaintiff SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG and Defendants UBERT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and DOES 1-50. 11 12 THE PARTIES 3. Plaintiff SAMEUL WARD SPANGENBERG (hereinafter "Plaintiff'' or 13 "SPANGENBERG") is informed and believes and thereon alleges that UBER 14 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "UBER" or "Defendant") was at all 15 times relevant herein a corporation doing business in California and headquartered in 16 California, in the County of San Francisco. 17 4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants 18 sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, and therefore sues them by such fictitious names. 19 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said Defendants are in some 20 manner legally responsible for the activities and damages alleged herein. Plaintiff will 21 amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. 22 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times 23 herein mentioned each of the Defendants were acting as the partner, agent, servant, and 24 employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things alleged herein 25 was acting within the course and scope of such agency and with the knowledge of the 26 remaining Defendants. 27 28 2 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL c JURISDICTION 1 6. 2 This Court has personal jurisdiction over UBER because it is a California 3 resident, it is headquartered in California, it is a California corporation, it transacts a 4 substantial amount of business in California, and the tortious acts UBER is herein 5 alleged to have committed against SPANGENBERG occurred in California. VENUE 6 7. 7 Venue is proper in this Court because UBER resides in the County of San 8 Francisco, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 9 occurred in County of San Francisco, pursuant to, inter alia, Government Code section 10 11 12965. Venue is further proper in this Court pursuant to Government Code section 8. 12 12965(b), in that UBER'S personnel records, and other records related to the unlawful 13 practices alleged herein, are maintained at its corporate offices in San Francisco, 14 California, within the County of San Francisco. 15 9. The venue provisions set forth in Government Code section 12965 are 16 applicable both to Plaintiff's causes of action for violation of the Fair Employment and 17 Housing Act ("FEHA"), and all non-FEHA causes of action concurrently plead herein. 18 (See Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 478. 19 20 21 22 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 10. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 11. UBER hired SPANGENBERG as a Forensic Investigator commencing 23 employment on March 9, 2015. SPANGENBERG was hired at an initial salary of 24 $175,000 per year, in addition to health and retirement benefits. As part of his 25 compensation package, SPANGENBERG was also granted 34,133 Restricted Stock 26 Units ("RSUs"), which were subject to a vesting schedule. The RSUs were set to vest 27 upon SPANGENBERG's completion of one year of employment with UBER. 28 3 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 0 0 1 12. SPANGENBERG received a favorable six-month review, which lauded 2 his performance and contributions to the company. Thereafter, John "Four" Flynn was 3 brought in as a new supervisor to SPANGENBERG and others. Mr. Flynn, who is 4 much younger than SPANGENBERG, made numerous age related comments in the 5 workplace, including comments that SPANGENBERG did not understand the 6 technology, implied SPANGENBERG could not keep up with a youth driven culture at 7 UBER, and derided SPANGENBERG's work performance that had just been reviewed 8 as being a contribution to UBER SPANGENBERG reported to Mr. Flynn during their 9 one on one meetings that he felt Mr. Flynn's comments were unprofessional and 10 improper, and that he felt Mr. Flynn was attempting to "manage him" out of the 11 company. SPANGENBERG later reported these same concerns to UBER Human 12 Resources in late December 2015- just six weeks before his termination. 13 13. In late November and early December 2015, SPANGENBERG met with 14 Mr. Flynn and Human Resources Director Andrew Wegley, and reported numerous 15 issues critical to the success ofUBER's Security Response Team, including but not 16 limited to steps UBER needed to take to ensure its applications were compliant with 17 relevant laws and regulations. After this meeting, Mr. Flynn sent SPANGENBERG an 18 email made reference to the issues SPANGENBERG raised during the meeting with 19 the Security Response Team, and noted that UBER values a "truth seeking culture." In 20 this same email, Mr. Flynn- for the first time - also discussed various purported 21 "deficiencies" with SPANGENBERG's work performance, which had never been 22 discussed prior to SPANGENBERG's raising of certain compliance issues. 