Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page1 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 LAURENCE PARADIS (CA BAR NO. 122336)

MICHAEL NUNEZ (CA BAR NO. 280535)

2 Disability Rights Advocates

2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor

3 Berkeley, California 94704-1204

Telephone: (510) 665-8644

4 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

TTY:

(510) 665-8716

5 Email:

mnunez@dralegal.org

Email:

lparadis@dralegal.org

6

TIMOTHY ELDER (CA BAR NO. 277152)

7 TRE Legal Practice

4226 Castanos Street

8 Fremont, CA 94536

Telephone: (410) 415-3493

9 Facsimile: (888) 718-0617

Email:

telder@trelegal.com

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

15

16 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA and MICHAEL
17 HINGSON,

18

Plaintiffs,

19 v.

20 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

21

Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., THE CALIFORNIA UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51 & 52, AND THE CALIFORNIA DISABLED PERSONS ACT, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 5454.3

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page2 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. This action seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by

3 Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”) in California against blind individuals who use guide

4 dogs. Plaintiff National Federation of the Blind (“NFB”) of California sues on behalf of its

5 members, including Plaintiff Hingson, who have been and continue to be deterred from using

6 Uber’s UberX taxi service because Uber has failed to ensure that blind riders with service

7 animals, including members of Plaintiff NFB of California, can access Uber’s taxi services.

8

2. Uber offers the UberX taxi service to sighted individuals in California. UberX is

9 highly cost-effective and widely available. Uber uses mobile software applications to arrange

10 rides between passengers and its fleet of UberX drivers in much the same way that a taxi

11 dispatch arranges rides for customers.

12

3. UberX drivers are refusing to transport many blind individuals who use service

13 animals, including members of NFB of California. For example, UberX drivers refused to

14 transport Jamey Gump, Jonathan Lyens, and Juanita Herrera, blind members of NFB of

15 California, because they use guide dogs. Further, UberX drivers across the United States are

16 likewise refusing to transport blind individuals, including identified UberX drivers who

17 repeatedly denied rides to one blind woman on twelve separate occasions, charged blind riders

18 cancellation fees, and abandoned blind travelers in extreme weather, all because of guide dogs.

19 In total, Plaintiffs are aware of more than thirty instances where drivers of UberX vehicles

20 refused to transport blind individuals with service animals. UberX drivers that refused to

21 transport these blind individuals did so after they initially agreed to transport the riders. The

22 UberX drivers denied the requested transportation service after the drivers had arrived and

23 discovered that the riders used service animals.

24

4. In addition, some UberX drivers seriously mishandle guide dogs or harass blind

25 customers with guide dogs even when they do not outright deny the provision of taxi service. For

26 example, Leena Dawes is blind and uses a guide dog. An UberX driver forced Ms. Dawes’ guide

27 dog into the closed trunk of the UberX sedan before transporting Ms. Dawes. When Ms. Dawes

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

1

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page3 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 realized where the driver had placed her dog, she pleaded with the driver to pull over so that she

2 could retrieve her dog from the trunk, but the driver refused her request. Other blind customers

3 with guide dogs have been yelled at by Uber drivers who are hostile toward their guide dogs.

4

5. Many of these blind individuals submitted written complaints to Uber concerning

5 the discriminatory treatment that they had experienced. However, Uber has failed to notify most

6 of these individuals whether Uber has thoroughly investigated their complaints, disciplined the

7 relevant UberX drivers, or taken any other meaningful steps to ensure that these drivers do not

8 continue to unlawfully discriminate against them or other individuals with service animals.

9 Instead, Uber representatives often respond to these complaints by denying responsibility for the

10 discrimination. Meanwhile, many of these blind individuals experience ongoing denials from

11 multiple drivers.

12

6. Plaintiff Hingson is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB of

13 California. Mr. Hingson, a public speaker and best-selling author, travels extensively throughout

14 California and has traveled with a guide dog for decades. Mr. Hingson is aware of Uber’s

15 widespread discrimination against blind individuals with service animals, and Mr. Hingson has

16 refrained and continues to refrain from creating an Uber user account or otherwise using Uber’s

17 transportation services because he fears experiencing similar discrimination. Mr. Hingson has

18 been deterred from using UberX on many specific occasions where it would have been

19 convenient for him to use Uber’s services.

20

7. When Uber denies rides to blind riders with service animals, blind individuals

21 experience several harms. They face unexpected delays, they must arrange alternate

22 transportation that is sometimes more costly, and they face the degrading experience of being

23 denied a basic service that is available to all other paying customers.

24

8. In addition, Uber charges many blind riders with guide dogs cancellation fees

25 after UberX drivers have unlawfully denied them service. These blind riders are also often

26 placed in the uncomfortable position of explaining to uninformed UberX drivers that service

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

2

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page4 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 animals are protected by law and that blind people have the right to bring service animals into

2 vehicles providing taxi services.

3

9. Uber is violating basic equal access requirements under both the ADA and state

4 law by failing to implement policies and procedures that would prevent or reduce discrimination

5 against blind riders committed by UberX drivers. Because Uber closely monitors and tightly

6 controls interactions between UberX drivers and its customers, Uber can implement policies and

7 procedures, including policies and procedures that leverage its mobile smart phone software

8 applications, that would prevent or reduce discrimination committed by its drivers against blind

9 riders with service dogs. However, Uber insists that it is not a transportation provider and that it

10 is not legally obligated to take any steps to ensure that its drivers do not discriminate against

11 blind riders. Uber maintains this position despite the fact that the California Public Utilities

12 Commission ruled that Uber is a transportation provider operating the UberX taxi service.

13

10. UberX and other similar taxi services are a critical transportation option for many

14 blind individuals in California. Due to distances between destinations and the limitations of

15 public transportation and paratransit, many blind persons must use taxi services to travel from

16 one place to another. The fact that UberX vehicles have frequently refused to transport blind

17 riders with service animals, and that this discrimination deters Plaintiff Hingson and other

18 members of Plaintiff NFB of California with service animals from using UberX, means that

19 members of Plaintiff NFB of California are denied full and equal access to this critical mode of

20 transportation.

21

11. Due to the public’s widespread adoption of smart phones, Uber and other

22 transportation network companies are quickly supplanting traditional taxi companies and

23 becoming the public’s primary option for on-demand taxi services. Uber offers taxi services in

24 most of California’s largest cities and is quickly spreading.

25

12. Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of

26 discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the Americans with

27 Disabilities Act. Such discrimination includes discrimination in the provision of taxi services.

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

3

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page5 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Similarly, California state law requires full and equal access to all business establishments and

2 places where the public is invited, including vehicles providing taxi services.

3

13. Plaintiffs NFB of California and Hingson proposed to Uber that the parties avoid

4 litigation and instead attempt to resolve this matter through structured negotiations, but

5 Defendant refused. Plaintiffs were ultimately unable to obtain a commitment by Defendant to

6 remedy these barriers to full and equal access.

7

JURISDICTION

8

14. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

9 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 12188, for Plaintiffs’ claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities

10 Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.

11

15. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over

12 Plaintiffs’ pendent claims under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code §§

13 51, et seq.), and the Disabled Persons Act (California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3).

14

VENUE

15

16. Venue is proper in the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c).

16

17. Defendant Uber is headquartered in the Northern District of California and is

17 registered to do business in California. Defendant Uber does business in the Northern District of

18 California. Defendant operates fleets of vehicles providing taxi services in cities throughout

19 California, including fleets providing taxi services in the Northern District of California.

20

18. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California.

21 Defendant has been and is committing the acts alleged herein in the Northern District of

22 California, has been and is violating the rights of consumers with disabilities in the Northern

23 District of California, and has been and is causing injury to consumers with disabilities in the

24 Northern District of California.

25

19. Plaintiff NFB of California has many members who reside in the Northern

26 District of California. In addition, Plaintiff Hingson has experienced injury from deterrence in

27 the Northern District of California.

28

PARTIES

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

4

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page6 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

20. The NFB of California is a duly organized nonprofit association of blind

2 Californians. It is the California State affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind. The NFB

3 of California’s mission is to promote the vocational, cultural, and social advancement of the

4 blind; to achieve the integration of the blind into society on a basis of equality with the sighted;

5 and to take any other action which will improve the overall condition and standard of living of

6 the blind. Reliable access to modern, publicly available transportation services such as UberX is

7 critical to the NFB of California and its members. Securing access to the UberX taxi service

8 advances the NFB of California’s goal to promote integration of the blind into society on a basis

9 of equality by enabling blind individuals to travel in the same way that many sighted individuals

10 travel. UberX drivers have refused to transport members of the NFB of California because they

11 have service animals. The NFB of California sues on behalf of its members who have been

12 deterred from using the UberX service due to unlawful discrimination against blind individuals

13 with service animals. NFB of California also sues in furtherance of its extensive efforts and

14 expenditure of resources in advancing its mission to improve independence of the blind.

15 Securing access to the UberX service advances this mission because access to the UberX service

16 enables blind individuals to travel more independently. Thus, discrimination against members of

17 NFB of California and other blind individuals who use service animals frustrates this mission of

18 the NFB of California and results in the diversion of its resources to address Defendant’s

19 discriminatory practices.

20

21. Plaintiff Hingson is blind, uses a guide dog, is a member of NFB of California,

21 and currently resides in Victorville, California. Mr. Hingson is a public speaker and a best-

22 selling author who has traveled with a guide dog for decades. Mr. Hingson regularly travels and

23 regularly uses taxis within California for work and leisure. Mr. Hingson often travels to Los

24 Angeles and Sacramento in connection with his advocacy work for the National Federation of

25 the Blind of California. He also regularly travels to San Francisco for personal and professional

26 business. Though Mr. Hingson would like to use the UberX transportation service, he is deterred

27 from signing up for and attempting to use Uber’s transportation services because of the

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

5

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page7 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 discrimination that other blind guide dog users have experienced when attempting to use the

2 UberX taxi service. Mr. Hingson owns and regularly uses an iPhone capable of running the Uber

3 iPhone application, and Mr. Hingson has a credit card that he could use to pay for the UberX taxi

4 service. The term “Plaintiffs” used in this complaint means both NFB of California, on behalf of

5 itself and its members with service animals who are deterred from using the UberX taxi service

6 because of discrimination against blind persons with service animals, and Mr. Hingson unless

7 otherwise indicated.

8

22. Defendant Uber, a for-profit transportation network company based in California,

9 provides transportation services through thousands of vehicles in California. Uber uses smart

10 phone software applications to arrange rides between passengers and its fleet of drivers in much

11 the same way that a taxi dispatch arranges rides for customers. Uber closely monitors and

12 controls interactions between its drivers and customers. Uber’s customers request rides through

13 Uber; Uber identifies an available driver to transport each customer; Uber bills customers for

14 their rides in UberX vehicles; Uber provides customers with receipts; and Uber handles inquiries

15 and complaints from customers concerning Uber’s drivers and taxi services. Uber also controls

16 the financial transaction associated with each ride that UberX drivers provide to customers.

17

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

18

23. Uber provides several different taxi services to members of the general public in a

19 rapidly expanding number of metropolitan areas across California and the United States. Uber’s

20 taxi services vary based on the type of vehicle providing the transportation. UberX is one of

21 Uber’s most cost-effective taxi services. To use Uber taxi services, a customer must create a user

22 account, and the customer must provide Uber with her phone number, credit card information,

23 and email address. Uber has developed mobile software applications for iPhones, Android

24 phones, and Windows phones that customers use to request transportation from Uber.

25

24. To use the UberX taxi service, a customer submits a request through one of

26 Uber’s mobile software applications. Once Uber identifies the vehicle that will provide the

27 customer with taxi service, Uber notifies the customer either by text message or through its smart

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

6

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page8 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 phone application. The notification includes the UberX driver’s name, customer rating, phone

2 number, vehicle license plate number, make and model of the UberX vehicle, and the driver’s

3 estimated time of arrival. Uber’s mobile application allows customers to track the UberX

4 vehicle’s location as the driver navigates to the customer. The customer may also submit his or

5 her trip destination through Uber’s mobile application.

6

25. Uber notifies the customer once his or her UberX vehicle has arrived. The

7 customer may then board the vehicle. If the customer submitted his or her destination address to

8 Uber, then Uber will supply the UberX driver with turn-by-turn directions to the customer’s

9 destination. If the customer did not enter the destination into Uber’s application, the customer

10 must provide the driver with his or her destination. The driver then starts the fare meter in the

11 Uber software application and proceeds to the customer’s destination. When the customer arrives

12 at his or her destination, the driver ends the trip in the Uber smart phone application.

13

26. Uber decides who may provide its UberX taxi service. Individuals who wish to

14 provide UberX taxi services must take an exam, undergo a criminal background check, undergo

15 a driving record check, present their driver’s license, vehicle registration, and drivers’ insurance,

16 and complete various forms. Once an individual becomes an UberX driver, Uber controls which

17 trip requests are transmitted to each of its UberX drivers. Uber also exercises exclusive control

18 over termination of UberX drivers, and Uber routinely terminates drivers for several reasons,

19 including for poor ratings from customers.

20

27. Uber also controls who may use the UberX taxi service. Uber makes the UberX

21 service available only to members of the public who have a credit card and a smart phone that

22 can run one of its mobile applications, who create an Uber account, and who request a ride

23 through Uber’s mobile application. Customers cannot access the UberX taxi service by

24 physically hailing an UberX vehicle on the street.

25

28. Uber exercises significant control over the UberX taxi service, and Uber has

26 detailed requirements for driver conduct and appearance. Uber has requirements for the type and

27 age of the vehicle that drivers may use to provide the UberX taxi service. In addition, before an

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

7

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page9 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 UberX driver may use a vehicle to provide UberX taxi services in California, the vehicle must

2 pass an inspection. Uber also requires that UberX drivers refrain from smoking while providing

3 Uber taxi services, refrain from asking customers to give them five-star ratings, and meet or

4 exceed the estimated time-of-arrival that Uber generates and provides to each customer. In

5 addition, Uber instructs UberX drivers that the share of trip requests that they accept through

6 Uber’s application should be consistently high, and that UberX drivers may not accept street

7 hails from potential passengers. Furthermore, Uber issues training and directives concerning

8 other requirements to UberX drivers.

