vt'qaJEFFREY LEE COSTELL (STATE BAR #93688) LEWIS ADELSON (STATE BAR #185075) COSTELL CORNELIUS Law Corporation 1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 450 Santa Monica, California 90401-1007 Tel: (310) 458-5959 - Fax: (310) 458-7959 ite?d??a?d?manmn Attorneys for Plaintiff KATHERINE CONNER ~12. .: RECEIVED FOR SCANNING VENTURA SUPERIOR COURT . L.) AUG 2 1 2017 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Defendants. COUNTY OF VENTURA KATHERINE CONNER, Case No. 3 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR: vs. (I) (3) INTENTIONAL INF LICTION 0F UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. a Delaware EMOTIONAL corporation; RASIER, LLC, a Delaware limited (4) FALSE liability company; RASIER-CA, LLC. a (5) Delaware limited liability company; DOE (6) (driver of Uber vehicle); and DOES 2-50, (7) GROSS inclusive, (8) GROSS AND (9) DECLARATORY RELIEF Plaintiff KATHERINE CONNER (?Plainti?? or ?Conner") hereby alleges and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant herein was, an individual residing in the City and County of Ventura, State of Califomia. 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that, at all times relevant herein: defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (?Uber?) is and was a Delaware corporation, registered in California as a foreign stock corporation; defendant RASIER, LLC (?Rasier?) is and was Delaware r. ?to chuqiaezwa COMPLAINT iv- limited liability company, registered in California as a foreign company; and RASIER-CA, LLC (?Rasier-CA?) is and was a Delaware limited liability company, registered in California as a foreign company (Uber. Rasier and Rasier?CA are hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as the ?Uber Defendants?); the Uber Defendants, and each of them, have their headquarters and/or principal place of business in the City and County of San Francisco, California; the Uber Defendants do business, generally and pervasively, throughout the State of California and, speci?cally and pervasively, throughout the City and County of Ventura and are subject to general jurisdiction within the State of California and the County of Ventura; in any event, the events and incidents alleged herein and the acts and omissions of the Uber Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, in whole or in part, took place within and/or had foreseeable impacts within the State of California and the City and County of Venture and/or the minimum contacts of the Uber Defendants, and each of them, are suf?cient to subject them to the jurisdiction of this Court with regard to this suit, given that this suit arises out of said minimum contacts; DOE 1 an individual whose actual name is unknown to Plaintiff (but whose ?rst name is believed to be Ronnie but neither Uber nor its insurance carrier will provide Plaintiff with his last name) but who was the driver of the Uber vehicle and who is hereinafter referred to as ?Driver Defendant" is, and at all relevant times was, an individual residing in the State of California, County of Venture and/or engaged in the acts and omissions alleged herein within said state and county (and the City of Ventura) and the Driver Defendant was an ernployee, independent contractor and/or agent of the Uber Defendants, and each of them, with regard to such acts and omissions. Based on the foregoing, jurisdiction and venue is in this Court. This action is subject to the venue and jurisdiction provisions of Section 1812.10 of the California Civil Code and/or Section 395(a) of the California Code of Civil Procedra'e. 3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise of defendants named herein as DOES I through 50, and therefOre sues such defendants by such ?ctitious names. Plaintiff will ask leave of Court to amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities and the precise nature of the relationship to defendants when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is ?rrther informed and believes and thereupon alleges that each of the defendants (named and ?ctitious) acted as agents orrepresentatives of the other in doing the acts alleged 17.7w" our map Cupauoupa K5 COMPLAINT I herein and acted within the course of their authority or as rati?ed or approved by their principals. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of such ?ctitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff? damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by such defendants. 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all relevant times herein, there existed, and now exists, a unity of interest and ownership among Defendants such that any individuality and separateness between the Defendants has ceased, and each of the Defendants is the alter ego of the other Defendants as ?irther alleged below. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all relevant times herein, for purposes of the causes of action set forth in herein, Defendants are, and at all relevant times herein mentioned were, the mere alter ego, instrumentality and conduit through which the other Defendants committed the acts and omissions alleged herein, thereby exercising complete control and dominance over one another to such an extent that any individuality or separateness of the Defendants at all times herein mentioned did not exist. Adherence to the ?ction of any separate existence of the Defendants, as entities distinct from one another, would permit an abuse of the corporate/company privilege, promote injustice andfor sanction a fraud, and as such, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff for the damages, acts, omissions and harm complained of herein. 5. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants named above at all relevant times, is and was the agent, servant, employee, representative, co-conspirator, principal andfor alter ego of the other, and in such capacity or capacities has participated in the conduct alleged in this Complaint and is and was acting within the scepe and in ?irtherance of each of their respective agencies, servitudes, employment, conspiracies and/or authorities and in such capacity or capacities have participated in the acts, conduct or omissions alleged in this Complaint, or in some manner are responsible indirectly or directly for the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs. CTSC ALLC CTI 6. Within the year last past, the Uber Defendants, and each of them, for a fee and consideration, arranged for the Driver Defendant, in an automobile (the ?subject vehicle"), to pick up Plaintiff Conner at a location in the City and County of Ventura and give her a ride to another location Ms. rwmt?m 5 mqamcmm?oomuai?nam?za in the City and County ofVentura, near the intersection of Victoria Avenue and Moon. Plaintiff Conner was familiar with the most direct and standard routes for driving from the location where she was picked up by the Driver Defendant to the location where she wanted to go (the ?Destination?). 7. When the Driver Defendant picked up Plaintiff Conner, she told him that she wanted to go to the Destination. But, the Driver Defendant started heading in the wrong direction. When Plaintiff Conner told the Driver Defendant, in essence, that he was not heading in the right way to the Destination, the Driver Defendant said, in essence, that he was taking a shortcut. When the Driver Defendant did not turn down the correct street, Plaintiff Conner told the Driver Defendant that she wanted to get out of the car. At that point, the Driver Defendant became agitated and started driving fast, causing Plaintiff Conner to fear that the Driver Defendant intended to take her somewhere other than the Destination and do her harm. Plaintiff Conner then started screaming at the Driver Defendant, in essence, that he pull over and let her get out of the subject vehicle. The Driver Defendant ignored Plaintiff Connor?s pleas to be allowed to exit the subject vehicle and, in fact, increased its Speed in response and began shoving, pushing and assaulting and battering Plaintiff Conner. This caused Plaintiff Conner to fear even more for her safety and her life, reasonany believing that the Driver Defendant might be taking her somewhere to harm her. After that, as the Driver Defendant was making a turn, and while the vehicle was still moving, the Driver Defendant reached over, opened the passenger-side door, forcibly pushed Plaintiff Conner out of the subject vehicle and drove away. 8. As a direct and proximate result of being pushed out of the subject vehicle and the other acts and omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, Plaintiff Conner was proximately caused personal injuries and other damage and injuries, as alleged herein and according to proof, and was proximately caused, among other things, to go to a hospital emergency room for treatment, to seek treatment and to take medications for anxiety and trauma. The foregoing series of events are hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as the ?Incident" and the acts and omissions of the Driver Defendant, and each of them, as alleged above and below are sometimes hereinafter collectively referred to as the ?Violent Acts." Conan; Mm rm (Ml? ?3 COMPLAINT {For Assault) (As Against the Driver Defendant (Doe I) And Dues 2 through 50) 9. Plaintiff Conner hereby incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through 8, inclusive, as though ?rlly set forth herein. 10. By virtue of the foregoing, with regard to the Incident and the Violent Acts alleged herein, the Driver Defendant: acted, intending to cause harmful and/or offensive contact; (13) threatened to touch Plaintiff Conner in a harmful and/or offensive manner; and/or intended to cause Plaintiff Conner to suffer apprehension of an immediate, harmful and/or offensive contact. I 1. it reasonably appeared to Plaintiff Conner and/or she reasonably believed that: the Driver Defendant was about to carry out said threads); and she was about to be touched in a harmful and/or offensive manner. 12. Plaintiff Conner did not consent to the Driver Defendant?s conduct, threats or actions. 13. As a direct and proximate result of the same, Plaintiff Conner suffered injuries andfor emotional distress and, as a result of the same, has proximately incurred damages, as alleged herein and according to proof. 