23 14. During his employment with UBER, SPANGENBERG reimaged his 24 laptop on at least four different occasions, as did many employees at UBER. 25 SPANGENBERG always took extreme caution when so doing, and never deleted any 26 emails or crashplan logs, or any other information which belonged to UBER. As part 27 of his job duties, SPANGENBERG was tasked with investigating certain issues - 28 sometimes certain employees - and to this extent would first use himself as a "test 4 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 0 0 1 subject" to ensure his investigative tools were working properly. This practice was 2 explicitly discussed by SPANGENBERG with supervisor Joe Sullivan, and Mr. 3 Sullivan approved of SPANGENBERG's methods. 4 15. Nevertheless, on February 10, 2016,just before SPANGENBERG's 5 RSUs were to vest, UBER terminated SPANGENBERG's employment. UBER 6 contended that SPANGENBERG violated its Code of Conduct, but to date has been 7 unable to articulate any provision it contends SPANGENBERG actually violated. 8 9 16. UBER told SPANGENBERG his termination was due to the reimaging ofhis laptop on February 9, 2016, but as noted above, that is an action 10 SPANGENBERG- and numerous others- have undertaken multiple times during his 11 employment with UBER. The only time this was ever an issue was after 12 SPANGENBERG made reports of activity which UBER intended to engage in that 13 SPANGENBERG was concerned violated certain statutes and regulations, and right 14 before SPANGENBERG's stock options were to vest. 15 17. SPANGENBERG is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the 16 stated reason for his termination was pretextual, to cover up an illegal reason for the 17 termination. 18 18. SPANGENBERG was initially offered a severance package, which was 19 later rescinded. UBER has made defamatory statements about SPANGENBERG's 20 work, his ethics while employed by the company, and made defamatory statements that 21 SPANGENBERG deliberately engaged in actions to falsify or destroy UBER's data. 22 These defamatory statements harm SPANGENBERG's business reputation, which he 23 has spent years cultivating based upon his work and adherence to strict ethical 24 standards. 25 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 26 WRONGFUL TERMINATION/ABUSIVE DISCHARGE 27 IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY 28 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 5 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 0 0 1 2 19. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 3 20. Plaintiff's wrongful termination from his employment with Defendants 4 was based upon Defendants' violation of the Public Policy of the State of California as 5 put forward in the Fair Employment Housing Act, the California Constitution, the Age 6 Discrimination in Employment Act, and other statutes and provisions, because it was 7 motivated by Plaintiff's age. 8 9 21. Plaintiff's wrongful termination from his employment with Defendants was an abusive discharge in violation of public policy of the State of California because 1o it was discriminatory based on age and because it was intended to interfere with his 11 collection of the Restricted Stock Units to which he was entitled. 12 22. Plaintiff's wrongful termination was in violation of the common law of the 13 State of California, as expressed in Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 14 167. 15 23. It is public policy of the State of California that employees should be paid 16 what they have earned. Labor Code sections 200, 201, 203, 210, and 216. It is an unfair 17 business practice for a business to fail to pay an employee what he or she has earned. 18 Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq. Equity promised to employees as 19 compensation for their work and loyalty is recognized as "wages" per Labor Code 20 section 200, subsection (a). 21 24. As a proximate result of Defendants' wrongful acts, Plaintiff has suffered 22 and continues to suffer substantial monetary losses incurred; and has suffered and 23 continues to suffer emotional distress in an amount according to proof at the time of 24 trial. 25 25. Defendants, and each of them, did the acts alleged herein maliciously, 26 fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff, from an 27 improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's 28 rights. The acts complained of were known to, authorized and ratified by Defendants. 6 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL c 0 1 Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of 2 them, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 4 BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT 5 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 6 7 8 26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 27. As part of his compensation package, SPANGENBERG was granted 9 34,133 Restricted Stock Units ("RSUs"), which were subject to a vesting schedule. The 10 RSUs were set to vest upon SPANGENBERG's completion of one year of employment 11 with UBER. Plaintiff accepted Defendants' offer by continuing to work for Defendants. 12 Defendants' statements that Plaintiff would receive stock in UBER. if he continued to 13 work for Defendants constituted an offer, which Plaintiff accepted by performance, 14 creating a binding contract. 