9

29. Uber also closely monitors its UberX drivers. Uber records many details about the

10 taxi services that its UberX drivers provide, including for each trip: (1) the pickup location, (2)

11 the time of pickup, (3) the drop off location, (4) the time of drop off, (5) the distance traveled, (6)

12 the trip route, (7) the trip duration, and (8) the customer’s identity. Uber employees who

13 supervise drivers have easy access to this data. In addition, Uber periodically reviews the driving

14 record for each of its UberX drivers. Uber also monitors its UberX drivers’ performance by

15 asking customers for written feedback after every ride that a driver provides, and Uber routinely

16 follows up with customers who express dissatisfaction. Furthermore, Uber regularly terminates

17 or suspends UberX drivers whose average customer rating falls below a certain threshold.

18

30. In addition, Uber provides UberX drivers with supplies necessary to provide

19 Uber’s taxi services. Uber provides UberX drivers with iPhones loaded with Uber’s smart-phone

20 application. When providing Uber’s taxi services, drivers use these phones to receive and

21 respond to trip requests, receive GPS-based navigational guidance, record the beginning and end

22 of each trip, communicate with customers, and cancel trips. In addition, Uber maintains general

23 commercial liability insurance to cover claims concerning incidents that occur while drivers are

24 providing UberX taxi services.

25

31. Uber tightly controls payment for its UberX taxi services. Customers do not pay

26 drivers of Uber vehicles directly. Instead, Uber automatically charges a customer’s credit card

27 after he or she arrives at her destination. Uber has exclusive control over the fares that customers

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

8

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page10 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 pay and the compensation that UberX drivers receive. Fares for Uber’s taxi services are based on

2 the duration and distance of each trip and other factors such as demand at the time and place of

3 the ride. Uber keeps twenty percent of each fare. Thus, Uber compensates its UberX drivers

4 based on the duration and distance of the trips that they provide to customers. Customers who

5 dispute the fare for a particular trip must contact Uber customer service representatives to request

6 an adjustment to their fares.

7

32. Thus, Uber closely monitors and controls interactions between UberX drivers and

8 customers. Uber decides which of its UberX drivers may transport each customer. In addition,

9 Uber specifies how quickly each UberX driver should pick up each customer. After UberX

10 drivers pick up customers, Uber routinely provides UberX drivers with directions to customers’

11 destinations, and Uber specifies driver conduct that is prohibited while UberX drivers transport

12 customers. Moreover, Uber decides how much each customer must compensate each UberX

13 driver for each trip, and Uber, not the UberX driver, provides each customer with a fare receipt

14 for each trip. Customers and drivers must communicate through Uber’s mobile application. Uber

15 records trip-related details about every trip that each UberX driver provides to each customer,

16 and Uber collects written feedback from every customer concerning the quality of each UberX

17 driver’s performance after every trip. Furthermore, customers who forget personal property in

18 UberX vehicles may contact Uber to request assistance retrieving that property.

19

33. On September 19, 2013, the California Public Utilities Commission ruled that

20 Uber is a transportation provider with respect to the UberX service. The Commission requires

21 that Uber possess a Class P Charter Party Carrier permit issued by the Commission to operate the

22 UberX service in California. The Commission concluded that Uber is a transportation provider

23 because Uber provides essentially the same function as a taxi dispatch office and because Uber

24 controls payment for its transportation services. The Commission also explained that the fact that

25 a smart phone application is used to arrange Uber’s transportation service is irrelevant to whether

26 Uber is a transportation provider. The Commission also stated that Uber may not discriminate

27 against people with disabilities in the provision of its UberX transportation service.

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

9

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page11 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

34. Members of Plaintiff NFB of California and other blind individuals use Uber’s

2 UberX taxi service. Many of these individuals operate Uber’s smart phone software application

3 using text-to-speech technology that is built into iPhones. Text-to-speech software, commonly

4 used by persons who are blind or visually impaired, enables blind persons to operate smart

5 phones by translating visual information and text displayed on a touchscreen device into audible

6 synthesized speech or into Braille on a portable electronic braille display.

7

35. UberX drivers have refused on the basis of disability to transport many blind

8 individuals with service animals, including members of Plaintiff NFB of California. For

9 example, Jamey Gump is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB of California. On or

10 about March 23, 2014, an UberX driver refused to transport Mr. Gump in San Leandro,

11 California from a work-related event to his home. On that occasion, Mr. Gump used the Uber

12 mobile app to summon an UberX taxi. The UberX driver pulled the vehicle up to where Mr.

13 Gump was standing on the curb and, after noticing that Mr. Gump had a dog, said “no pets

14 allowed.” Mr. Gump tried to explain that his guide dog was a service animal and that the UberX

15 driver had a legal obligation to allow the service animal into the vehicle. Mr. Gump attempted to

16 show the UberX driver an official guide dog identification card issued by his guide dog’s

17 training program. The driver adamantly refused to let Mr. Gump into the vehicle and drove

18 away.

19

36. On or about May 21, 2014, another UberX driver refused to transport Mr. Gump

20 because of his service animal. On that occasion, Mr. Gump and a friend who also uses a service

21 animal were enjoying an evening at the Dutch Goose, a local pub in downtown Menlo Park,

22 California. Mr. Gump had planned to leave on a trip early the next morning and requested an

23 UberX ride to get to his home in Menlo Park because of the late hour. After the requested UberX

24 vehicle had pulled up to the curb, Mr. Gump and his friend opened a passenger door. The UberX

25 driver began shouting “no dogs!” Mr. Gump tried to explain that his dog was a service animal for

26 his disability and was legally allowed in the vehicle. The UberX driver began shouting and

27 cursing at Mr. Gump and his friend in a language that Mr. Gump did not understand. Mr.

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

10

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page12 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Gump’s friend speaks the language and was offended by the profanity and insults. As Mr. Gump

2 attempted to enter the vehicle, the UberX driver quickly accelerated the vehicle forward, nearly

3 injuring Mr. Gump’s guide dog and causing an open passenger door to strike Mr. Gump’s friend.

4 The UberX driver then sped away and cancelled the ride request. Mr. Gump and his friend

5 immediately called the police to file a report and used alternative transportation to travel home

6 approximately forty-five minutes later.

7

37. On August 20, 2014, Mr. Gump requested an UberX ride to pick him up at 214

8 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, California. Mr. Gump determined from the map in the Uber

9 iPhone application that his requested vehicle was about to turn onto his street. Mr. Gump then

10 went out to the curb with his guide dog in direct sight of the oncoming vehicle to intercept the

11 UberX driver. Mr. Gump noticed a vehicle slow its speed to a near stop in front of him and then

12 accelerate again as it passed him on the curb. A few seconds later, Mr. Gump received a

13 notification on his phone that the UberX driver had cancelled the ride. Mr. Gump then requested

14 a second UberX ride, but Uber assigned the exact same driver and vehicle to pick up Mr. Gump

15 for a second time. Again, a few seconds after Mr. Gump received confirmation that this same

16 driver was on the way, the driver cancelled on him for a second time.

17

38. Mr. Gump wants to use the UberX taxi service because it is convenient and

18 available near his home, an area with limited public transportation. However, he stopped using

19 Uber after this most recent experience because he concluded that it is not a reliable transportation

20 option for him. Notwithstanding Mr. Gump’s repeated complaints to Uber about his negative

21 experiences over the last several months, his access to Uber’s services has not improved. Mr.

22 Gump hopes that Uber will change its policies and practices to better prevent discrimination

23 against passengers with service animals so that he can enjoy Uber with the same convenience

24 and reliability enjoyed by others.

25

39. Jonathan Lyens is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB of California.

26 An UberX driver refused to transport him from his home to a job interview in San Francisco,

27 California on or about February 20, 2014. On or about 8:30 a.m. on that date, Mr. Lyens

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

11

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page13 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 requested UberX transportation from his home in San Francisco. Uber notified Mr. Lyens that it

2 had identified an UberX vehicle to transport him, and Uber notified Mr. Lyens when the vehicle

3 arrived at his home. Mr. Lyens then went with his guide dog to the street in front of his home to

4 find his UberX vehicle. Mr. Lyens observed that a vehicle arrived at his home briefly after Uber

5 notified him that his transportation had arrived. Uber then notified Mr. Lyens that the driver of

6 the Uber vehicle had cancelled his ride, and Mr. Lyens observed the vehicle in front of his home

7 leave. As a result of this cancellation, Mr. Lyens had to pay a higher fare for transportation to his

8 interview. He was also late to his interview because of the delay.

9

40. Juanita Herrera is a blind college student, uses a guide dog, is a member of NFB

10 of California, and resides in Southern California. Ms. Herrera is interested in using the UberX

11 service because it is more convenient and affordable than other taxi options. She attempted to use

12 the UberX service for the first time on August 7, 2014. She requested a ride from the Macy’s

13 store located at 6200 Slauson Avenue in Culver City, California. She was standing in front of the

14 store waiting for her requested ride when an Uber driver approached her and asked if she was

15 waiting for Uber. She answered yes, and the Uber driver asked if her dog was coming with her.

16 She told him that her dog would accompany her and that her dog is not a pet. She explained that

17 her dog is a service animal and that he was legally required to take both her and her service

18 animal. The UberX driver ignored her plea and refused to let her service animal enter the vehicle.

19 The UberX driver told her that he was leaving for his next passenger. He then left Ms. Herrera

20 standing dejected on the curb with her service animal. As a result, Ms. Herrera waited thirty

21 minutes for a bus and then rode the bus for 25 minutes to get to her destination. The trip takes ten

22 minutes in an UberX taxi.

23

41. Robert Schulenburg is blind, uses a guide dog, and resides in California. UberX

24 drivers have refused to transport Mr. Schulenburg on several occasions in Santa Clara,

25 California, San Jose, California, and Sacramento, California because of his guide dog. In

26 addition, Uber has charged him cancellation fees after some UberX drivers refused to transport

27 him, and Mr. Schulenburg has been forced to submit written complaints to Uber to get these fees

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

12

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page14 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 refunded. When UberX drivers have refused to transport Mr. Schulenburg, he has faced delays of

2 up to thirty minutes as he awaits alternative transportation. Mr. Schulenburg has submitted

3 written complaints about these instances of discrimination to Uber. However, Uber has failed to

4 inform Mr. Schulenburg whether Uber disciplined the relevant drivers or took any other steps to

5 ensure that these drivers would not unlawfully discriminate against other individuals with service

6 animals. Instead, Uber responded to some of Mr. Schulenburg’s complaints by stating that Uber

7 cannot control its drivers’ conduct because the drivers are independent contractors and by

8 advising Mr. Schulenburg that he should inform UberX drivers of their legal obligation to allow

9 his service animal to accompany him.

10

42. Sarah Outwater is blind and uses a guide dog. UberX drivers refused to transport

11 her in Boston on at least twelve separate occasions over the last year. Uber charged her

12 cancellation fees in some instances where the UberX vehicles refused to transport her. In

13 addition, the same UberX driver refused to transport her on three of these occasions, despite an

14 Uber representative’s prior assurances that Uber would address the driver’s discriminatory

15 practices.

16

43. Mark Cadigan is blind and uses a guide dog. During the month of August 2014,

17 Mr. Cadigan was denied service by two UberX drivers in the Boston area because of his service

18 animal. On both occasions, Uber charged Mr. Cadigan cancellation fees after the UberX drivers

19 cancelled the trip. Mr. Cadigan was forced to submit written complaints to Uber and to wait one

20 to three business days to get these cancellation fees refunded. His written complaints also

21 described the discrimination that he experienced. Mr. Cadigan is unsatisfied with Uber’s

22 responses to his complaints. He received no formal response on one occasion and was verbally

23 told on the other occasion that the UberX driver had merely been reprimanded. Mr. Cadigan

24 believes Uber does not adequately or consistently discipline UberX drivers when complaints are

25 made to Uber customer service representatives.

26

44. Demetrius Kouniaris is blind and uses a guide dog. During August 2014, UberX

27 drivers refused to transport Mr. Kouniaris on two occasions in Austin, Texas because of his

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

13

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page15 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 service animal. On both occasions, Mr. Kouniaris was stranded in temperatures of over 100 °F as

2 he waited for alternative transportation. Uber also charged Mr. Kouniaris a cancellation fee and

3 only refunded it after he complained.

4

45. Plaintiffs are aware of other blind persons throughout California and the United

5 States whom UberX drivers refused to transport because those individuals had service animals.

6

46. In addition, some UberX drivers mishandle transportation services for blind

7 people using guide dogs even when they do not outright deny service. For example, Leena

8 Dawes is blind and uses a guide dog. On or about March 27, 2014, an UberX driver placed Ms.

9 Dawes’ guide dog in the closed trunk of his sedan before transporting Ms. Dawes in Sacramento,

10 California. Once Ms. Dawes had realized that her dog was in the trunk, she pleaded with the

11 driver to pull over so that she could retrieve her dog, but the driver refused her request. Ms.

12 Dawes transmitted a written complaint about this incident to Uber. Uber has failed to inform Ms.

13 Dawes whether Uber fully investigated her complaint or took any meaningful action to ensure

14 that the driver does not abuse service animals in this manner in the future.

15

47. Many of these blind individuals submitted written complaints to Uber concerning

16 the discriminatory treatment that they have experienced. However, Uber has failed to inform

17 most of these individuals whether Uber has fully investigated their complaints, disciplined the

18 relevant drivers, or taken any other meaningful steps to ensure that these drivers do not

19 unlawfully discriminate against other individuals with service animals. Uber representatives

20 instead informed many blind guide dog users that “the drivers are independent contractors” and

21 Uber “cannot control their actions” and advised blind guide dog users to “let your driver know

22 when he or she is on the way to your pickup location that you have a guide dog[.]”

