Iii SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet May-02-2016 9:47 am Case Number: CGC-16-551748 Filing Date: May-02-2016 8:58 Filed by: ARLENE RAMOS Image: 05378591 COMPLAINT LENZA H. MCELRATH III VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 001005378591 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.20 21 22 24 25 26 cE s Ne ea McElrath Ill (SBN 245721) IO SUMMONS ISSUED San Francisco, CA 94110 FI Telephone: 415.420.3144 ‘Superior Court of Fax: 510.550.7820 County StSan trneeee Email: lenza@lenzalaw.com Attomey for Plaintiffs MAY 1.2 2019 CLERK,OF TH COURT oe tele tone Deputy Clenc SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Lenza H. McElrath III, individually, Case No.: inhis representative capacity, CEN CGC -16-551748 and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Complaint for Violation of the Private Attomeys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code § 200- vs. 244 and 970, Breach of Contract, Fraud by Intentional Misrepresentation, and Fraud by Uber Technologies, Inc., Concealment Delaware corporation, 1455 Market St., 4" Floor San Francisco, CA 94103, | CLASS ACTION Defendant. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Lenza H. McElrath Ill, in his representative capacity, and on behalf of all others similarly situated (collectively “Plaintif¥s"), allege causes of action for violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code § 200-244 and 970, Breach of Contract, Fraud by Intentional Misrepresentation, and Fraud by Concealment against Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Uber”), demand a trial by jury, and allege as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Lenza H. McElrath (“McElrath”) is a resident of the state of California, Plaintiff McElrath has been employed full-time with Uber as a software engineer from September 2014 through present, Case N - McElrath eta. v. Uber mene Cc laint under PAGA.2, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in San Francisco, California. Uber has at all times relevant to this complaint conducted business in the County of San Francisco. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has jurisdiction in this case because at all relevant times Defendant, or its agents, conducted business in the State of California, Defendant maintains offices, employ the majority of workforce, direct sales, and conduct business operations primarily in the State of California, 4. Venue is proper in this Court because acts that give rise to Plaintiffs claims took place within the County of San Francisco. Plaintiffs entered into agreements with Uber for employment that was to be performed in the County of San Francisco. PAGA REPRESENTATIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 5. On February 23, 2016, Plaintiff McElrath sent written notice, dated February 23, 2016, (the “PAGA Notice”) by certified mail of Uber's violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”) 6. A copy of the PAGA Notice was sent by certified mail to Uber’s registered California agent, and directly to Uber’s general counsel, Salle Yoo. 7. The LWDA did not provide notice of its intention to investigate Uber’s violation within thirty-three calendar days of the postmark date of the PAGA Notice, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Uber has violated and continues to violate the California Labor Code with respect to hundreds of its current and former employees. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAG”), Cal. Labor Code § 2698 et seq. -2- McElrath et al., v. Uber Complaint under PAGA18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 10. Uber has violated the law by not compensating hundreds of its employees as promised in their written Employment Agreements. 11. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in the PAGA Notice as if fully set forth herein. Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) 12. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set forth 13. Plaintiff McElrath is an “aggrieved employee” under PAGA. 14, Plaintiff McElrath has fulfilled all jurisdictional requirements to bring an action under PAGA. 15. As described in the PAGA Notice Defendant violated California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 204, and 970. SECOND COUNT Breach of Contract 16, Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set forth 17, Plaintiffs entered into an Employment Agreements with Defendant. 18. Defendant beached the Employment Agreements as described in the PAGA Notice. 19, _ Plaintiffs have performed all obligations to Defendant except those obligations which Plaintiffs were prevented or excused from performing. 20. Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer damages legally (proximately) caused by Defendant's breach of the agreement and are entitled to damages. MeElrath etal, v. Uber Complaint under PAGA,10 " THIRD COUNT Fraud by Intentional or Negligent Misrepresentation 21. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 22. Defendant made representations of material fact regarding the compensation they would provide Plaintiffs. 