15 28. At all relevant times alleged herein, Plaintiff performed his obligation 16 under the both contracts with Defendants. Defendants breached their implied 17 contractual commitments to Plaintiff by terminating his employment and by not 18 providing him with stock in UBER. 19 29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' breach, Plaintiff has 20 economic loss in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 22 BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 23 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 24 25 26 30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 31. As part of his compensation package, SPANGENBERG was granted 27 34,133 Restricted Stock Units ("RSUs"), which were subject to a vesting schedule. The 28 RSUs were set to vest upon SPANGENBERG's completion of one year of employment 7 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL c 0 1 with UBER. Plaintiff accepted Defendants' offer by continuing to work for Defendants. 2 Defendants' statements that Plaintiff would receive stock in UBER. if he continued to 3 work for Defendants constituted an offer, which Plaintiff accepted by performance, 4 creating a binding contract. 5 32. At all relevant times alleged herein, Plaintiff performed his obligation 6 under the both contracts with Defendants. Defendants breached their implied 7 contractual commitments to Plaintiff by terminating his employment and by not 8 providing him with stock in UBER. 9 33. At all relevant times alleged herein, Plaintiff performed his obligation 10 under the both contracts with Defendants. Defendants breached their implied 11 contractual commitments to Plaintiff by terminating his employment and by not 12 providing him with stock in UBER. 13 34. Defendants unfairly interfered with Plaintiffs rights under both contracts 14 to receive the stock by terminating his employment and by not providing him with stock 15 in UBER. 16 35. 17 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' breach, Plaintiff has economic loss in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 18 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 19 DEFAMATION 20 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 21 22 23 36. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants, and each of them, by 24 the herein-described acts, conspired to, and in fact, did negligently, recklessly, and 25 intentionally cause excessive and unsolicited internal publications of defamation 26 regarding Plaintiffs work performance, integrity, competence, honesty, and ethics. 27 28 38. UBER, by and through its employees, including supervisor FLYNN, falsely stated that SPANGENBERG: 8 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 0 0 1 a. Violated UBER's Code of Conduct; 2 b. Deliberately engaged in actions to falsify UBER's data; and 3 c. Deliberately engaged in actions to destroy UBER's data. 4 5 6 39. These statements were made to UBER employees, including but not limited to Plaintiffs colleagues and Human Resources Director Andrew Wegley. 40. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that these statements 7 were the basis of subsequent correspondence from Defendants' employees to Plaintiffs 8 former colleagues and managers as to the reason he was no longer employed with 9 Defendants. 10 41. These emails, and all subsequent defamatory communications from 11 Defendants, including the forced self-publication of the same, severely damaged 12 Plaintiffs award-winning reputation that was built over 25 years within the industry. 13 42. All of the defamatory comments alleged herein were made within one year 14 prior to the original filing of Plaintiffs lawsuit. Plaintiff is informed and believes the 15 statements were made on February 10,2016, and that the comments were made to 16 vendors, customers and executives beginning on that day, and continuing to the present. 17 43. Plaintiff is informed and believes that these publications were outrageous, 18 negligent, reckless, intentional, and maliciously published by Defendants, and each of 19 them. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the negligent, reckless, and intentional 20 publications by Defendants, and each of them, were published by Defendants, their 21 agents and employees. Plaintiff hereby seeks damages for these publications and all 22 foreseeable republications discovered up to the time of trial. 23 44. During the above-described time-frame, Defendants, and each of them, 24 conspired to, and in fact did, negligently, recklessly, and intentionally cause excessive 25 and unsolicited publication of defamation, of and concerning Plaintiff, to each other and 26 to third persons, who had no need or desire to know. Those third persons to whom these 27 Defendants published this defamation are believed to include, but are not limited to, 28 9 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL c 0 1 other agents and employees of Defendants, and each of them, and the community, all of 2 whom are known to Defendants, and each of them, but unknown at this time to Plaintiff. 3 45. The defamatory publications consisted of oral and written, knowingly false 4 and unprivileged communications, tending directly to injure Plaintiff and Plaintiff's 5 personal, business, and professional reputation. The defamatory publications include 6 false statements about SPANGENBERG'S work performance, integrity, competence, 7 honesty, ethics and his professional conduct. 