23

48. Plaintiff Hingson is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB of

24 California. Mr. Hingson previously downloaded the Uber app onto his iPhone but ultimately

25 decided against creating an account and trying to use the service. Mr. Hingson learned that

26 UberX drivers often refuse to transport blind individuals with service animals. Mr. Hingson has

27 refrained and continues to refrain from creating an Uber user account or otherwise using Uber’s

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

14

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page16 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 transportation services because he fears experiencing similar discrimination. Mr. Hingson was

2 deterred from using UberX on many specific occasions. For example, on or about December 5,

3 2013, Mr. Hingson was planning to travel to a job interview at an executive recruiting firm in

4 San Francisco. At that time, Mr. Hingson was aware that Uber was available in San Francisco.

5 However, because of a tight schedule, Mr. Hingson decided not to attempt to use the UberX taxi

6 service because he could not afford to be delayed by an UberX driver refusing to take his guide

7 dog. Instead, Mr. Hingson arranged for a taxicab well in advance of his transit and extended his

8 trip so that he could use nondiscriminatory transportation services to travel to his appointment on

9 time.

10

49. Plaintiff Hingson was further deterred from using Uber on January 20, 2014. On

11 that occasion, Mr. Hingson needed to quickly travel from the Ferry Building in San Francisco to

12 a speaking engagement at Wells Fargo. Mr. Hingson could not risk arriving late for this

13 important professional engagement. Mr. Hingson wanted to use UberX because of its general

14 convenience and the quality of the vehicles. However, he was deterred from doing so because he

15 did not want to wait for the UberX vehicle to arrive and then discover that the driver would

16 refuse to take his service animal.

17

50. Plaintiff Hingson was similarly deterred from using Uber on or about May 15,

18 2014. Mr. Hingson needed to travel within San Francisco to a meeting with a press contact. Mr.

19 Hingson wanted to use UberX to attend this meeting. However, Mr. Hingson wanted to be

20 focused for this meeting and believed the stress of encountering an improperly trained UberX

21 driver that refused to transport his service animal would cause him stress and negatively affect

22 his performance at the meeting.

23

51. Plaintiff Hingson would like to use UberX for future travel. For example, on or

24 about September 28, 2014, Mr. Hingson will travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco to attend

25 meetings with marketing consultants for the purpose of filming video footage. Mr. Hingson must

26 coordinate his travel schedule with airline flights and maximize his time with these consultants

27 during the trip. He cannot afford to waste unnecessary time in transit. Mr. Hingson would like to

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

15

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page17 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 use UberX on this and many other upcoming trips. However, UberX is currently not a reliable

2 source of transportation for Mr. Hingson because of the risk that an UberX driver will refuse to

3 transport his service animal. Mr. Hingson hopes that Uber will take responsibility for the conduct

4 of its drivers and assert the control that it has over them to prevent and minimize discrimination.

5 Mr. Hingson would use UberX if Uber properly trained drivers, adopted and enforced effective

6 antidiscrimination policies, and provided blind passengers a convenient way to immediately

7 report discrimination so that he has some assurance that UberX will be as reliable and convenient

8 for him and his guide dog as Uber is for others.

9

52. Uber is violating basic equal access requirements under both the ADA and state

10 law by failing to implement policies and procedures that would prevent or reduce discrimination

11 against blind riders committed by UberX drivers. Because Uber closely monitors and tightly

12 controls interactions between UberX drivers and its customers, Uber can adopt and enforce

13 policies and procedures that would prevent or reduce discrimination against blind individuals

14 with service animals, including members of Plaintiff NFB of California. These policies would

15 include, but are not limited to, the following:

16

1. Provide an accessible method for blind individuals with service dogs to

17

immediately and efficiently report instances where Uber drivers refuse to

18

transport them on the basis of disability;

19

2. Establish a procedure for quickly investigating complaints and informing

20

such blind persons of the outcome of their complaints;

21

3. Provide mandatory periodic training to Uber drivers concerning legal

22

access requirements applicable to service animals and explain to drivers the

23

consequences for failing to comply with these legal obligations;

24

4. Meaningfully discipline drivers who deny access to blind riders with

25

service animals and permanently terminate drivers who violate service animal

26

policies on more than one occasion; and

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

16

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page18 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

5. Randomly deploy blind testers who use guide dogs to proactively

2

identify–for retraining or termination–drivers who refuse to transport individuals

3

with disabilities because of the presence of their service animals.

4

53. On June 3, 2014, Plaintiffs wrote to Defendant to notify it about the unlawful

5 discrimination in the provision of UberX taxi services to blind individuals with service animals.

6 On July 16, 2014, Plaintiffs proposed to Defendant that the parties attempt structured

7 negotiations to resolve the issue without a lawsuit. On August 8, 2014, Defendant rejected

8 Plaintiffs’ proposal for structured negotiations. Defendant has since then failed to take adequate

9 measures to remedy the discrimination, and UberX drivers continue to discriminate against blind

10 customers with service animals.

11

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

12

Violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act

13

(42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.)

14

54. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as though fully set

15 forth herein.

16

55. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the

17 basis of disability by owners, operators, lessees, and lessors of places of public accommodation.

18 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).

19

56. Title III of the ADA also prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the

20 full and equal enjoyment of specified public transportation services provided by a private entity

21 that is primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect

22 commerce. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a); 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(a), (f).

23

57. Members of Plaintiff NFB of California including Plaintiff Hingson are qualified

24 individuals with disabilities within the meaning of Title III of the ADA.

25

58. Defendant Uber owns, operates, or leases vehicles providing taxi service and

26 specified public transportation within the meaning of Title III of the ADA and its regulations. 49

27 C.F.R. §§ 37.3, 37.29, App. D § 37.29. The vehicles providing taxi services owned, operated, or

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

17

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page19 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 leased by Uber are places of public accommodation within the meaning of Title III of the ADA.

2 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(10), 12184(a); 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. Except for modifications to vehicles

3 providing taxi services for the purpose of wheelchair accessibility, all of the antidiscrimination

4 provisions of Title III of the ADA apply to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,

5 and accommodations of vehicles providing taxi services.

6

59. Title III prohibits public accommodations from excluding, on the basis of

7 disability, individuals with disabilities from participating in or benefiting from the goods,

8 services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of public accommodations or

9 otherwise discriminating against a person on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. §

10 12182(b)(1)(A)(i); 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(a).

11

60. By failing to adopt policies and practices that will prevent or reduce

12 discrimination against blind individuals with service animals in the provision of the UberX taxi

13 service, Defendant violates Title III of the ADA by excluding Plaintiffs on the basis of disability

14 from enjoying the services, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of UberX vehicles.

15

61. Under Title III, it is also unlawful for places of public accommodation to afford,

16 on the basis of disability, an individual or class of individuals with disabilities with an

17 opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or

18 accommodation that is not equal to that afforded other individuals. 42 U.S.C. §

19 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(b).

20

62. Defendant violates Title III of the ADA by providing blind individuals with

21 service animals, including Plaintiffs, an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the services,

22 privileges, advantages, or accommodations of UberX vehicles that is not equal to that afforded

23 other individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(b).

24

63. Title III further prohibits places of public accommodation from providing, on the

25 basis of disability, an individual or class of individuals with a good, service, facility, privilege,

26 advantage, or accommodation that is different or separate from that provided to other

27 individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(c).

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

18

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page20 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

64. By operating a taxi service that dispatches drivers who unlawfully discriminate

2 against and refuse to transport blind individuals with service animals, Defendant violates Title III

3 of the ADA because it provides Plaintiffs, on the basis of disability, with services, privileges,

4 advantages, and accommodations of UberX vehicles that are different or separate from that

5 provided to other individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(c).

6

65. Title III prohibits private entities providing specified public transportation from

7 imposing eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities from

8 fully enjoying the specified public transportation services provided by the entity, unless such

9 criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the services being offered. 42 U.S.C. §

10 12184(b)(1); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(a).

11

66. By operating a taxi service that dispatches drivers who unlawfully discriminate

12 and refuse to transport blind individuals with service animals, Defendant violates Title III of the

13 ADA because Defendant is utilizing eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out

14 Plaintiffs and other blind individuals with guide dogs from fully enjoying the UberX taxi service.

15 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(1); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(a).

16

67. It is a violation of Title III for public accommodations to fail to make reasonable

17 modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when such modifications are necessary to

18 afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals

19 with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would

20 fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

21 accommodations. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182(b)(2)(a)(ii), 12184(b)(2)(A); 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(f); 28

22 C.F.R. § 36.302(a).

23

68. By failing to modify practices, policies, and procedures to ensure that drivers of

24 UberX vehicles are properly trained and do not refuse to transport blind individuals with service

25 animals, Defendant is denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to Uber’s taxi services.

26

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

19

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page21 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

69. In addition, it is a violation of Title III to utilize, directly or through contractual or

2 other arrangements, standards or criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of

3 discriminating on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(d); 28 C.F.R. § 36.204.

4

70. By administering Defendant’s UberX taxi service in a manner that results in blind

5 individuals who use service animals being denied access to the UberX service on the basis of

6 disability, Defendant is denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to the services, privileges,

7 advantages, and accommodations of UberX vehicles because Defendant is utilizing methods of

8 administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability.

9

71. Title III regulations prohibit private entities providing taxi services from

10 discriminating by refusing to provide taxi services to people with disabilities who can physically

11 access taxi vehicles. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(4)(B); 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.5(a)-(b), (f), 37.29(c).

12

72. Title III regulations also specifically require that private entities providing

13 transportation services permit service animals to accompany people with disabilities in vehicles

14 and facilities. 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.5(f), 37.37(f), 37.167(a), (d); 28 C.F.R. § 302(c)(1).

15

73. Defendant violates Title III of the ADA by refusing to provide transportation

16 services to blind individuals with service animals, including Plaintiffs, who can physically access

17 UberX vehicles. Defendant therefore violates Title III of the ADA by denying Plaintiffs full and

18 equal access to the services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of vehicles

19 providing the UberX taxi service.

20

74. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the Americans with

21 Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder. Defendant

22 has failed to take any equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct, and Defendant’s

23 violations of the ADA are ongoing. Defendant’s unlawful actions deter members of Plaintiff

24 NFB of California, including Plaintiff Michael Hingson, from attempting to access the UberX

25 taxi service. Unless the Court enjoins Defendants from continuing to engage in these unlawful

26 practices, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable harm.

27

75. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief. 42 U.S.C. § 12188.

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

20

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page22 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

2

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

3

Violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act

4

(California Civil Code §§ 51 & 52)

5

76. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as though fully set

6 forth herein.

7

77. The Unruh Civil Rights Act guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities

8 are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all

9 business establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the state of

10 California. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b).

11

78. The network of Uber vehicles providing transportation services to the general

12 public in California is a business establishment within the jurisdiction of the state of California,

13 and as such are obligated to comply with the provisions of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act,

14 California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq.

15

79. The Unruh Act provides, inter alia, that a violation of the ADA, §§ 12101 et seq.,

16 also constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f).

17

80. Defendant’s discriminatory conduct alleged herein includes, inter alia, the

18 violation of the rights of persons with disabilities set forth in Title III of the ADA and therefore

19 also violates the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f).

20

81. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act,

21 California Civil Code §§ 51, et seq. Members of Plaintiff NFB of California, including Plaintiff

22 Hingson, are aware of Defendant’s unlawful actions, and their knowledge of this discrimination

23 has deterred members of Plaintiff NFB of California, including Plaintiff Hingson, from

24 attempting to access the UberX taxi service on several occasions. Therefore Plaintiffs are entitled

25 to injunctive relief remedying the discrimination pursuant to California Civil Code § 52. Unless

26 the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiffs

27 will continue to suffer irreparable harm.

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

21

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page23 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

82. Plaintiff Hingson is also entitled to statutory minimum damages pursuant to

2 California Civil Code § 52 for each and every offense in violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ.

3 Code § 52(b).

4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

5

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

6

Violation of the California Disabled Persons Act

7

(California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3)

8

83. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as though fully set

9 forth herein.

10

84. California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3 guarantee, inter alia, that persons with

11 disabilities are entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public receive,

12 to accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of all “common carriers,” “motor

13 vehicles,” “places of public accommodation” and “other places to which the general public is

14 invited” within the jurisdiction of California. Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1(a)(1).

15

85. It is a violation of California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3 to prevent service dogs from

16 accompanying individuals with disabilities in any common carriers, motor vehicles, places of

17 public accommodation, or other places to which the general public is invited. Cal. Civ. Code §

18 54.2(a)-(b). Any violation of the ADA is also a violation of California Civil Code § 54.1. Cal.

19 Civ. Code § 54.1(d).

20

86. UberX vehicles providing transportation services to the general public are

21 common carriers, motor vehicles, places of public accommodation or other places to which the

22 general public is invited under California Civil Code §§ 54.1(a)(1).

23

87. Defendant is violating the rights of Plaintiffs to full and equal access to common

24 carriers, motor vehicles, places of public accommodation or other places to which the general

25 public is invited under California Civil Code §§54-54.3 by denying blind riders with service

26 dogs full and equal access to the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of Uber

27 vehicles providing the UberX taxi service. Defendant is also violating California Civil Code §§

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

22

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page24 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 54-54.3 in that its actions are a violation of the ADA. Members of Plaintiff NFB of California,

2 including Plaintiff Hingson, are aware of Defendant’s unlawful actions, and their knowledge of

3 this discrimination has deterred members of Plaintiff NFB of California, including Plaintiff

4 Hingson, from attempting to access the UberX taxi service on several occasions.

5

88. Plaintiffs thus seek declaratory relief based on Defendant’s violation of Plaintiffs’

6 rights under Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54-54.3.

7

89. Plaintiff Hingson is also entitled to statutory minimum damages for each violation

8 of. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54-54.3(a).

9

90. Plaintiffs do not seek relief under California Civil Code § 55.

10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

11

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

12

(Declaratory Relief on Behalf of Plaintiffs)

13

91. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully

14 herein.

15

92. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that

16 Plaintiffs contend, and are informed and believe that Defendant denies, that by failing to adopt

17 policies and procedures that would prevent drivers of Uber vehicles that provide the UberX taxi

18 service from denying rides to Plaintiffs and other blind individuals with service animals,

19 Defendant fails to comply with applicable laws, including but not limited to Title III of the

20 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., California Civil Code §§ 51 - 52,

21 and California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3.