14. As alleged herein, the Driver Defendant acted in a manner that was outrageous, oppressive and/or malicious and, in addition to other damages, Plaintiff Conner is entitled to exemplary and punitive damages to make an example of and to punish said Driver Defendant, in an amount according to proof. QF ACTIOE (For Battery) (As Against the Driver Defendant (Doe I) And Does 2 through 50) 15. Plaintiff Conner hereby incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through 14, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 1 6. The Driver Defendant touched, hit, pushed and/or shoved Plai ntiff Conner with the intent to harm her and/or to cause harmful and/or offensive contact with her. 17. Plaintiff Conner did not consent to the Violent Acts. U?ll ?an My. em cub-o: an: I 18. Plaintiff Conner was harmed by the Violent Acts, as alleged herein. 19. A reasonable person in Plaintiff Conner?s situation would have been banned and/or offended by the Violent Acts. 20 . As a direct and proximate result of the same, Plaintiff Conner suffered injuries and/or emotional distress and, as a result of the same, has proximatelyincurred damages, as alleged herein and according to proof. As alleged herein, the Driver Defendant acted in a manner that was outrageous, oppressive and/or malicious and, in addition to other damages, Plaintiff Conner is entitled to exemplary and punitive damages to make an example of and to punish said Driver Defendant, in an amount according to proof. CAUSE OF ACTION (For Intentional In?ic?on of Emotional Distress) (As Against the Driver Defendant (Doe I) And Does 2 through 50) 22. Plaintiff Conner hereby incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through 21 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 23. The Driver Defendant?s conduct and the Violent Acts were extreme and outrageous conduct on the part of said defendant and represented an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct and/or were so extreme as to exceed all bounds that are usually tolerated in a civilized community. 24. The Driver Defendant intended to cause emotional distress to Plaintiff Conner and/or acted with reckless disregard of the probability that Plaintiff Conner would be caused emotional distress. 25. As an actual, proximate and/or direct result of the Violent Acts, and each of them, Plaintiff Conner has suffered severe emotional distress and as a result of the same has incurred damages, in an amount according to proof. 26. As alleged herein, the Driver Defendant acted in a manner that was outrageous, Oppressive andfor malicious and, in addition to other damages, Plaintiff Conner is entitled to exemplary Mp run-r rowan-w 0 I I bar?? and punitive damages to make an example of and to punish said Defendant, in an amount according to proof. (For False Imprisonment) (As Against the Driver Defendant (Doe I) And Dues 2 through 50) 27. Plaintiff Connerherebyincorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 28. By virtue of the foregoing, the Driver Defendant intentionally con?ned Plaintiff Conner in the subject vehicle, for an appreciable period of time, without her consent and without lawful privilege. Said con?nement was effectuated by means of threat of force, physical force, unreasonable duress and/or by virtue of the inherent physical barriers of the subject vehicle while the Driver Defendant caused the subject vehicle to travel at a rate of speed that was fast enough that it was not reasonable for Plaintiff Conner to exit the vehicle without risking injury and/or fast enough that it was reasonable for Plaintiff Conner to believe that she would sustain injury if she exited the vehicle. In addition and/or in the alternative, given the assault and/orbattety that the Driver Defendant visited upon Plaintiff Conner inside the subject vehicle, before he shoved her out of said vehicle and the fact that, among other things, the Driver Defendant ignored Plaintiff Connor?s pleas to let her get out of the subject vehicle and increased its speed in response to those pleas, it was reasonable for Plaintiff to have the apprehension that the Driver Defendant would become even more violent and hurt her even more if she tried to exit the subject vehicle. 29. As an actual, proximate and/or direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff Conner has suffered injuries and incurred damages, according to proof. 30. By virtue of the foregoing, the Driver Defendant acted in a manner that was outrageous, oppressive and/or malicious and, in addition to other damages, Plaintiff Conner is entitled to exemplary and punitive damages to make an example of and to punish said Defendant, in an amount according to proof. i owes?: ml on Fl 0N (F or Negligence) (As Against The Driver Defendant (Doe I) And Does 2 through 50) 31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through 30, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 32. In addition andfor in the alternative, the Driver Defendant Dennis knew or should have known that the Violent Acts and other acts and omissions alleged herein andfor proven at trial would cause injury and damage to Plaintiff Conner and Driver Defendant acted in a negligent manner that fell below the standard of care with regard to the safety of Plaintiff Conner. 33. The Driver Defendant had a duty to exercise ordinary care as a driver for hire, to avoid reasonably foreseeable injury to Plaintiff Conner, and knew and/0r should have known, or should have reasonably foreseen that, the Violent Acts and other acts and omissions alleged herein and/or proven at trial (including, but not limited to, refusing to pull over and allow her to exit the subject vehicle, despite her repeated demands that he do so) would cause injuries and damages to Plaintiff Conner, according to proof. 34. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Conner exercised due care on her own behalf. 35. As a direct and proximate result of the Driver Defendant?s negligence, Plaintiff Conner has suffered and continues to suffer injuries and damages, according to proof. SIXTH CAUSE OF gangs, (For Negligence) (As Against The Uber Defendants, and Each Of Them, And Dues 2 through 50) 36. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 37. In addition and/orin the alternative, on information and belief, the Uber Defendants, and each of them, knew and/or should have known that the Driver Defendant might commit and/or might have the prOpensity to cemmit the Violent Acts and other acts and omissions alleged herein and/or proven at trial and that such acts would cause injury and damage to Plainti ff Conner. In this regard, the Uber Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to conduct a reasonable background investigation with 00 l? ?putt Conan was: Communal.? COMPLAINT regard to the Driver Defendant before employing, engaging, hiring and/or authorizing him to become an Uber driver. Plaintiff Conner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Uber Defendants, and each of them, acted in a negligent manner that fell below the standard of care with regard to the safety of Plaintiff Conner by failing to conduct such a reasonable background investigation; conducting an inadequate and unreasonable background investigation and/or failing to exercise due care with regard to conducting a reasonable background investigation. 38. Under the circumstances, the L?ber Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to exercise ordinary care, to avoid reasonably foreseeable injury to Plaintiff Conner, and knew and/or should have known, or should have reasonably foreseen that, the Violent Acts and other acts and omissions alleged herein and/or proven at trial might occur and cause injuries and damages to Plaintiff Conner if they failed to exercise due care with regard to a background investigation of the Driver Defendant. 39. In addition and/or in the alternative, the Uber Defendants, and each of them, are liable for the acts and omissions of the Driver Defendant under the doctrine of respondent superior and/or under other applicable law. 40. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Conner exercised due care on her own behalf. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Uber Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff Conner has suffered and continues to suffer injuries and damages, according to proof. CAUSE QF ACTIOL1 (For Gross Negligence) (As Against the Driver Defendant (Doe I) and Does 2 through 50) 42. Plaintiff Conner herebyincorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through41, inclusive, as though ?illy set herein. 43. In addition andfor in the alternative, the Defendants, and each of them, were grossly negligent with regard to the acts and omissions as alleged herein and the same: constitute a want of even scant care and/or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct and/or ordinary care; and/or demonstrate a wanton disregard for the safety of others. 44. As a direct and proximate result of the same, Plaintiff Conner suffered personal injuries and emotional distress and, as a result of the same, has proximately incurred damages, as alleged herein i- undo; Con; Hi;din?- (:0!th Cum-urns 9 I COMPLAINT taxman-u and according to proof. 45. As alleged herein, the Defendants, and each of them, acted in a manner that was outrageous, Oppressive andfor malicious and, in addition to other damages, Plaintiff Conner is entitled to exemplary and punitive damages to make an example of and to punish the Defendants, in an amount according to proof. TH 1 (For Gross Negligence) (As Against the Uber Defendants, and Each of Them, and Does 2 through 50) 46. Plaintiff Conner herebyincorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through 45, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 47. In addition and/or in the alternative, the Defendants, and each of them, were grossly negligent with regard to the acts and omissions as alleged herein and the same: constitute a want of even scant care and/or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct and/or ordinary care; andfor demonstrate a wanton disregard for the safety of others. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the same, Plaintiff Conner su?'ered personal injuries and emotional distress and, as a result of the same, has proximately incurred damages, as alleged herein and according to proof. 49. As alleged herein, the Defendants, and each of them, acted in a manner that was outrageous, oppressive andfor malicious and, in addition to other damages, Plaintiff Conner is entitled to exemplary and punitive damages to make an example of and to punish the Defendants, in an amount according to proof. EINTH QAQSE CF AC (For Declaratory Relief) (As Against the Uber Defendants, and Each of Them, and Does 2 through 50) 50. Plaintiff Conner hereby incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through 49, inclusive, as though ?illy set forth herein. 