8 9 46. Plaintiff is informed, believes and fears that these false and defamatory statements will continue to be published by Defendants, and each of them, and will be 1o foreseeably republished by their recipients, all to the ongoing harm and injury to 11 Plaintiff's business, professional, and personal reputations. Plaintiff also seeks redress 12 in this action for all foreseeable republications. 13 4 7. The defamatory meaning of all of the above-described false and 14 defamatory statements and their reference to Plaintiff, were understood by these above- 15 referenced third person recipients and other members of the community who are known 16 to Defendants, and each of them, but unknown to Plaintiff at this time. 17 18 19 48. None ofDefendants' defamatory publications against Plaintiff referenced above are true. 49. The above defamatory statements were understood as assertions of fact, 20 and not as opinion. Plaintiff is informed and believes this defamation will continue to be 21 negligently, recklessly, and intentionally published and foreseeably republished by 22 Defendants, and each of them, and foreseeably republished by recipients of Defendants' 23 publications, thereby causing additional injury and damages for which Plaintiff seeks 24 redress by this action. 25 50. Each of these false defamatory per se publications were negligently, 26 recklessly, and intentionally published in a manner equaling malice and abuse of any 27 alleged conditional privilege, which Plaintiff denies existed, since the publications, and 28 each of them, were made with hatred, ill will, and an intent to vex, harass, annoy, and 10 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 0 0 1 injure Plaintiff in order to justify the illegal and cruel actions of Defendants, and each of 2 them, to cause further damage to Plaintiff's professional and personal reputation. 3 51. Each of these publications by Defendants were made with knowledge that 4 no investigation supported the unsubstantiated and obviously false statements. The 5 Defendants published these statements knowing them to be false, unsubstantiated by any 6 reasonable investigation and the product ofhostile witnesses. These acts of publication 7 were known by Defendants, and each of them, to be negligent to such a degree as to be 8 reckless. In fact, not only did Defendants, and each of them, have no reasonable basis to 9 believe these statements, but they also had no belief in the truth of these statements, and 10 in fact knew the statements to be false. Defendants, and each of them, excessively, 11 negligently, and recklessly published these statements to individuals with no need to 12 know, and who made no inquiry, and who had a mere general or idle curiosity of this 13 information. 14 52. The above complained-of publications by Defendants, and each of them, 15 were made with hatred and ill will towards Plaintiff and the design and intent to injure 16 Plaintiff, Plaintiff's good name, his reputation, employment and employability. 17 Defendants, and each of them, published these statements, not with intent to protect any 18 interest intended to be protected by any privilege, but with negligence, recklessness 19 and/or an intent to injure Plaintiff and destroy his reputation. Therefore, no privilege 20 existed to protect any of the Defendants from liability for any of these aforementioned 21 publications or republications. 22 53. As a proximate result of the publication and republication of these 23 defamatory statements by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered injury to 24 his personal, business and professional reputation including suffering embarrassment, 25 humiliation, severe emotional distress, shunning, anguish, fear, loss of employment, and 26 employability, and significant economic loss in the form oflost wages and future 27 earnings, all to Plaintiffs economic, emotional, and general damage in an amount 28 according to proof. 11 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRlAL 0 0 1 54. Defendants, and each of them, committed the acts alleged herein 2 recklessly, maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention of 3 injuring Plaintiff, for an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and which 4 abused and/or prevented the existence of any conditional privilege, which in fact did not 5 exist, and with a reckless and conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. 6 55. All actions of Defendants, and each of them, their agents· and employees, 7 herein alleged were known, ratified and approved by the Defendants, and each of them. 8 Plaintiff thus is entitled to recover punitive and exemplary damages from Defendants, 9 and each of them, for these wanton, obnoxious, and despicable acts in an amount based 10 on the wealth and ability to pay according to proof at time of trial. 11 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 12 UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & 13 PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200, et seq. 14 AGAINST ALLDEFENDANTS 15 16 17 18 19 56. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 57. This cause of action is brought as a representative action by Plaintiff, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200, et. seq. 58. Defendants' conduct, as alleged herein, has been, and continues to be, 20 unfair, unlawful and harmful to Plaintiff, to the general public, and Defendants' 21 competitors. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to enforce important rights affecting the public 22 interest within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. 23 59. Defendants' activities as alleged herein are violations of California law, 24 and constitute unlawful business acts and practices in violation of California Business & 25 Professions Code section 17200, et seq. 26 60. A violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200, et 27 seq. may be predicated on the violation of any state or federal law. In this instant case, 28 Defendants' policies and practices of promising stock to employees in exchange for 12 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL c 0 1 continued employment, and then terminating an employee without cause and not 2 providing stock, violate California laws including Labor Code sections 200, 201, 203, 3 210, and 216, and laws of contract including the obligation to keep the implied covenant 4 of good faith and fair dealing. 5 61. Plaintiff has been personally injured by Defendants' unlawful business 6 acts and practices as alleged herein, including but not necessarily limited to the loss of 7 money and/or property. 8 9 62. Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., Plaintiff is entitled to restitution of the unpaid compensation, including stock in 10 UBER, withheld and retained by Defendants; a permanent injunction requiring 11 Defendants to provide the unpaid stock due to Plaintiff; an award of attorneys' fees 12 pursuant to California Code of Civil procedure section 1021.5 and other applicable laws; 13 and an award of costs. 14 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 AGE DISCRIMINATION 16 VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV. CODE§§ 12940 et seq. 17 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 18 19 20 63. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 64. Defendants, through their agents and employees engaged in a pattern and 21 practice of unlawful age discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing 22 Act ("FEHA") in connection with the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment and 23 the performance standard to which Plaintiff was held. 24 65. At all relevant times, Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of 25 the discriminatory conduct described and alleged herein, and condoned, ratified and 26 participated in the discrimination. 27 28 66. Plaintiff filed timely complaints against the Defendants with California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") alleging discrimination on 13 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 0 0 1 May 20,2016. Plaintiff received from the DFEH notification of his right to sue in the 2 Courts of the State of California, the Defendants against which complaints had been 3 filed. 4 67. As a direct and proximate result of the willful, knowing, and intentional 5 discrimination against Plaintiff, and the failure to act by Defendants, Plaintiff has 6 suffered mental distress, anguish, and indignation. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to general 7 and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial. 8 9 68. Defendants, and each of them, did the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiff, from an 10 improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs 11 rights. The acts complained of were known to, authorized and ratified by Defendants. 12 Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of 13 them, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. 14 69. By reason of the conduct of Defendants and each of them as alleged herein, 15 Plaintiffs have necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiffs are 16 therefore entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses, including expert 17 witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing the within action. As a result of Defendants' 18 and each of their actions, Plaintiffs sustained economic damages to be proven at trial. As 19 a further result of Defendants' and each of their actions, Plaintiffs suffered emotional 20 distress; resulting in damages to be proven at trial. 21 70. The above harassing and discriminatory conduct violates FEHA, 22 Government Code§§ 12940 and 12941 and California Public Policy and entitles 23 Plaintiffs to all categories of damages, including exemplary or punitive damages. 24 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV. CODE§§ 12940 et seq. 26 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 27 28 71. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 14 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL c 1 72. 2 73. 