23. Their representations were in fact false. 24, When Defendant made the representations, Defendant knew or should have known that the representations were false 25. Defendant made the representations with the intent to defraud and induce Plaintiffs to perform acts which they were not legally required to perform. 26. At the time Plaintiffs acted, PlaintifYs did not know the representations were false and believed the representations were true. 27. Plaintiffs acted in justifiable reliance upon the truth of the representations 28. Plaintiffs would not have acted if they had known the true facts. FOURTH COUNT Fraud by Concealment 29. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein. 30. Defendant concealed material facts from Plaintiffs. 31. Defendant suppressed material facts they were bound to disclose and told Plaintiffs facts designed to mislead Plaintiffs and prevent Plaintiffs from discovering the concealed or suppressed facts. MefElrath eta, v. Uber Complaint under PAGA12 13 14 16 7 18 20 2 22 23 24 26 32. Defendant concealed or suppressed these facts with the intent to defraud and induce Plaintiffs. 33. At the time Plaintiffs acted, Plaintiffs were unaware of the concealed or suppressed facts. 34, Plaintiffs would not have acted had they known the facts. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs request that the court: 1. Enter a judgment against Defendant for civil penalties pursuant to PAGA, 2. Enter a judgment against Defendant in the amount of economic damages, statutory damages, compensatory damages, and liquid damages described in the claims above, plus interest, costs, and attorney's fees, 3. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendant is in violation of the law, 4. Enjoin the Defendant from taking further acts in violation of the law, 5. Disgorge Defendant of any profits unjustly eamed through their unlawful acts, and 6. Award Plaintiffs any such other relief as may be just and proper, including such punitive . that this Court finds are just and equitable. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: 5722016 Yh Lenza H. McElrath IIL 3637 18th St. #2 San Francisco, CA 94110 Tel: 415.420.3144 Fax: 510.550.7820 Plaintiff and representative employee McElrath et al., v. Uber Complaint under PAGA Case No. |ORS Se NO-SUMMONS ISSUEDomo10 eens Huse Mee leath Ge (SBN 345 72() eet sat ped ita FE yo FI LED en et St exxmms 1510.50. 7922 Satin Cott Cath ene A A cn Gn MAY 02 2016 any of un rane areas 400 Mcallister Stret Rn 103, OF THE COURT crv moze cove: San Francisco, CA 94102 oe, sean pea CSE We Eleath, et ol Ober Technstogies Tne IVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation os Unlinited =] Limited Cleumer Clam =GC-16-551748 (Amount (ammount ou joinder WY Soran Sandedis | Fie wiht epparance by detent exceeds $25,000) $25,000 rlss)|_ (Gal Rules orGour rule 3400) | oem Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2) [i Check one box below forthe case type that best describes this case: ‘Auto Tort Contract Provisonally Complex Civil Ligation ees [Ey creach of contvacuwarranty (08) (Gal Rules of Coun, res 3.400=9-409) Uninsures motors (46) [es] eimstacicers oul lalennee nents ‘Other PUPDID (Personal Injury/Property — [_] other eotections (09) [J Construction defect (10) Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort 1 insurance coverage (18) TEI mass tort 40) ‘Asbestos (04) CD otter contract 37) J secures tigation (28) Produc abit (24) eal Property| [E) envirormentaToxe tot (2) Medical malpractice (45) (1 Eminent domsinnnverse (insurance coverage cams arising tom the ther PUPDIWD (23) cendemaaton (14) ‘hove Isl prontionaly complos case NOD-PUPDIWD (Otter Tort [2 Whongtat eveson a0) pes ty [J ‘usinesstrvuntarbusiness practice (07) [—} obre rea property (28) Enforcement of Judgment Ise] cevrases cen LUntgwtu Detainer [J enorcoment of udgment 20) [F) betamation 13) LJ commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint C1 Frava (16) I Residentiat (32) E) rico [J intebectua property (19) 1 bugs 38) (A otner complaint (not specited above) (42) [1 Professional negligence (25) ‘Judicial Review ‘Miscellaneous Civil Petition TS otter non-PuPOMW tort (35) H ‘Asoo forteure (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment Petiion we: artivaton wars (11) =) omer potion nt species above rong trian 8) etc nna 03 ober maton tres oee 3 tre employment (15) Fore usa review 3 2 Thiscase Lis [Tis not — complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court ithe case s Complex, mark the factors requifing exceptional judicial management 2. 2) Large number of separately represented parties 4. [] Large number of witnesses ».[] Extensive motion practice raising diffcut or novel e. [_] Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts cL) Substantial amount of documentary evidence +. 2) Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision 3, Remedies sought (chock all that apply): a[=“Tmonetary b.