22

93. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that each

23 of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.

24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request relief as set forth below.

25

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

26 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

23

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document1 Filed09/09/14 Page25 of 25

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

94. A permanent injunction pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

2 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., and the Unruh Act, California Civil Code §§ 51 – 52, requiring

3 Defendants to take the steps necessary to ensure that Uber’s drivers who provide UberX taxi

4 services do not unlawfully refuse to transport blind individuals with service animals, including

5 Plaintiffs.

6

95. A declaration that Defendant discriminates against blind persons by failing to

7 provide blind riders, including Plaintiffs, with full and equal access to the services, facilities,

8 privileges, advantages, and accommodations of Uber vehicles providing taxi services in violation

9 of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq., California Civil Code §§ 54- 54.3, and

10 California’s Unruh Act, California Civil Code §§ 51 – 52.

11

96. For Plaintiff Hingson, damages in an amount to be determined by proof, including

12 all applicable statutory damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 52(a) or California Civil

13 Code § 54.3.

14

97. An order awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as authorized

15 by 42 U.S.C. § 12188, California Civil Code § 52 and California Civil Code § 54.3; and

16

98. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

17

18 DATED: September 9, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

19
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 20

21

22

Michael Nunez

23

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

24

25

26

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

COMPLAINT

24

 </s> Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page1 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 LAURENCE PARADIS (CA BAR NO. 122336)

MICHAEL NUNEZ (CA BAR NO. 280535)

2 Disability Rights Advocates

2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor

3 Berkeley, California 94704-1204

Telephone: (510) 665-8644

4 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

TTY:

(510) 665-8716

5 Email:

mnunez@dralegal.org

Email:

lparadis@dralegal.org

6

TIMOTHY ELDER (CA BAR NO. 277152)

7 TRE Legal Practice

4226 Castanos Street

8 Fremont, CA 94536

Telephone: (410) 415-3493

9 Facsimile: (888) 718-0617

Email:

telder@trelegal.com

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

15

16 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, MICHAEL KELLY,
17 MICHAEL HINGSON, and MICHAEL PEDERSEN,
18
Plaintiffs, 19
v. 20
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, 21 LLC, and RASIER-CA, LLC,

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086 NC
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., THE CALIFORNIA UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51 & 52, AND THE CALIFORNIA DISABLED PERSONS ACT, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 54-54.3

22

Defendants.

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page2 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. This action seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by

3 Uber Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiaries operating in California, Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-

4 CA, LLC, (collectively “Uber” or “Defendants”) in California against blind individuals who use

5 guide dogs. Plaintiff National Federation of the Blind (“NFB”) of California sues on behalf of its

6 members, including Plaintiff Kelly, who has been and will continue to be denied access to

7 Uber’s UberX taxi service and Plaintiff Hingson, who has been and continues to be deterred

8 from using Uber’s UberX taxi service, all because Uber has failed to ensure that blind riders with

9 service animals, including many other members of Plaintiff NFB of California, can access

10 Uber’s taxi services. Likewise, Michael Pedersen, a blind resident of San Francisco who uses a

11 guide dog, also sues alongside Plaintiff NFB of California because Pedersen has been and will

12 continue to be denied access to UberX taxi services on the basis of his using a service animal.

13

2. Uber offers the UberX taxi service to sighted individuals in California. UberX is

14 highly cost-effective and widely available. Uber uses mobile software applications to arrange

15 rides between passengers and its fleet of UberX drivers in much the same way that a taxi

16 dispatch arranges rides for customers.

17

3. UberX drivers are refusing to transport many blind individuals who use service

18 animals, including members of NFB of California. For example, UberX drivers refused to

19 transport Jamey Gump, Manveen Chahal, Cody Austin Meyer, Brooklyn Rodden, Michael Kelly,

20 Jessie Lorenz, Jonathan Lyens, and Juanita Herrera (all blind members of NFB of California)

21 because they use guide dogs. Further, UberX drivers across the United States are likewise

22 refusing to transport blind individuals, including identified UberX drivers who denied rides to

23 one blind woman on twelve separate occasions, charged blind riders cancellation fees, refused

24 service to a blind parent on her way to a pharmacy to get a prescription for her feverish toddler,

25 and abandoned blind travelers in extreme weather, all because of guide dogs. In total, Plaintiffs

26 are aware of more than forty instances where drivers of UberX vehicles refused to transport blind

27 individuals with service animals. UberX drivers that refused to transport these blind individuals

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page3 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 did so after they initially agreed to transport the riders. The UberX drivers denied the requested

2 transportation service after the drivers had arrived and discovered that the riders used service

3 animals.

4

4. In addition, some UberX drivers seriously mishandle guide dogs, harass blind

5 customers with guide dogs, or give low feedback scores to passengers with service animals even

6 when drivers do not outright deny the provision of taxi service. For example, Leena Dawes is

7 blind and uses a guide dog. An UberX driver locked Ms. Dawes’ guide dog in the closed trunk of

8 the UberX sedan before transporting Ms. Dawes. When Ms. Dawes realized where the driver had

9 placed her dog, she demanded that the driver pull over so that she could retrieve her dog from the

10 trunk, but the driver refused her request. Other blind customers with guide dogs have been yelled

11 at by Uber drivers who are hostile toward their guide dogs. In addition, upon information and

12 belief, passengers with service animals receive lower average ratings from UberX drivers. A

13 lower rating reduces the probability that Uber will provide transportation to a passenger in the

14 future or reassign that same driver to transport the passenger with the service animal.

15

5. Many of these blind individuals submitted written complaints to Uber concerning

16 the discriminatory treatment that they experienced. However, Uber has failed to notify most of

17 these individuals regarding whether Uber has thoroughly investigated their complaints,

18 disciplined the relevant UberX drivers, or taken any other meaningful steps to ensure that these

19 drivers do not continue to unlawfully discriminate against them or other individuals with service

20 animals. Instead, Uber representatives often respond to these complaints by denying

21 responsibility for the discrimination. Meanwhile, many of these blind individuals experience

22 ongoing denials from multiple drivers.

23

6. Plaintiff Kelly is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB of California.

24 Mr. Kelly travels in UberX vehicles with companions who use the Uber app. Mr. Kelly and his

25 companions have been denied access to UberX taxi services because of the presence of Mr.

26 Kelly’s service animal.

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

2

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page4 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

7. Plaintiff Hingson is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB of

2 California. Mr. Hingson, a public speaker and best-selling author, travels extensively throughout

3 California and has traveled with a guide dog for decades. Mr. Hingson is aware of Uber’s

4 widespread discrimination against blind individuals with service animals, and Mr. Hingson has

5 refrained and continues to refrain from creating an Uber user account or otherwise using Uber’s

6 transportation services because he fears experiencing similar discrimination. Mr. Hingson has

7 been deterred from using UberX on many specific occasions when it would have been

8 convenient for him to use Uber’s services.

9

8. Plaintiff Pedersen is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a resident of San Francisco,

10 California. Mr. Pedersen has been denied access to UberX taxi services multiple times because

11 of the presence of his service animal. Mr. Pedersen will continue to attempt to use the UberX

12 service. Mr. Pedersen would like to continue using UberX taxi services without fear that UberX

13 drivers will refuse to transport him.

14

9. When Uber denies rides to blind riders with service animals, blind individuals

15 experience several harms. They face unexpected delays, they must arrange alternate

16 transportation that is sometimes more costly, and they face the degrading experience of being

17 denied a basic service that is available to all other paying customers.

18

10. In addition, Uber charges many blind riders with guide dogs cancellation fees

19 after UberX drivers have unlawfully denied them service. These blind riders are also often

20 placed in the uncomfortable position of explaining to uninformed UberX drivers that service

21 animals are protected by law and that blind people have the right to bring service animals into

22 vehicles providing taxi services.

23

11. Uber is violating basic equal access requirements under both the ADA and state

24 law by failing to implement policies and procedures that would prevent or reduce discrimination

25 against blind riders committed by UberX drivers. Because Uber closely monitors and tightly

26 controls interactions between UberX drivers and its customers, Uber can implement policies and

27 procedures, including policies and procedures that leverage its mobile smart phone software

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

3

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page5 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 applications, that would prevent or reduce discrimination committed by its drivers against blind

2 riders with service dogs. However, Uber insists that it is not a transportation provider and that it

3 is not legally obligated to take any steps to ensure that its drivers do not discriminate against

4 blind riders. Uber maintains this position despite the fact that the California Public Utilities

5 Commission ruled that Uber is a transportation provider operating the UberX transportation

6 service.

7

12. UberX and other similar taxi services are a critical transportation option for many

8 blind individuals in California. Due to distances between destinations and the limitations of

9 public transportation and paratransit, many blind persons must use taxi services to travel from

10 one place to another. The fact that UberX vehicles have frequently refused to transport Plaintiffs

11 Kelly and Pedersen and other blind riders with service animals, and that this discrimination

12 deters Plaintiff Hingson and other members of Plaintiff NFB of California with service animals

13 from using UberX, means that members of Plaintiff NFB of California are denied full and equal

14 access to this critical mode of transportation.

15

13. Due to the public’s widespread adoption of smart phones, Uber and other

16 transportation network companies are quickly supplanting traditional taxi companies and

17 becoming the public’s primary option for on-demand taxi services. Uber offers taxi services in

18 most of California’s largest cities and is quickly spreading.

19

14. Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of

20 discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the Americans with

21 Disabilities Act. Such prohibited discrimination includes discrimination in the provision of taxi

22 services and other transportation services. Similarly, California state law requires full and equal

23 access to all business establishments and places where the public is invited, including vehicles

24 providing taxi services.

25

15. Plaintiffs NFB of California and Hingson proposed to Uber that the parties avoid

26 litigation and instead attempt to resolve this matter through structured negotiations, but

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

4

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page6 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Defendant Uber refused. Plaintiffs were ultimately unable to obtain a commitment by Defendant

2 Uber to remedy these barriers to full and equal access.

3

JURISDICTION

4

16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

5 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 12188, for Plaintiffs’ claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities

6 Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.

7

17. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over

8 Plaintiffs’ pendent claims under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code §§

9 51, et seq.), and the Disabled Persons Act (California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3).

10

VENUE

11

18. Venue is proper in the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c).

12

19. Defendants are headquartered in the Northern District of California and are

13 registered to do business in California. Defendants do business in the Northern District of

14 California. Defendants operate fleets of vehicles providing taxi services in cities throughout

15 California, including fleets providing taxi services in the Northern District of California.

16

20. Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of

17 California. Defendants have been and are committing the acts alleged herein in the Northern

18 District of California, have been and are violating the rights of consumers with disabilities in the

19 Northern District of California, and have been and are causing injury to consumers with

20 disabilities in the Northern District of California.

21

21. Plaintiff NFB of California has many members who reside in the Northern

22 District of California. In addition, Plaintiffs Hingson and Pedersen have experienced injury in the

23 Northern District of California.

24

PARTIES

25

22. NFB of California is a duly organized nonprofit association of blind Californians.

26 It is the California State affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind. NFB of California’s

27 mission is to promote the vocational, cultural, and social advancement of the blind; to achieve

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page7 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 the integration of the blind into society on a basis of equality with the sighted; and to take any

2 other action which will improve the overall condition and standard of living of the blind.

3 Reliable access to modern, publicly available transportation services such as UberX is critical to

4 NFB of California and its members. Securing access to the UberX taxi service advances NFB of

5 California’s goal to promote integration of the blind into society on a basis of equality by

6 enabling blind individuals to travel in the same way that many sighted individuals travel. UberX

7 drivers have refused to transport members of NFB of California because they have service

8 animals. NFB of California sues on behalf of its members who have been denied access to or

9 deterred from using the UberX service due to unlawful discrimination against blind individuals

10 with service animals. NFB of California also sues in furtherance of its extensive efforts and

11 expenditure of resources in advancing its mission to improve independence of the blind.

12 Securing access to the UberX service advances this mission because access to the UberX service

13 enables blind individuals to travel more independently. Thus, discrimination against members of

14 NFB of California and other blind individuals who use service animals frustrates this mission of

15 NFB of California and results in the diversion of its resources to address Defendants’

16 discriminatory practices.

17

23. Plaintiff Michael Kelly is blind, uses a guide dog, is a member of NFB of

18 California, and currently resides in Sacramento, California. Mr. Kelly is a musician and virtuoso

19 electric bassist. Mr. Kelly often travels with his girlfriend, who has an Uber account. Mr. Kelly

20 and his girlfriend prefer to travel together when going out to eat or running errands in the

21 Sacramento area. The UberX service potentially offers a convenient and affordable way for Mr.

22 Kelly and his girlfriend to travel, though this convenience is undermined by the discriminatory

23 practices of Uber. Mr. Kelly will continue to attempt to travel using the UberX taxi service with

24 his girlfriend and other companions who use the Uber mobile application. Mr. Kelly and his

25 girlfriend have been and will continue to be denied access to UberX taxi services because of the

26 presence of Mr. Kelly’s service animal.

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

6

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page8 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

24. Plaintiff Michael Hingson is blind, uses a guide dog, is a member of NFB of

2 California, and currently resides in Victorville, California. Mr. Hingson is a public speaker and a

3 best-selling author who has traveled with a guide dog for decades. Mr. Hingson regularly travels

4 and regularly uses taxis within California for work and leisure. Mr. Hingson often travels to Los

5 Angeles and Sacramento in connection with his advocacy work for NFB of California. He also

6 regularly travels to San Francisco for personal and professional business. Though Mr. Hingson

7 would like to use the UberX transportation service, he is deterred from signing up for and

8 attempting to use Uber’s transportation services because of the discrimination that other blind

9 guide dog users have experienced when attempting to use the UberX taxi service. Mr. Hingson

10 owns and regularly uses an iPhone capable of running the Uber iPhone application, and Mr.