3 4 0 Plaintiff engaged in protected activities when he made complaints about age discrimination to UBER's Human Resources Department 74. Defendants, and/or their agents/employees, retaliated against Plaintiffs in 5 violation of Government Code §12940(h) by terminating his employment after he 6 engaged in a protected activity. 7 75. Plaintiff's engagement in a protected activity was a substantial motivating 8 reason for the adverse employment actions taken against them by Defendants, in 9 violation of the FEHA. 10 76. Plaintiffs were harmed by Defendants' actions. 11 77. Defendants' act of subjecting Plaintiff to adverse employment actions 12 based on his engagement in protected activities was a substantial factor in causing 13 Plaintiff's harm. 14 78. Defendants' actions were willful, malicious, fraudulent and oppressive, and 15 were committed with the wrongful intent to injure Plaintiffs and in conscious disregard o 16 Plaintiff's rights. 17 79. By reason of the conduct ofDefendants, Plaintiff has necessarily retained 18 attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable 19 attorney's fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees and costs, incurred 20 in bringing the within action. 21 80. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff sustained economic harms and 22 losses in an amount according to proof at the time of trial. These amounts included but 23 are not limited to lost wages, benefits, and stock options that exceed the jurisdictional 24 requirements of this Court. As a further result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff suffered 25 emotional distress, resulting in damages in an amount according to proof at the time of 26 trial. These amounts exceed the jurisdictional requirements of this Court. 27 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 28 FAILURE TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION 15 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL c 0 1 VIOLATION OF CAL. GOV. CODE §§ 12940 et seq. 2 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 3 4 5 6 7 81. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 82. In violation of the FEHA, Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination against employees. 83. In perpetrating the above-described conduct, Defendants, and each of 8 them, engaged in a pattern, practice, policy and custom of unlawful discrimination. Said 9 conduct on the part of Defendants, and each of them, constituted a policy, practice, 10 tradition, custom and usage which denied Plaintiff's protection of the civil rights statutes 11 enumerated above. 12 84. At all relevant time periods Defendants, and each of them, failed to make 13 an adequate response and investigation into the conduct of Defendants and the aforesaid 14 pattern and practice, and thereby established a policy, custom, practice or usage within 15 the organization of Defendants, which condoned, encouraged, tolerated, sanctioned, 16 ratified, approved of, and/or acquiesced in unlawful discrimination towards employees 17 of Defendants, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff. 18 85. At all relevant time periods there existed within the organization of 19 Defendants, and each of them, a pattern and practice of conduct by their personnel which 20 resulted in discrimination, including but not necessarily limited to, conduct directed at 21 Plaintiff. 22 23 24 86. Defendants did not provide adequate discrimination training with respect to its employees and managers. 87. Defendants, and each of them, knew or reasonably should have known that 25 the failure to provide any or adequate education, training, and information as to their 26 personnel policies and practices regarding discrimination would result in discrimination. 27 28 88. The failure of Defendants, and each of them, to provide any or adequate education, training, and information to personnel concerning policies and practices 16 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 0 () • 1 regarding discrimination for complaining of or resisting the same, constituted deliberate 2 indifference to the rights of employees, including but not limited to those of Plaintiff. 3 89. Plaintiff filed timely complaints against the Defendants with the DFEH 4 alleging discrimination. Plaintiff received from the DFEH notification of his right to sue 5 in the Courts of the State of California, the Defendants against which complaints had 6 been filed. 7 90. By reason of the conduct of Defendants and each of them as alleged 8 herein, Plaintiff has necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the within action. 9 Plaintiff therefore is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses, 10 including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing the within action. 11 91. As a result of Defendants' and each of their actions, Plaintiff sustained 12 economic damages to be proven at trial. As a further result ofDefendants' and each of 13 their actions, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress; resulting in damages to be proven at 14 trial. 15 92. The above discriminatory conduct violates California's FEHA, Cal. Gov. 16 Code§§ 12940 et seq., and California Public Policy and entitles Plaintiff to all 17 categories of damages, including exemplary or punitive damages. 