51. In addition and/or in the alternative, a real diSpute and controversy has arisen between on the one hand, and the Uber Defendants, and each of them, on the other hand, with W-Coawmat?mm??lu? -. I 10 HM scooqotmss regard to the following issues, among others: whether the disclaimers and releases contained in the terms and conditions to which Plaintiff Conner allegedly agreed when she signed up to use andfor used the application distributed by the Uber Defendants, and each of them, are enforceable or whether, as Plaintiff Conner contends, they are unenforceable, in whole or in part (as a contract of adhesion; as being unconscionable; as being void against public policy; as being an unfair and/or deceptive trade practice, in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; and orasbeing otherwise unenforceable under applicable law), insofar as and to the extent that the Uber Defendants, and each of them, contend that such terms and conditions bar, release or require the dismissal of or judgment in favor of the Uber Defendants, in whole or in part, with regard to the causes of actions brought against them herein; whether the Driver Defendant is an employee and/or agent of the Uber Defend ants, and each of them, rather than being an independent contractor for whose actions the Uber Defendants contend they have no liability or reSponsibility; whether the doctrine of respondeat superior should apply to render the Uber Defendants, and each of them, liable, in whole or in part, for the acts and omissions of the Driver Defendant, as alleged herein; whether the Uber Defendants, and each of them, have rati?ed and/or adopted the acts andfor omissions of the Driver Defendants, as alleged herein, and, therefore, may be held liable for the same, in whole or in part, andlor may be subject to punitive damages as prayed for herein; and/or whether the Uber Defendants, or any of them, had a duty to Plaintiff Conner to conduct a reasonable background investigation regarding the Driver Defendant before allowing him to participate in the driving service run, offered, and/or facilitated by or through the Uber Defendants. 52. Under applicable law, Plaintiff Conner is entitled to a judgment of this Court for declaratory relief declaring and stating that, among other things: to the extent that the disclaimers and releases contained in the terms and conditions to which Plaintiff Conner allegedly agreed when she signed up to use and/or used the application distributed by the Uber Defendants, and each of them, might otherwise bar or release the causes of action brought herein, orrnight otherwise require judgment in favor on the Uber Defendants, or any of them, in whole or in part, such terms and conditions are not enforceable under applicable law, in whole or in part because: they are part of a contract of adhesion; they are unconscionable; they are void against public policy; they constitute unfair and/or deceptive option Cun? Plating. Conn-r em.? I trade practice, in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq; and/or such terms and conditions are otherwise unenforceable under applicable law; the Driver Defendant is an employee and/or agent of the Uber Defendants, and each of them, and not an independent contractor and/or the Uber Defendants, and each of them, are otherwise liable and responsible for the acts and omissions of the Driver Defendant as alleged herein, in whole or in part; the doctrine of respondeat superior applies to render the Uber Defendants, and each of them, liable, in whole or in pan, for the acts and omissions of the Driver Defendant, as alleged herein, according to proof; the Uber Defendants, and each of them, have rati?ed and/or adopted the acts and/or omissions of the Driver Defendants, as alleged herein, in whole or in part, they are liable for the same, in whole or in part and/or may be subject to punitive damages as prayed for herein; and/or the Uber Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to Plaintiff Conner to conduct a reasonable background investigation regarding the Driver Defendant before allowinghim to participate in the driving service run, offered, and/or facilitated by Dr through the Uber Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Conner prays for judgment as follows: Against the Qrivgr Defendant Ogly, the ?rst, Sgcogd, jljhird, ?g 11 and Seventh (A) For general, special, consequential and/or incidental damages and other damages according to proof, in an unascertained amount, according to proof, but in any event, in excess of this Court's jurisdictional minimum; A ai st 'v at even 11 ans m: (B) For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof; Agnm? gt ?ber and Each of ThenLOn the Sixth and Eighth Cauggs ngction: (C) For general, Special, consequential and/or incidental damages and other damages according to proof, in an unascertained amount, according to proof, but in any event, in excess of this Court's jurisdictional minimum; Against the Uber Defendants, and Each of Them, the Eighth Cause of Action: (D) For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof; I am Tl COMPLAINT (E) For Declaratory Relief as alleged and described in said cause of action; and On all of Action: (F) For costs of suit herein; and (G) or such other and further relief as the Court deems just and preper. Dated: August 21, 20] 7 COSTELL CORNELIUS LAW CORPORATION ?ewis B. Adelson ttomeys for Plainti?~ Katherine Conner I I I 13 COMPLAINT