11 Hingson has a credit card that he could use to pay for the UberX taxi service.

12

25. Plaintiff Michael Pedersen is blind, uses a guide dog, and currently resides in San

13 Francisco, California. Mr. Pedersen is employed as a software developer and regularly commutes

14 from his home in San Francisco to his place of work in Cupertino, California. Mr. Pedersen’s

15 wife has used her Uber account to request rides for Mr. Pedersen as he is preparing to leave for

16 work in the morning. Mr. Pedersen has been denied access to UberX taxi services multiple times

17 because of his service animal. Mr. Pedersen will continue to attempt to travel using the UberX

18 taxi service. Mr. Pedersen will continue to be denied access to UberX taxi services because of

19 the presence of his service animal.

20

26. The term “Plaintiffs” used in this complaint means NFB of California, on behalf

21 of itself and its members with service animals who have been denied access to or deterred from

22 using the UberX taxi service because of discrimination against blind persons with service

23 animals, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Hingson, and Mr. Pedersen, unless otherwise indicated.

24

27. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., a for-profit transportation network company

25 based in California, with its subsidiaries Defendants Rasier, LLC and Rasier-CA, LLC, provides

26 transportation services through thousands of vehicles in California. Uber uses smart phone

27 software applications to arrange rides between passengers and its fleet of drivers in much the

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

7

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page9 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 same way that a taxi dispatch arranges rides for customers. Uber closely monitors and controls

2 interactions between its drivers and customers. Uber’s customers request rides through Uber;

3 Uber identifies an available driver to transport each customer; Uber bills customers for their rides

4 in UberX vehicles; Uber provides customers with receipts; and Uber handles inquiries and

5 complaints from customers concerning Uber’s drivers and taxi services. Uber also controls the

6 financial transaction associated with each ride that UberX drivers provide to customers.

7

28. Defendants Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC are wholly-owned subsidiaries of

8 Uber that operate within the state of California. Upon information and belief, these subsidiaries

9 are required parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(1) because in their

10 absence, the court cannot accord complete relief from Uber alone.

11

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12

29. Uber provides several different taxi services to members of the general public in a

13 rapidly expanding number of metropolitan areas across California and the United States. Uber’s

14 taxi services vary based on the type of vehicle providing the transportation. UberX is one of

15 Uber’s most cost-effective taxi services. To use Uber taxi services, an individual must either (1)

16 create a user account, and provide Uber with her phone number, credit card information, and

17 email address, or (2) travel as the guest of an individual with an Uber customer account. Uber

18 has developed mobile software applications for iPhones, Android phones, and Windows phones

19 that customers use to request transportation from Uber for themselves and/or guests. An UberX

20 taxi vehicle is able to transport a single passenger or group of passengers traveling together up to

21 the safe capacity of the requested vehicle, which is usually no more than four passengers.

22

30. To use the UberX taxi service, a customer submits a request on behalf of himself

23 or other passengers through one of Uber’s mobile software applications. Once Uber identifies the

24 vehicle that will provide the requester or the requester’s party with taxi service, Uber notifies the

25 requester either by text message or through its smart phone application. The notification includes

26 the UberX driver’s name, customer rating, phone number, vehicle license plate number, make

27 and model of the UberX vehicle, and the driver’s estimated time of arrival. Uber’s mobile

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page10 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 application allows the requesting customer to track the UberX vehicle’s location as the driver

2 navigates to the requesting customer’s identified pick-up address. Requesting customers may

3 also submit the desired trip destination through Uber’s mobile application.

4

31. Uber notifies the requesting customer once his or her UberX vehicle has arrived.

5 The requester or any other associated passengers may then board the vehicle. If the requesting

6 customer submitted the destination address to Uber, then Uber will supply the UberX driver with

7 turn-by-turn directions to the desired destination. If the requesting customer did not enter the

8 destination into Uber’s application, the passenger(s) must provide the driver with the desired

9 destination. The driver then starts the fare meter in the Uber software application and proceeds to

10 the desired destination. When the vehicle arrives at the desired destination, the driver ends the

11 trip in the Uber smart phone application.

12

32. Uber decides who may provide its UberX taxi service. Individuals who wish to

13 provide UberX taxi services must take an exam, undergo a criminal background check, undergo

14 a driving record check, present their driver’s license, vehicle registration, and driver’s insurance,

15 and complete various forms. Once an individual becomes an UberX driver, Uber controls which

16 trip requests are transmitted to each of its UberX drivers. Uber also exercises exclusive control

17 over termination of UberX drivers, and Uber routinely terminates drivers for several reasons,

18 including for poor ratings from customers.

19

33. Uber also controls who may use the UberX taxi service. Uber makes the UberX

20 service available only to passengers when at least one requesting customer has a credit card and a

21 smart phone that can run one of its mobile applications, creates an Uber account, and requests a

22 ride through Uber’s mobile application. Customers cannot access the UberX taxi service by

23 physically hailing an UberX vehicle on the street.

24

34. Uber exercises significant control over the UberX taxi service, and Uber has

25 detailed requirements for driver conduct and appearance. Uber has requirements for the type and

26 age of the vehicle that drivers may use to provide the UberX taxi service. In addition, before an

27 UberX driver may use a vehicle to provide UberX taxi services in California, the vehicle must

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page11 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 pass an inspection. Uber also requires that UberX drivers refrain from smoking while providing

2 Uber taxi services, refrain from asking customers to give them five-star ratings, and meet or

3 exceed the estimated time-of-arrival that Uber generates and provides to each customer. In

4 addition, Uber instructs UberX drivers that the share of trip requests that they accept through

5 Uber’s application should be consistently high, and that UberX drivers may not accept street

6 hails from potential passengers. Furthermore, Uber issues training and directives concerning

7 other requirements to UberX drivers.

8

35. Uber also closely monitors its UberX drivers. Uber records many details about the

9 taxi services that its UberX drivers provide, including for each trip: (1) the pickup location, (2)

10 the time of pickup, (3) the drop off location, (4) the time of drop off, (5) the distance traveled, (6)

11 the trip route, (7) the trip duration, and (8) the customer’s identity. Uber employees who

12 supervise drivers have easy access to this data. In addition, Uber periodically reviews the driving

13 record for each of its UberX drivers. Uber also monitors its UberX drivers’ performance by

14 asking customers for written feedback after every ride that a driver provides, and Uber routinely

15 follows up with customers who express dissatisfaction. Customers who wish to lodge complaints

16 concerning UberX drivers do so by contacting Uber. Furthermore, Uber regularly terminates or

17 suspends UberX drivers whose average customer rating falls below a certain threshold.

18

36. In addition, Uber provides UberX drivers with supplies necessary to provide

19 Uber’s taxi services. Uber provides UberX drivers with iPhones loaded with Uber’s smart phone

20 application. When providing Uber’s taxi services, drivers use these phones to receive and

21 respond to trip requests, receive GPS-based navigational guidance, record the beginning and end

22 of each trip, communicate with customers, and cancel trips. In addition, Uber maintains general

23 commercial liability insurance to cover claims concerning incidents that occur while drivers are

24 providing UberX taxi services.

25

37. Uber tightly controls payment for its UberX taxi services. Customers do not pay

26 drivers of Uber vehicles directly. Instead, Uber automatically charges a customer’s credit card

27 after the UberX vehicle arrives at the desired destination. Uber has exclusive control over the

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page12 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 fares that customers pay and the compensation that UberX drivers receive. Fares for Uber’s taxi

2 services are based on the duration and distance of each trip and other factors such as demand at

3 the time and place of the ride, as determined by Uber’s algorithms. Uber keeps twenty percent of

4 each fare. Thus, Uber compensates its UberX drivers based on the duration and distance of the

5 trips that they provide to passengers. Payments are not transferred directly from customers to

6 UberX drivers; rather, Uber collects and holds customer payments, deducts fees, and then later

7 transfers money to drivers on a set schedule. Customers who dispute the fare for a particular trip

8 must contact Uber customer service representatives to request an adjustment to their fares.

9

38. Thus, Uber closely monitors and controls interactions between UberX drivers and

10 customers. Uber decides which of its UberX drivers may transport each customer. In addition,

11 Uber specifies how quickly each UberX driver should pick up each customer. After UberX

12 drivers pick up customers, Uber routinely provides UberX drivers with directions to customers’

13 destinations, and Uber specifies driver conduct that is prohibited while UberX drivers transport

14 customers. Moreover, Uber decides how much each customer will be charged for each trip and

15 how much it will compensate the driver for the trip, and Uber provides each customer with a fare

16 receipt. Customers and drivers must communicate through Uber’s mobile application. Uber

17 records trip-related details about every trip that each UberX driver provides to each customer,

18 and Uber collects written feedback from every customer concerning the quality of each UberX

19 driver’s performance after every trip. Furthermore, customers who forget personal property in

20 UberX vehicles may contact Uber to request assistance retrieving that property.

21

39. On September 19, 2013, the California Public Utilities Commission ruled that

22 Uber is a transportation provider with respect to the UberX service. The Commission requires

23 that Uber possess a Class P Charter Party Carrier permit issued by the Commission to operate the

24 UberX service in California. The Commission concluded that Uber is a transportation provider

25 because Uber provides essentially the same function as a taxi dispatch office and because Uber

26 controls payment for its transportation services. The Commission also explained that the fact that

27 a smart phone application is used to arrange Uber’s transportation service is irrelevant to whether

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

11

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page13 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Uber is a transportation provider. In addition, the Commission stated that Uber may not

2 discriminate against people with disabilities in the provision of its UberX transportation service

3 and required that Uber’s website and mobile applications comply with Level AA of version 2.0

4 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

5

40. Members of Plaintiff NFB of California and other blind individuals use Uber’s

6 UberX taxi service. Many of these individuals operate Uber’s smart phone software application

7 using text-to-speech technology that is built into iPhones. Text-to-speech software, commonly

8 used by persons who are blind or visually impaired, enables blind persons to operate smart

9 phones by translating visual information and text displayed on a touchscreen device into audible

10 synthesized speech or into Braille on a portable electronic braille display.

11

41. UberX drivers have refused on the basis of disability to transport many blind

12 individuals with service animals, including members of Plaintiff NFB of California.

13

42. For example, Jamey Gump is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB of

14 California. On or about March 23, 2014, an UberX driver refused to transport Mr. Gump in San

15 Leandro, California from a work-related event to his home. On that occasion, Mr. Gump used the

16 Uber mobile app to summon an UberX taxi. The UberX driver pulled the vehicle up to where

17 Mr. Gump was standing on the curb and, after noticing that Mr. Gump had a dog, said “no pets

18 allowed.” Mr. Gump tried to explain that his guide dog was a service animal and that the UberX

19 driver had a legal obligation to allow the service animal into the vehicle. Mr. Gump attempted to

20 show the UberX driver an official guide dog identification card issued by his guide dog’s

21 training program. The driver adamantly refused to let Mr. Gump into the vehicle and drove

22 away.

23

43. On or about May 21, 2014, another UberX driver refused to transport Mr. Gump

24 and a friend who also uses a service animal because of their service animals. On that occasion,

25 Mr. Gump and Manveen Chahal, a friend and fellow member of NFB of California who also

26 uses a service animal, were enjoying an evening at the Dutch Goose, a local pub in downtown

27 Menlo Park, California. Mr. Gump had planned to leave on a trip early the next morning and

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

12

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page14 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 requested an UberX ride to get to his home in Menlo Park because of the late hour. After the

2 requested UberX vehicle had pulled up to the curb, Mr. Gump and Mr. Chahal attempted to enter

3 the vehicle and opened a passenger door. The UberX driver began shouting “no dogs!” Mr.

4 Gump tried to explain that their dogs were service animals for their disabilities and were legally

5 allowed in the vehicle. The UberX driver began shouting and cursing at Mr. Gump and Mr.

6 Chahal in a language that Mr. Gump did not understand. Mr. Chahal speaks the language and

7 was offended by the profanity and insults. As Mr. Gump attempted to enter the vehicle, the

8 UberX driver quickly accelerated the vehicle forward, nearly injuring Mr. Gump’s guide dog and

9 causing an open passenger door to strike Mr. Chahal. The UberX driver then sped away and

10 cancelled the ride request. Mr. Gump and Mr. Chahal immediately called the police to file a

11 report and used alternative transportation to travel home approximately forty-five minutes later.

12

44. On August 20, 2014, Mr. Gump requested an UberX ride to pick him up at 214

13 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, California. Mr. Gump determined from the map in the Uber

14 iPhone application that his requested vehicle was about to turn onto his street. Mr. Gump then

15 went out to the curb with his guide dog in direct sight of the oncoming vehicle to intercept the

16 UberX driver. Mr. Gump noticed a vehicle slow its speed to a near stop in front of him and then

17 accelerate again as it passed him on the curb. A few seconds later, Mr. Gump received a

18 notification on his phone that the UberX driver had cancelled the ride. Mr. Gump then requested

19 a second UberX ride, but Uber assigned the exact same driver and vehicle to pick up Mr. Gump

20 for a second time. Again, a few seconds after Mr. Gump received confirmation that this same

21 driver was on the way, the driver cancelled on him for a second time.

22

45. Mr. Gump wants to use the UberX taxi service because it is available near his

23 home, an area with limited public transportation, and it would be convenient if it was reliably

24 accessible and non-discriminatory. However, after this most recent experience, he has used Uber

25 less frequently than previously because he concluded that it is not a reliable transportation option

26 for him. Notwithstanding Mr. Gump’s repeated complaints to Uber about his negative

27 experiences over the last several months, his access to Uber’s services has not improved when he

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

13

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page15 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 does still attempt to use the service. Mr. Gump hopes that Uber will change its policies and

2 practices to better prevent discrimination against passengers with service animals so that he can

3 enjoy Uber with the same convenience and reliability enjoyed by others.