18 93. The conduct of Defendants and/or their agents/employees as described 19 herein was malicious, and/or oppressive, and done with a willful and conscious 20 disregard for Plainti:tr s rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendants' 21 actions. Defendants and/or their agents/employees or supervisors authorized, condoned 22 and ratified the unlawful conduct of the remaining Defendants. Consequently, Plaintiff 23 is entitled to punitive damages against Defendants. 24 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE SECTION 1102.5 AND 26 REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE 2699 et seq. 27 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 28 17 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 0 0 1 2 3 94. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 95. This cause of action is brought as a representative action on behalf of all 4 aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorney's General Act, Labor Code 5 section 2699, et seq. 6 96. Plaintiff also satisfied all administrative prerequisite to seeking remedies on 7 behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees pursuant to the Private 8 Attorney's General Act ("PAGA"), Labor Code section 2699 et seq. 9 97. Labor Code section 1102.5 prohibits employers from discharging, 10 constructively discharging, retaliating or in any manner discriminating against any 11 employee for making any oral or written complaint regarding what an employee 12 reasonably believes to be unlawful or illegal conduct to a governmental agency or to their 13 employer. 14 98. Defendants discharged Plaintiff's employment and further discriminated 15 and retaliated against Plaintiff after Plaintiff made oral and/or written complaints 16 regarding what he reasonably believed to be illegal or unlawful conduct in violation of 17 state and federal statutes, rules and regulations. Plaintiff made these complaints to his 18 employer, by and through its agents and employees. 19 99. Plaintiff is informed and believed, and thereon alleges that because of his 20 making complaints regarding illegal conduct to Defendants (his employers), Plaintiff was 21 discharged from his employment and/or otherwise discriminated or retaliated against by 22 Defendants after he had made complaints about illegal conduct. 23 24 25 100. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer pain and mental anguish and emotional distress. 101. Plaintiff has further suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings 26 and other employment benefits, whereby Plaintiff is entitled to general compensatory 27 damages in amounts to be proven at trial. 28 18 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 0 0 1 102. Defendant's actions constituted a willful violation of the above-mentioned 2 federal laws and regulations. As a direct result, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 3 suffer substantial losses related to the loss of wages and is entitled to recover costs and 4 expenses and attorney's fees in seeking to compel Defendants to fully perform its 5 obligations under state and/or federal law, in amounts according to proof at time of trial. 6 103. The conduct of Defendants described herein above was outrageous and was 7 executed with malice, fraud and oppression, and with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs 8 rights, and further, with the intent, design and purpose of injuring Plaintiff. 9 104. Defendants, through its officers, managing agents, employees and/or its 10 supervisors, authorized, condoned and/or ratified the unlawful conduct described herein 11 above. By reason thereof, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an 12 amount according to proof at the time of trial. 13 105. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein by acting knowingly and 14 willfully, with the wrongful and illegal deliberate intention of injuring Plaintiff, from 15 improper motives amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights. 16 Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover nominal, actual, compensatory, punitive, and 17 exemplary damages in amounts according to proof at time of trial, in addition to any 18 other remedies and damages allowable by law. 19 106. As a proximate result of the actions and conduct described in the 20 paragraphs above, which constitute violations of Labor Code section 1102.5, Plaintiff and 21 other aggrieved employees have been damaged in an amount according to proof at the 22 time of trial and seeks civil penalties on behalf of all aggrieved employees and attorney 23 fees against Defendants as permissible under the Labor Code. 24 25 26 27 28 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for relief as follows: 1. For general damages according to proof, however, no less than the jurisdictional limit of this court; 2. For restitution in an amount according to proof; 19 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 0 0 1 3. For special damages in amounts according to proof; 2 4. For exemplary and punitive damages in amounts according to proof; 3 5. For specific performance of the obligation to provide stock; 4 6. For