[<-Tnonmonetary; dectaratory or injunctive reliet 0 L=ASunitwe 4, Number of causes of action (specify): 5 Thiscave Eis [dient a dass action suit «Tis aS Stee msn pyre 0 Date: ae o Lenze H MéElvedh , — He elealh ——— NOTICE + Plain mst fle his cover sheet wth he feet paper le in he seien ox proceeding (except smal cae cases orcas led under the Probate Code, Femiy Code, or Weare an instunens Code) (Gal Rules ol Gout, nse 3.270) Ea he hay rest insanctone, + Fists cover shetin aditon to any cover sheet required by local court ru + Ih case complex under rule 3400 et sq, of te Calera Rules of Cour, you mus serve a copy his cover sheet on all citer partes tote ston or proceeding + Une isis coecton ae under ile 9740 acm hs ove sheet wl be wn fr stil use on "Sareea CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET eee SER EET SaRea es maeINSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET hen) To Plaintifis and Others Fiting First Papers._If you are fling a frst paper (for example, a complaint) in @ civil case, you must ‘complete and file, along with your fst paper, the Civ! Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. Ths information willbe used to compile Satisties about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check ‘one box for the case type that best describes the case, Ifthe case fits both a goneral and a more specifi ype of case listed in itern 1 heck the more specif one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples ofthe cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be fled only with your intial paper. Failure to fle @ cover sheet withthe frst paper fed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court To Patties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A “collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money ‘ned in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. collections case does not include an action seeking the folowing: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment, The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it wil be exempt from the general time-forservice requirements and case management rules, unless @ defendant fies a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections, case wil be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in le 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civll Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. if @plaintf believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Cour, this must be indicated by ‘completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. if plaintif designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the ‘Complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of # frst appearance a joinder in the Plaintif's designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, i the plaiaiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES ‘Ato Tort Contract, Provistonaly Complex Ci Ligation (Cab "Al (22}-Persona inyropety etc of Contaevarany (0) Rw of Cou Rus 3400-3405) Great oletarease “Zr rage Renan (0) ‘Sona uo tier Gonsucton Belo (0) aso oes on unites wrong eveten Gar neh faa Por (4) eon date supe to Ccontaciharasy Sod beter Steen Ugtien 2) cones eniae ain rt feud or nepigence) EnoromenaToce Tot 3) okaten che ves ce oe ae ran Cr, Cota UPON (Personal juny! Waran arin fom rovisonaly complex ther RUDI rereona ie ter Bch of Conrocvaany Stee ype fad above) to Tore ee Collections (¢.9., money owed, open Enforcement of Judgment Asbestos (04 Book asst (8) rnrenment of epent 20) cies ee eee Coteton Case Str Pat ‘Rt otudgment Out of ‘besos Poona ‘Sher Promasoy Not/cebetons Sout ‘arongtd eat Sree Contes of ude (on Prot Leb (ot asbestos or Insurance Sovran (0 provsonaly test lors) uct abi (ot asset conor (0) ster Sate Segre Medea apace (3) fo Scbesaion sire Agony Aart ‘Nedia Nalpocice- Oto: Coveroge epee Physlon & Surgeons oer cansec(37) ellie ol nyo er oesslona Hen Care gta Fraud judgment on Unoad Tae ones reee eB oon Ect aa om Fremises Lib (2. sp inen Bomaivinverse Uiscellanoous Civil Complaint ei) Sontenmaton acon Itenbona! 808 run POND rong Evin (3) Oe, Sol snc {@4., assault, vandalism) ‘Other Real Property (@.9., quiet ttle) (26) ove) Intentions inficion of Titel Porsesicn bi Roni Prone Declaratory eet Ory rota Dkess Nongooe Foresenre nce Reet Oy on Negigent icon sf nae aceon Srotonal Bees ier Rea Property (nt eminot tans Len onerriPsniD oman andoraerant or ter Commer Complaint Non BUPDIMD (Other Tort ‘rocosu) Onsen trrenzont) isiossTovuntr Busness Untawtt Doane rel conga Paces On Comma! (1) nacetane meen owt Rane scsninaton, escent 2) peer ieeol sea tc rug G8 he case ivces leg! ‘Sovemance (2 et heck stom, ober Commence 2, ou yr, ed Se eT ay ones ot rt ene o) Suda Revie ev 0 secon Bese Feat (05) fle teil Property ( Pelton Re Aston var (1 pe Fromcsona Nogigens (25) Wits ocat (0) Eleeperdent Ada teat iapractee ‘i State Mandamus ee ier Pease Mabacice VrcMandars os tied Court Secon Coat (no! mecca! aloga) Case Mater Peton for Rel From tate ter Non POND 5) wie Ote nfed Cour Case Can enennar Reviow Other Civil Petition Weng Teint (3) tessa Review 9) SmerEmpeyment 3) a of ea Ser Orer Notoe of Appeal-Labor ‘Commissioner Appeal (€M.010 fev. ky 1.20071 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ae