4

46. Cody Austin Meyer is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB of

5 California. An UberX driver refused to transport Mr. Meyer on September 30, 2014. On that

6 occasion, Mr. Meyer was shopping at a grocery store in the Mission Valley Shopping Center in

7 Fremont, California and needed a way to transport his groceries back to his apartment. Mr.

8 Meyer used the Uber iPhone app to request an UberX vehicle. An UberX driver was assigned to

9 pick Mr. Meyer up at the shopping center. Mr. Meyer was standing on the curb in the shopping

10 center waiting for the assigned UberX driver when Mr. Meyer noticed a vehicle pull up near

11 where he was standing and remain inactive for an extended period of time. The UberX driver

12 then called Mr. Meyer’s cell phone. When the UberX driver observed Mr. Meyers answering his

13 cell phone, the nearby vehicle rolled a window down and told Mr. Meyer “no dogs!” Mr. Meyer

14 explained that it was a certified service animal and it was illegal for the driver to refuse to take

15 him. The UberX driver then began to drive away. Mr. Meyer warned that he would report this

16 incident to Uber. The UberX driver said “go ahead” and left.

17

47. Mr. Meyer was then charged a cancellation fee. Because Mr. Meyer did not want

18 to risk being denied by yet another UberX driver, Mr. Meyer went to the bus stop with his

19 groceries to catch the next bus. After a prolonged wait for the bus, Mr. Meyer called a friend to

20 talk about the incident and that friend eventually came to pick up Mr. Meyer using the friend’s

21 personal vehicle. Using a computer equipped with screen reader software, software that enables

22 blind individuals to read and interact with text and controls on properly coded websites, Mr.

23 Meyer visited Uber’s website the next day to submit a complaint. However, he had difficulty

24 submitting a complaint on Uber’s website because of its inaccessible design. Mr. Meyer called

25 the telephone number listed on Uber’s website and encountered a busy signal. Mr. Meyer was

26 required to spend an extended period of time composing and submitting a written complaint to

27 Uber in order to get the cancellation fee refunded.

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

14

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page16 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

48. Brooklyn Rodden is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB of

2 California. An UberX driver refused to transport her and her boyfriend, Plaintiff Michael Kelly,

3 who also uses a service animal, on or about September 13, 2014. On that occasion, Ms. Rodden

4 used her Uber app to request an UberX vehicle so that she and Plaintiff Kelly could go out to

5 dinner at Chicago Fire Pizza, a local pizza parlor in Sacramento, California. When the requested

6 UberX driver arrived, Ms. Rodden and Plaintiff Kelly attempted to enter the vehicle with their

7 service animals and were refused access by the UberX driver. Though Ms. Rodden and Plaintiff

8 Kelly explained that the UberX driver’s conduct was illegal, the UberX driver maintained his

9 refusal to transport them because of their service animals and then drove away.

10

49. Jessie Lorenz is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB of California.

11 An Uber driver refused to transport Ms. Lorenz on or about November 30, 2012. On that

12 occasion, Ms. Lorenz was leaving a fundraising event at Chevys Fresh Mex restaurant located at

13 201 3rd Street in San Francisco. Ms. Lorenz and a friend both felt tired and decided to request an

14 Uber taxi to BART. Ms. Lorenz’s blind friend uses a white cane instead of a service animal.

15 When the Uber vehicle arrived, the driver said “I don’t take dogs.” Ms. Lorenz did not want to

16 have an argument with the Uber driver, so she did not protest. The driver was willing to transport

17 Ms. Lorenz’s blind friend, so he took the Uber vehicle. Ms. Lorenz then walked to BART alone.

18 After that experience, Ms. Lorenz decided not to continue using Uber because she has other taxi

19 options and does not want to deal with the potential hassle and humiliation that accompanies

20 being denied a ride by an Uber driver.

21

50. Jonathan Lyens is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB of California.

22 An UberX driver refused to transport him from his home to a job interview in San Francisco,

23 California on or about February 20, 2014. On or about 8:30 a.m. on that date, Mr. Lyens

24 requested UberX transportation from his home in San Francisco. Uber notified Mr. Lyens that it

25 had identified an UberX vehicle to transport him, and Uber notified Mr. Lyens when the vehicle

26 arrived at his home. Mr. Lyens then went with his guide dog to the street in front of his home to

27 find his UberX vehicle. Mr. Lyens observed that a vehicle arrived at his home briefly after Uber

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

15

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page17 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 notified him that his transportation had arrived. Uber then notified Mr. Lyens that the driver of

2 the Uber vehicle had cancelled his ride, and Mr. Lyens observed the vehicle in front of his home

3 leave. As a result of this cancellation, Mr. Lyens had to pay a higher fare for transportation to his

4 interview. He was also late to his interview because of the delay.

5

51. Juanita Herrera is a blind college student, uses a guide dog, is a member of NFB

6 of California, and resides in Southern California. Ms. Herrera is interested in using the UberX

7 service because it is more convenient and affordable than other taxi options. She attempted to use

8 the UberX service for the first time on August 7, 2014. She requested a ride from the Macy’s

9 store located at 6200 Slauson Avenue in Culver City, California. She was standing in front of the

10 store waiting for her requested ride when an Uber driver approached her and asked if she was

11 waiting for Uber. She answered yes, and the Uber driver asked if her dog was coming with her.

12 She told him that her dog would accompany her and that her dog is not a pet. She explained that

13 her dog is a service animal and that he was legally required to take both her and her service

14 animal. The UberX driver ignored her plea and refused to let her service animal enter the vehicle.

15 The UberX driver told her that he was leaving for his next passenger. He then left Ms. Herrera

16 standing dejected on the curb with her service animal. As a result, Ms. Herrera waited thirty

17 minutes for a bus and then rode the bus for 25 minutes to get to her destination. The trip takes ten

18 minutes in an UberX taxi.

19

52. Robert Schulenburg is blind, uses a guide dog, and resides in California. UberX

20 drivers have refused to transport Mr. Schulenburg on at least five separate occasions in several

21 California cities, including Santa Clara, San Jose, Campbell, and Sacramento, because of his

22 guide dog. When these drivers were willing to speak with him, Mr. Schulenburg explained to the

23 drivers that he had the legal right to bring his service animal with him, but the drivers ignored his

24 explanations, and many of the drivers informed him that they had not received training

25 concerning service animals. In addition, Uber has charged him cancellation fees after some

26 UberX drivers refused to transport him, and Mr. Schulenburg has been forced to submit written

27 complaints to Uber to get these fees refunded. When UberX drivers have refused to transport Mr.

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

16

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page18 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Schulenburg, he has faced delays of up to thirty minutes as he awaits alternative transportation.

2 Mr. Schulenburg has submitted written complaints about these instances of discrimination to

3 Uber. However, Uber has failed to inform Mr. Schulenburg whether Uber disciplined the

4 relevant drivers or took any other steps to ensure that these drivers would not unlawfully

5 discriminate against him again or other individuals with service animals. Instead, Uber

6 responded to some of Mr. Schulenburg’s complaints by stating that Uber cannot control its

7 drivers’ conduct because the drivers are independent contractors and by advising Mr.

8 Schulenburg that he should inform UberX drivers of their legal obligation to allow his service

9 animal to accompany him.

10

53. Richard Rueda is blind, uses a guide dog, and resides in California. Mr. Rueda

11 attended the annual convention for NFB of California, which was held in Southern California on

12 October 9-12, 2014. In connection with Mr. Rueda’s travels to and from that convention, at least

13 two different UberX drivers refused to transport him because of his service animal. On October

14 10, 2014, Mr. Rueda requested an UberX trip from his parents’ home in Whittier, California to

15 the NFB of California convention at the Embassy Suites in El Segundo. When the driver arrived,

16 he stepped out of his vehicle and informed Mr. Rueda that he would not transport dogs because

17 he has had issues with dogs in the past. In response, Mr. Rueda explained to the driver that his

18 dog was a service animal, not a pet. The UberX driver repeated his objection, reentered his

19 vehicle, and left the scene.

20

54. Again, on October 12, 2014, Mr. Rueda requested an Uber vehicle back to his

21 parents’ home in Whittier. An Uber driver accepted the trip request. Mr. Rueda called the driver

22 to inform her of his location and to inform her that he had a service animal. In response, the

23 driver stated that she could not transport him because of the dog and then canceled his ride

24 request. Mr. Rueda then requested a second Uber vehicle. Again, after Mr. Rueda spoke with this

25 driver on the phone, the driver canceled the trip. Mr. Rueda made a third attempt and requested a

26 third Uber vehicle. A driver named Jesus accepted his trip request and transported him without

27 incident. When Mr. Rueda told Jesus about Uber drivers denying him rides, Jesus stated that he

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

17

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page19 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 knew of other Uber drivers who refused to transport dogs because the drivers did not want dog

2 hair in their cars.

3

55. Thomas Foley is blind, uses a guide dog, and resides in California. An UberX

4 driver refused to transport Mr. Foley on or about September 5, 2014. On that occasion, Mr. Foley

5 used the Uber app to request an UberX ride from his place of work in Berkeley, California on his

6 way to an appointment. He waited for his ride in front of the building. The Uber app notified Mr.

7 Foley that his vehicle, a Toyota Corolla, was arriving, and a few seconds later a car pulled up

8 about ten feet from him. Mr. Foley proceeded to the car, reached for the door, and shouted

9 “Uber?” The car then drove away. Approximately 30 seconds later, the Uber app informed Mr.

10 Foley that the driver had cancelled his ride. Mr. Foley then conferred with a sighted individual at

11 a nearby bus stop who confirmed that the car that just drove away was a Toyota Corolla and that

12 the driver looked at Mr. Foley and his guide dog shortly before leaving the scene. Mr. Foley was

13 late to his appointment because of this incident.

14

56. Sarah Outwater is blind and uses a guide dog. UberX drivers refused to transport

15 her in Boston on at least twelve separate occasions over the last year. Uber charged her

16 cancellation fees in some instances where the UberX vehicles refused to transport her. In

17 addition, the same UberX driver refused to transport her on three of these occasions, despite an

18 Uber representative’s prior assurances that Uber would address the driver’s discriminatory

19 practices.

20

57. Mark Cadigan is blind and uses a guide dog. During the month of August 2014,

21 Mr. Cadigan was denied service by two UberX drivers in the Boston area because of his service

22 animal. On both occasions, Uber charged Mr. Cadigan cancellation fees after the UberX drivers

23 cancelled the trip. Mr. Cadigan was forced to submit written complaints to Uber and to wait one

24 to three business days to get these cancellation fees refunded. His written complaints also

25 described the discrimination that he experienced. Mr. Cadigan is unsatisfied with Uber’s

26 responses to his complaints. He received no formal response on one occasion and was verbally

27 told on the other occasion that the UberX driver had merely been reprimanded. Mr. Cadigan

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

18

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page20 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 believes Uber does not adequately or consistently discipline UberX drivers when complaints are

2 made to Uber customer service representatives.

3

58. Kristin Fleschner is blind and uses a guide dog. UberX drivers refused to transport

4 her in the Boston area because of her service animal on at least five separate occasions over the

5 previous year. On one of those occasions she was left stranded in the rain while trying to secure

6 replacement transportation. Ms. Fleschner was unable to submit a complaint on Uber’s website

7 because of accessibility barriers in the design of that website that prevent a blind person from

8 using it with standard screen access software.

9

59. Melissa Riccobono is blind and uses a guide dog. An UberX driver refused to

10 transport Ms. Riccobono in the Baltimore, Maryland, area on October 8, 2014. On that occasion,

11 Ms. Riccobono needed to travel to a local pharmacy to pick up a prescription for her sick child,

12 who had a high fever. The UberX driver that she had requested using Uber’s app refused to take

13 her because of her service animal. The driver maintained his refusal even after Ms. Riccobono

14 had explained her rights and tried to change the driver’s mind. Ms. Riccobono is a mother of

15 three young children and depends on reliable and timely transportation services to take care of

16 her family.

17

60. Mariea Harris is blind and uses a guide dog. An UberX driver refused to transport

18 Ms. Harris in the Charlotte, North Carolina, area on October 25, 2014 because she uses a service

19 animal. Ms. Harris planned to use Uber to travel from her home to a local grocery store with a

20 friend who also uses a service animal. When the requested UberX vehicle arrived, Ms. Harris

21 received a notification in the Uber app. Ms. Harris’s friend who uses a service animal went

22 outside to intercept the vehicle. The UberX driver refused to let Ms. Harris’s friend into the

23 vehicle because of her guide dog. Ms. Harris then came out of the house with her guide dog and

24 approached the vehicle to talk to the UberX driver through the open driver-side window. The

25 UberX driver told Ms. Harris that he did not have to take the dogs because the vehicle was his

26 own personal car. Ms. Harris explained that the ADA required the UberX driver to transport the

27 dogs and that the driver could lose his job if he did not comply. The UberX driver disagreed,

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

19

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page21 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 drove away, and canceled the trip request. Ms. Harris attempted to go to Uber’s website to file a

2 complaint while she waited for alternative transportation. Ms. Harris then experienced difficulty

3 using Uber’s website because of accessibility barriers in its design that inhibited her from using

4 her screen reader technology to access the content on Uber’s website.

5

61. Dimitrios Kouniaris is blind and uses a guide dog. During August 2014, UberX

6 drivers refused to transport Mr. Kouniaris on two occasions in Austin, Texas because of his

7 service animal. On both occasions, Mr. Kouniaris was stranded in temperatures of over 100 °F as

8 he waited for alternative transportation. Uber also charged Mr. Kouniaris a cancellation fee and

9 only refunded it after he complained. Mr. Kouniaris has since stopped using the UberX service

10 because he does not want to face the risk that additional UberX drivers will refuse to transport

11 him or mistreat him because of his service animal. However, Mr. Kouniaris wants safe reliable

12 access to the UberX service.

13

62. Plaintiffs are aware of other blind persons throughout California and the United

14 States whom UberX drivers refused to transport because those individuals had service animals.

15

63. In addition, some UberX drivers mishandle transportation services for blind

16 people using guide dogs even when they do not outright deny service. For example, Leena

17 Dawes is blind and uses a guide dog. On or about March 27, 2014, an UberX driver locked Ms.

18 Dawes’ guide dog in the closed trunk of his sedan before transporting Ms. Dawes in Sacramento,

19 California. Once Ms. Dawes had realized that her dog was in the trunk, she demanded that the

20 driver pull over so that she could retrieve her dog, but the driver refused her request. Ms. Dawes

21 transmitted a written complaint about this incident to Uber. Uber has failed to inform Ms. Dawes

22 whether Uber fully investigated her complaint or took any meaningful action to ensure that the

23 driver does not abuse service animals in this manner in the future.