injunctive relief as provided by law; 5 7. For declaratory relief as provided by law, including, inter alia, that 6 Defendants' actions against Plaintiff violated Government Code section 7 12940, et seq., Labor Code section 1102.5 and all other statutes alleged 8 herein; 9 8. For civil penalties as permitted pursuant to Labor Code section 2699 et 10 seq. and for relief on behalf of Plaintiff and all similarly aggrieved 11 employees; 12 9. For interest as provided by law; 13 10.For cost of suit incurred herein; 14 1l.For attorneys' fees as provided by law; and 15 12. For such other and further relief as the Court deems fair and just. 16 17 Dated: May 19,2016 THE FIGARI LAW FIRM 18 19 20 21 22 By: BARBARA FIGARI Attorneys for Plaintiff SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL c JURY DEMAND 1 2 0 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. 3 4 Dated: May 19,2016 THE FIGARI LAW FIRM 5 6 7 8 By: BARBARA FIGARI Attorneys for Plaintiff SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 PLAINTIFF SAMUEL WARD SPANGENBERG'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 0 0 Awm~wao&rz~~yi~~Barllllllbel; tllldldrllw$J; THE FIGARI LAW FIRM 117 E. Colomdo Blvd., Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 TElEPHONE NO.: ATTORNEY FOR • (626) 486-2620 FAX NO.: FOR COURT USE ONLY F SuPiifor I C<>urtLof califom E· COUnty o'f San Franciscci8 (877) 459-3540 Plaintiff SAMUEL wARD SPANGENBERG San Francisco 400 McAllister Street 400 McAllister Street SanFrancisc~ CA 94102 Civic Center courthouse MAY 2 o-2018 suPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY oF STREET NlORESS: MAILING ADmESS: cJTYANDZIPCOOE: BRANCH NAME: CASE NAME: S an enber v Uber Technolo ies Inc. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation Limited Counter Joinder (Amount demanded is Flied with first appearance by derendant $25,000 or less) (Gal. Rules of Court. rule 3.402) Items 1-6 below must be 'eted (see Instructions on p 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: [l] D Unlimited (Amount demanded exceeds $25,000) D Auto Tort E3 Contract Auto (22) Uninsured motorist (46) Other PIJPDIWD {Personal Injury/Property DamageiWrongful Death) Tort D D D E3 D Breach of contractlwarranly (06) Rule 3.740 collecUona (09) Other collections (09) Insurance coverage (18) Asbestos (04) Other contract (37) Product labllrty_(24) Real Property Medical malpracUce (45) Eminent domain/Inverse Other PIIPDMID (23) condemnation (14) Non-PIIPDIWD (Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33) Business tort/unfair business practice (07) Other real property (26) CMI rights (08) Unlawful Detainer Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Fraud (16) Residential (32) Intellectual property (19) Drugs (38) E3 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Professional negligence (25) :l.!!.f!LCial Review Other non-PI/PDM'D tort (36) L.J emjloyment 1 \1\tongful termlnallon (36) D Other a D D 56 D Asset forfeiture (05) PetHion re: arbitration award (11) Writ of mandate (02) DEPT: e2. Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (CaL Rulee of Court, rules 3.40~.403) D E3 D D 0 AntltrusUTrade regulallon (03) Construction defect (10) Mass tort (40) Securities lrtlgaUon (28) EnvlronmentaVTOJdc tort (30) Insurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provisionally compleX case types (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforc:ernaN of judgment (20) 0 Miscellaneous ClvU Complaint D D RIC0(27) Other complaint (noi6Pf~Cifjed above} (42) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and corporate governance (21) Other peUIIon (not specffled abolle) {43) D D (15) 2. This case Is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex. mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management a. D Large nwnber of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses b. D Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. D Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or oounbies, or In a federal court c. D Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. D Substantial posljudgment judicial supervision D 3. Remedies sought (check aU that apply): a.[Z] monetary b.[Z] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief 4. Number of causes of action (specify): Nine (9) 5. This case is [Z] Is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.) D Date: c. [.l]punitive BY FAX May 20,2016 Barbara E. Figari OTIC • Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except smaU claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court. rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result . in sanctions. • Fila this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. • If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court. you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parUes to the action or proceeding. • Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onlv. if, RmnMaplad ru Manclllloly Usa Judldal CouncU or CalffcJrnlll CM-010 (Rev. July 1, 2007] CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET 1 ora caL RUes oiCowt. nAu 2,311, 3.220. 3.«10-3.403. 3.T40; caL SlllndiiRia or.Juc~cW Admlnlalnlllan, lid. s.1o MYW~Qt_gov