24

64. Uber also employs a rating system of its customers that tends to disparately affect

25 blind passengers with service animals and reduce their access to the service. After every

26 completed ride, Uber allows its drivers to rate each passenger on a scale from one to five similar

27 to the scale passengers are given to rate every driver after a ride concludes. Upon information

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

20

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page22 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 and belief, Uber will not match an UberX driver to the passenger a second time if the UberX

2 driver gives that passenger a low rating. Uber drivers can also review an assigned passenger’s

3 average rating by other Uber drivers before deciding whether to travel to pick up that assigned

4 passenger. When Uber drivers do begrudgingly accept a passenger with a service animal who has

5 successfully persuaded a driver not to violate the law, the Uber driver has an incentive to rate

6 that passenger lower on the rating scale, which will make it less likely that Uber will assign that

7 same driver to that passenger again in the future. This creates a system in which blind passengers

8 with service animals have fewer options to connect with drivers.

9

65. Many of the preceding blind individuals submitted written complaints to Uber

10 concerning the discriminatory treatment that they had experienced. However, Uber has failed to

11 inform most of these individuals whether Uber has fully investigated their complaints,

12 disciplined the relevant drivers, or taken any other meaningful steps to ensure that these drivers

13 do not unlawfully discriminate against other individuals with service animals. Uber

14 representatives instead informed many blind guide dog users that “the drivers are independent

15 contractors” and Uber “cannot control their actions” and advised blind guide dog users to “let

16 your driver know when he or she is on the way to your pickup location that you have a guide

17 dog[.]”

18

66. Plaintiff Kelly is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB of California.

19 Plaintiff Kelly lives in the Sacramento, California area and regularly depends on transportation

20 services to travel for work and leisure. Mr. Kelly regularly travels with his girlfriend, Brooklyn

21 Rodden, who also is blind and uses a guide dog. Mr. Kelly’s girlfriend has an Uber account that

22 she often uses to request UberX taxi services for her and Mr. Kelly to use. An UberX driver

23 recently refused to transport Mr. Kelly and Ms. Rodden on September 13, 2014 because of their

24 guide dogs. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Rodden intend to keep using UberX transportation services. Mr.

25 Kelly wants Uber to change its policies and practices so that the denials of service that he and

26 Ms. Rodden experienced do not recur.

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

21

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page23 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

67. Plaintiff Hingson is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB of

2 California. Mr. Hingson previously downloaded the Uber app onto his iPhone but ultimately

3 decided against creating an account and trying to use the service. Mr. Hingson learned that

4 UberX drivers often refuse to transport blind individuals with service animals. Because of Mr.

5 Hingson’s position as Vice President of the National Association of Guide Dog Users and his

6 longstanding involvement with membership activities within NFB of California, he has specific

7 and general knowledge of the experiences of multiple Uber passengers with service animals who

8 have been denied access. Through his regular contact with members of NFB of California and

9 other members of the blind community, Mr. Hingson has known of specific refusals by UberX

10 drivers to transport individuals with guide dogs over the past year. Additionally, through his

11 activities with NFB of California, Mr. Hingson regularly attends events where fellow blind

12 attendees with service animals are having trouble using the UberX service. Most recently, Mr.

13 Hingson attended the annual state convention for NFB of California, which was held at the

14 Embassy Suites South, El Segundo, CA, on October 9-12, 2014. Mr. Hingson met convention

15 attendees with service animals who were experiencing denials when attempting to use UberX to

16 travel to and from the convention hotel. Mr. Hingson has refrained and continues to refrain from

17 creating an Uber user account or otherwise using Uber’s transportation services because he fears

18 experiencing similar discrimination.

19

68. Mr. Hingson was deterred from using UberX on many specific occasions. For

20 example, on or about December 5, 2013, Mr. Hingson was planning to travel to a job interview

21 at an executive recruiting firm in San Francisco. At that time, Mr. Hingson was aware that Uber

22 was available in San Francisco. However, because of a tight schedule, Mr. Hingson decided not

23 to attempt to use the UberX taxi service because he could not afford to be delayed by an UberX

24 driver refusing to take his guide dog. Instead, Mr. Hingson arranged for a taxicab well in

25 advance of his transit and extended his trip so that he could use nondiscriminatory transportation

26 services to travel to his appointment on time.

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

22

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page24 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

69. Plaintiff Hingson was further deterred from using Uber on January 20, 2014. On

2 that occasion, Mr. Hingson needed to quickly travel from the Ferry Building in San Francisco to

3 a speaking engagement at Wells Fargo. Mr. Hingson could not risk arriving late for this

4 important professional engagement. Mr. Hingson wanted to use UberX because of its general

5 convenience and the quality of the vehicles. However, he was deterred from doing so because he

6 did not want to wait for the UberX vehicle to arrive and then discover that the driver would

7 refuse to take his service animal.

8

70. Plaintiff Hingson was similarly deterred from using Uber on or about May 15,

9 2014. Mr. Hingson needed to travel within San Francisco to a meeting with a press contact. Mr.

10 Hingson wanted to use UberX to attend this meeting. However, Mr. Hingson wanted to be

11 focused for this meeting and believed the stress of encountering an improperly trained UberX

12 driver that refused to transport his service animal would cause him stress and negatively affect

13 his performance at the meeting.

14

71. Likewise, on or about September 28, 2014, Mr. Hingson traveled from Los

15 Angeles to San Francisco to attend meetings with marketing consultants for the purpose of

16 filming video footage. Mr. Hingson needed to coordinate his travel schedule with airline flights

17 and maximize his time with these consultants during the trip. He wanted to use the UberX

18 service, but could not afford to waste unnecessary time in transit caused by a driver refusing to

19 take his service animal.

20

72. Plaintiff Hingson would like to use UberX for future travel. For example, Mr.

21 Hingson will travel to Sacramento on March 9, 2015 for business. Mr. Hingson would like to use

22 UberX for traveling around Sacramento if he had some assurance that he would not be denied

23 transportation because of his service animal. Mr. Hingson would like to use UberX on this and

24 many other upcoming trips. However, UberX is currently not a reliable source of transportation

25 for Mr. Hingson because of the risk that an UberX driver will refuse to transport him and his

26 service animal. Mr. Hingson hopes that Uber will take responsibility for the conduct of its

27 drivers and use the control that it has over them to prevent and minimize discrimination. Mr.

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page25 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Hingson would use UberX if Uber properly trained drivers, adopted and enforced effective

2 antidiscrimination policies, and provided blind passengers a convenient way to immediately

3 report discrimination so that he has some assurance that UberX will be as reliable and convenient

4 for him and his guide dog as it is for others.

5

73. Plaintiff Pedersen is blind, uses a guide dog, and resides in San Francisco,

6 California. Mr. Pedersen regularly uses transportation services, such as UberX, to commute to

7 work. Over the previous year, UberX drivers refused to transport Mr. Pedersen multiple times

8 because of his guide dog.

9

74. Most recently, on or about September 12, 2014, Mr. Pedersen’s wife used her

10 Uber account to request an Uber vehicle for Mr. Pedersen as he was preparing to leave for work

11 in the morning. Mr. Pedersen heard that the UberX driver had pulled up in front of his home and

12 went outside to enter the vehicle. Mr. Pedersen knocked on the window of the vehicle and asked,

13 “Uber?” The UberX driver said, “yes, but I don’t take dogs.” Mr. Pedersen explained that his dog

14 was a service animal and the UberX driver was legally required to transport him. The UberX

15 driver replied, “I don’t care. It’s not my problem.” The UberX driver then drove away and

16 canceled the trip request. Mr. Pedersen’s wife was charged a $5 cancellation fee. Mr. Pedersen

17 then used Flywheel, a competing transportation service, to obtain alternative taxi service.

18 Because of the delay caused by the UberX driver, Mr. Pedersen missed his connection to a

19 commuter shuttle and was late for work. Mr. Pedersen would like to keep using Uber without

20 fear that he will be denied service and made late for work or other appointments. Mr. Pedersen

21 wants Uber to change its policies and practices so that he can enjoy the same reliability and

22 convenience of Uber’s transportation services that others without service animals enjoy.

23

75. Uber is violating basic equal access requirements under both the ADA and state

24 law by failing to implement policies and procedures that would prevent or reduce discrimination

25 against blind riders committed by UberX drivers. Because Uber closely monitors and tightly

26 controls interactions between UberX drivers and its customers, Uber can adopt and enforce

27 policies and procedures that would prevent or reduce discrimination against blind individuals

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

24

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page26 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 with service animals, including members of Plaintiff NFB of California. These policies would

2 include, but are not limited to, the following:

3

1. Provide an accessible method for blind individuals with service dogs to

4

immediately and efficiently report instances where Uber drivers refuse to

5

transport them on the basis of disability;

6

2. Establish a procedure for quickly investigating complaints and informing

7

such blind persons of the outcome of their complaints;

8

3. Provide mandatory periodic training to Uber drivers concerning legal

9

access requirements applicable to service animals and explain to drivers the

10

consequences for failing to comply with these legal obligations;

11

4. Meaningfully discipline drivers who deny access to blind riders with

12

service animals and permanently terminate drivers who violate service animal

13

policies on more than one occasion; and

14

5. Randomly deploy blind testers who use guide dogs to proactively

15

identify–for retraining or termination–drivers who refuse to transport individuals

16

with disabilities because of the presence of their service animals.

17

76. On June 3, 2014, Plaintiff NFB of California and Plaintiff Hingson wrote to

18 Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. to notify it about the unlawful discrimination in the provision

19 of UberX taxi services to blind individuals with service animals. On July 16, 2014, Plaintiff NFB

20 of California and Plaintiff Hingson proposed to Defendant that the parties attempt structured

21 negotiations to resolve the issue without a lawsuit. On August 8, 2014, Defendant rejected

22 Plaintiffs’ proposal for structured negotiations. Defendant has since then failed to take adequate

23 measures to remedy the discrimination, and UberX drivers continue to discriminate against blind

24 customers with service animals.

25

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

26

Violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act

27

(42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.)

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

25

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page27 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

77. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as though fully set

2 forth herein.

3

78. Members of Plaintiff NFB of California including Plaintiffs Kelly and Hingson

4 are qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of Title III of the ADA. Plaintiff

5 Pedersen is also a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of Title III of the

6 ADA.

7

79. Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the full

8 and equal enjoyment of specified public transportation services provided by a private entity that

9 is primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect

10 commerce. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a); 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(a), (f).

11

80. Defendants are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people within

12 the meaning of Title III of the ADA and its regulations. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a). Defendants

13 operate a taxi service and specified public transportation within the meaning of Title III of the

14 ADA and its regulations. 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.3, 37.29, App. D § 37.29. The operations of

15 Defendants affect commerce.

16

81. Title III prohibits private entities providing specified public transportation from

17 imposing eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities from

18 fully enjoying the specified public transportation services provided by the entity, unless such

19 criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the services being offered. 42 U.S.C. §

20 12184(b)(1); 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(f); 28 C.F.R. § 36.301(a).

21

82. By operating a taxi service that dispatches drivers who unlawfully discriminate

22 and refuse to transport blind individuals with service animals and by operating a customer rating

23 system that, on information and belief, reduces the number of UberX drivers available to

24 Plaintiffs and other blind customers with service animals, Defendants violate Title III of the

25 ADA because Defendants are utilizing eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out

26 Plaintiffs and other blind individuals with guide dogs from fully enjoying the UberX taxi service.

27 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(1); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(a).

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

26

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page28 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

83. It is a violation of Title III for private entities providing specified public

2 transportation to fail to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when

3 such modifications are necessary to afford the entity’s goods, services, facilities, privileges,

4 advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate

5 that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services,

6 facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12184(b)(2)(a),

7 12182(b)(2)(a)(ii); 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(f); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(a).

8

84. By failing to modify practices, policies, and procedures to ensure that drivers of

9 UberX vehicles are properly trained and do not refuse to transport Plaintiffs and other blind

10 individuals with service animals, Defendants are denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to the

11 specified public transportation offered by Defendants.

12

85. Title III regulations prohibit private entities providing taxi services and other

13 transportation services from discriminating by refusing to provide transportation services to

14 people with disabilities who can physically access vehicles. 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.5(a)-(b), (f),

15 37.29(c).

16

86. Title III regulations also specifically require that private entities providing

17 transportation services permit service animals to accompany people with disabilities in vehicles

18 and facilities. 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.5(f), 37.37(f), 37.167(a), (d); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(c)(1).

19

87. Defendants violate Title III of the ADA by refusing to provide transportation

20 services to blind individuals with service animals, including Plaintiffs, who can physically access

21 UberX vehicles. Defendants therefore violate Title III of the ADA by denying Plaintiffs full and

22 equal access to the services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of

23 Defendants’ UberX transportation service.

24

88. In addition to operating specified public transportation within the meaning of

25 Section 304 of the ADA, Defendants’ UberX service is also a demand responsive system within

26 the meaning of Section 302 of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(c). By operating a demand

27 responsive system that dispatches drivers who unlawfully discriminate and refuse to transport

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

27

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page29 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Plaintiffs and other blind customers with service animals on the basis of disability, Defendants

2 violate Title III and regulations applicable to demand responsive systems within the meaning of

3 Section 302 of the ADA. 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.3, 37.21(a)(3), 37.167(a), (d); 28 C.F.R. §

4 36.302(c)(1).

5

89. The regulations implementing Title III of the ADA require that private entities

6 operating demand responsive transportation systems, including demand responsive systems that

7 are also specified public transportation, must train personnel to proficiency so that they operate

8 vehicles safely and properly assist and treat individuals with disabilities. 49 C.F.R. § 37.173.

9

90. On information and belief, Defendants also violate Title III of the ADA by failing

10 to train Defendants’ personnel to proficiency so that they properly assist and treat Plaintiffs and

11 other blind customers with service animals.

12

91. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act also prohibits discrimination on

13 the basis of disability by owners, operators, lessees, and lessors of places of public

14 accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).

15

92. Defendant Uber, in cooperation with Defendants Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA,

16 LLC, owns, operates, or leases vehicles providing taxi service and specified public transportation

17 within the meaning of Title III of the ADA and its regulations. 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.3, 37.29, App. D

18 § 37.29. The vehicles providing taxi services owned, operated, or leased by Uber are places of

19 public accommodation within the meaning of Title III of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(10),

20 12184(a); 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. Except for modifications to vehicles providing taxi services for

21 the purpose of wheelchair accessibility, all of the antidiscrimination provisions of Title III of the

22 ADA apply to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of

23 vehicles providing taxi services.

24

93. Title III prohibits entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to places of public

25 accommodation from excluding, on the basis of disability, individuals with disabilities from

26 participating in or benefiting from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page30 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 accommodations of public accommodations or otherwise discriminating against a person on the

2 basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i); 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(a).

3

94. By failing to adopt policies and practices that will prevent or reduce

4 discrimination against blind individuals with service animals in the provision of the UberX taxi

5 service, Defendants violate Title III of the ADA by excluding Plaintiffs on the basis of disability

6 from enjoying the services, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of UberX vehicles.

7

95. Under Title III, it is also unlawful for entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to

8 places of public accommodation to afford, on the basis of disability, an individual or class of

9 individuals with disabilities with an opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service,

10 facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded other

11 individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(b).

12

96. Defendants violate Title III of the ADA by providing Plaintiffs and other blind

13 individuals who use service animals an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the services,

14 privileges, advantages, or accommodations of UberX vehicles that is not equal to that afforded

15 other individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(b).

16

97. Title III further prohibits entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to places of

17 public accommodation from providing, on the basis of disability, an individual or class of

18 individuals with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is

19 different or separate from that provided to other individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(iii); 28

20 C.F.R. § 36.202(c).

21

98. By operating a taxi service that dispatches drivers who unlawfully discriminate

22 against and refuse to transport blind individuals with service animals, Defendants violate Title III

23 of the ADA because Uber provides Plaintiffs, on the basis of disability, with services, privileges,

24 advantages, and accommodations of UberX vehicles that are different or separate from that

25 provided to other individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(c).

26

99. It is a violation of Title III for entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to places

27 of public accommodation to fail to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

29

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page31 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 procedures when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities,

2 privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can

3 demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods,

4 services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(a)(ii);

5 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(a).

6

100. By failing to modify practices, policies, and procedures to ensure that drivers of

7 UberX vehicles are properly trained and do not refuse to transport blind individuals with service

8 animals, Defendants are denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to UberX vehicles.

9

101. In addition, it is a violation of Title III to utilize, directly or through contractual or

10 other arrangements, standards or criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of

11 discriminating on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(d); 28 C.F.R. § 36.204.

12

102. By administering Defendants’ UberX taxi service in a manner that results in blind

13 individuals who use service animals being denied access to the UberX service on the basis of

14 disability, Defendants are denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to the services, privileges,

15 advantages, and accommodations of UberX vehicles because Defendants are utilizing methods of

16 administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability.

17

103. The actions of Defendants were and are in violation of the Americans with

18 Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder. Many

19 members of Plaintiff NFB of California, including Plaintiff Kelly, and other blind persons,

20 including Plaintiff Pedersen, have been and continue to be denied access to Defendants’ services

21 on multiple occasions when they attempt to use Uber’s UberX transportation service. Defendants

22 have failed to take any equitable steps to remedy Uber’s discriminatory conduct, and

23 Defendants’ violations of the ADA are ongoing. Defendants’ unlawful actions also violate the

24 ADA by deterring members of Plaintiff NFB of California, including Plaintiff Michael Hingson,

25 from attempting to access the UberX taxi service. Unless the Court enjoins Defendants from

26 continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable

27 harm.

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

30

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page32 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 104. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief. 42 U.S.C. § 12188.

2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

3

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

4

Violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act

5

(California Civil Code §§ 51 & 52)

6

105. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as though fully set

7 forth herein.

8

106. The Unruh Civil Rights Act guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities

9 are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all

10 business establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the state of

11 California. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b).

12

107. The network of Uber vehicles providing transportation services to the general

13 public in California is a business establishment within the jurisdiction of the state of California,

14 and as such is obligated to comply with the provisions of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act,

15 California Civil Code §§ 51, et seq.

16

108. The Unruh Act provides, inter alia, that a violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§

17 12101, et seq., also constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f).

18

109. Defendants’ discriminatory conduct alleged herein includes, inter alia, the

19 violation of the rights of persons with disabilities set forth in Title III of the ADA and therefore

20 also violates the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f).

21

110. The actions of Defendants were and are in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights

22 Act, California Civil Code §§ 51, et seq. Members of Plaintiff NFB of California, including

23 Plaintiff Hingson, are aware of Defendants’ unlawful actions, and their knowledge of this

24 discrimination has deterred members of Plaintiff NFB of California, including Plaintiff Hingson,

25 from attempting to access the UberX taxi service on several occasions. Moreover, many

26 members of NFB of California and other blind persons, including Plaintiffs Kelly and Pedersen,

27 have been and continue to be denied access to Defendants’ services on multiple occasions when

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

31

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page33 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 they attempt to use Uber’s services. Therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief

2 remedying the discrimination pursuant to California Civil Code § 52. Unless the Court enjoins

3 Defendants from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiffs will continue to

4 suffer irreparable harm.

5

111. Plaintiffs Kelly, Hingson, and Pedersen are also entitled to statutory minimum

6 damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 52 for each and every offense in violation of the

7 Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 52(b).

8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

9

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

10

Violation of the California Disabled Persons Act

11

(California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3)

12

112. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as though fully set

13 forth herein.

14

113. California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3 guarantee, inter alia, that persons with

15 disabilities are entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public receive,

16 to accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of all “common carriers,” “motor

17 vehicles,” “places of public accommodation” and “other places to which the general public is

18 invited” within the jurisdiction of California. Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1(a)(1).

19

114. It is a violation of California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3 to prevent service dogs from

20 accompanying individuals with disabilities in any common carriers, motor vehicles, places of

21 public accommodation, or other places to which the general public is invited. Cal. Civ. Code §

22 54.2(a)-(b). Any violation of the ADA is also a violation of California Civil Code § 54.1. Cal.

23 Civ. Code § 54.1(d).

24

115. UberX vehicles providing transportation services to the general public are

25 common carriers, motor vehicles, places of public accommodation or other places to which the

26 general public is invited under California Civil Code § 54.1(a)(1).

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

32

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page34 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

116. Defendants are violating the rights of Plaintiffs to full and equal access to

2 common carriers, motor vehicles, places of public accommodation, or other places to which the

3 general public is invited under California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3 by denying blind riders with

4 service dogs full and equal access to the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges

5 of Uber vehicles providing the UberX taxi service. Defendants are also violating California Civil

6 Code §§ 54-54.3 in that their actions are a violation of the ADA. Members of Plaintiff NFB of

7 California, including Plaintiff Hingson, are aware of Defendants’ unlawful actions, and their

8 knowledge of this discrimination has deterred members of Plaintiff NFB of California, including

9 Plaintiff Hingson, from attempting to access the UberX taxi service on several occasions.

10 Moreover, many members of NFB of California and other blind persons, including Plaintiffs

11 Kelly and Pedersen, have been and continue to be denied access to Defendants’ services on

12 multiple occasions when they attempt to use Uber’s services.

13

117. Plaintiffs thus seek declaratory relief based on Defendants’ violation of Plaintiffs’

14 rights under California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3.

15

118. Plaintiffs Kelly, Hingson, and Pedersen are also entitled to statutory minimum

16 damages for each violation of California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3(a).

17

119. Plaintiffs do not seek relief, injunctive or otherwise, under California Civil Code §

18 55.

19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

20

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

21

(Declaratory Relief on Behalf of Plaintiffs)

22

120. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully

23 herein.

24

121. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that

25 Plaintiffs contend, and are informed and believe that Defendants deny, that by failing to adopt

26 policies and procedures that would prevent drivers of Uber vehicles that provide the UberX taxi

27 service from denying rides to Plaintiffs and other blind individuals with service animals,

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

33

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page35 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Defendants fail to comply with applicable laws, including but not limited to Title III of the

2 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., California Civil Code §§ 51-52,

3 and California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3.

4

122. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that each

5 of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.

6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request relief as set forth below.

7

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

9

123. A permanent injunction pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

10 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., and the Unruh Act, California Civil Code §§ 51-52, requiring

11 Defendants to take the steps necessary to ensure that Uber’s drivers who provide UberX taxi

12 services do not unlawfully refuse to transport blind individuals with service animals, including

13 Plaintiffs.

14

124. A declaration that Defendants discriminate against blind persons by failing to

15 provide blind riders, including Plaintiffs, with full and equal access to the services, facilities,

16 privileges, advantages, and accommodations of Uber vehicles providing taxi services in violation

17 of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3, and

18 California’s Unruh Act, California Civil Code §§ 51-52.

19

125. For Plaintiffs Kelly, Hingson, and Pedersen, damages in an amount to be

20 determined by proof, including all applicable statutory damages pursuant to California Civil

21 Code § 52(a) or California Civil Code § 54.3.

22

126. An order awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as authorized

23 by 42 U.S.C. § 12188, California Civil Code § 52, and California Civil Code § 54.3; and

24

127. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

25

26

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

34

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document17 Filed11/12/14 Page36 of 36

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 DATED: November 12, 2014 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Respectfully submitted, DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
Michael Nunez TRE LEGAL PRACTICE
Timothy Elder Attorneys for Plaintiffs

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

35

 </s> Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document29 Filed12/23/14 Page1 of 9

1 VANITA GUPTA, Acting Assistant Attorney General EVE L. HILL, Deputy Assistant Attorney General

2 REBECCA B. BOND, Chief

KATHLEEN P. WOLFE, Special Litigation Counsel

3 KEVIN J. KIJEWSKI, Deputy Chief

MEGAN E. SCHULLER, Trial Attorney, CSBN 281468

4

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. - NYA

5

Washington, DC 20530

Telephone: (202) 307-0663

6

Facsimile: (202) 305-9775

Megan.Schuller@usdoj.gov

7 MELINDA HAAG, United States Attorney, CSBN 132612

ALEX G. TSE, Chief, Civil Division, CSBN 152348 8 SARA WINSLOW, Assistant United States Attorney, DCBN 457643

9

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, CA 94102

10

Telephone: (415) 436-6925

Facsimile: (415) 436-6748

11

Sara.Winslow@usdoj.gov

ATTORNEYS FOR UNITED STATES 12

13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF ) No. 3:14-cv-04086-NC

16

CALIFORNIA, MICHAEL KELLY, MICHAEL HINGSON, and MICHAEL PEDERSON,

) ) STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF

17 Plaintiffs,

) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

18

) Date: February 5, 2015

v. 19

) ) Time: 1:00 p.m.

20

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, and RASIER-CA, LLC,

) ) Judge: The Hon. Nathanael M. Cousins

21

)

Defendants.

)

22

)

) 23

24

25

26

27

28

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-04086

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document29 Filed12/23/14 Page2 of 9

1

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2

INTRODUCTION

3

In its First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”), Plaintiffs National Federation of the

4 Blind (“NFB”) of California, Michael Kelly, Michael Hingson, and Michael Pederson

5 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and

6 Rasier-CA, LLC (“Defendants” or “Uber”) have violated Title III of the Americans with

7 Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189, by denying blind individuals with service

8 animals full and equal access to Defendants’ UberX transportation service. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 87,

9 102, 103 (ECF No. 17). Plaintiffs allege that Uber provides several different demand responsive

10 transportation services, all of which are initiated by communicating with Uber through a mobile

11 software application for smart phones. Compl. ¶¶ 29, 88. The Complaint focuses on

12 Defendants’ “UberX” transportation system—one of Uber’s most cost-effective demand

13 responsive services. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 29, 88. Plaintiffs allege that “UberX drivers are refusing to

14 transport many blind individuals who use service animals.” Compl. ¶ 3. Some UberX drivers

15 also allegedly “seriously mishandle guide dogs” and “harass blind customers with guide dogs.”

16 Compl. ¶ 4. In response to complaints lodged with Uber about these allegations, Uber allegedly

17 fails to respond, does not take steps to address the discrimination, and frequently denies

18 responsibility for the discrimination. Compl. ¶ 5. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result, blind persons

19 “have been and continue to be denied access to Defendants’ services on multiple occasions when

20 they attempt to use Uber’s UberX transportation service.” Compl. ¶ 103.

21

Plaintiffs’ Complaint pleads four causes of action, including one expressly based on the

22 ADA.1 The ADA claim alleges that Defendants violated Title III of the ADA generally, as well

23

24 1 Notably, two of the other causes of action are based on California laws that incorporate the

25

ADA by reference, and the fourth cause of action is a request for declaratory relief based, in part, on Title III of the ADA. Compl. ¶¶ 108-09, 114, 121-22. Thus, it appears all of Plaintiffs’

26 causes of action are directly or indirectly based on the ADA. But, for purposes of this Statement of Interest, we only discuss the first cause of action, which alleges direct violations of the ADA.

27

- 1 -

28

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-04086-NC

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document29 Filed12/23/14 Page3 of 9

1 as two specific provisions of Title III: 42 U.S.C. § 12182, which prohibits disability

2 discrimination by public accommodations, and 42 U.S.C. § 12184, which prohibits disability

3 discrimination by certain transportation service providers. Compl. ¶¶ 77-104. Defendants

4 moved to dismiss on various grounds, including under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

5 for failure to state a claim. In their brief, Defendants explain that they move to dismiss each

6 cause of action, including the ADA claim, “to the extent it is based on the allegation that Uber’s

7 app or website constitute a place of public accommodation or that Defendants own, lease or

8 operate a place of public accommodation under the ADA.” Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 1, 22 (ECF

9 No. 25).

10

Defendants’ motion is ambiguous, however, as to whether they move to dismiss the ADA

11 claim (and Complaint) in full or in part. Defendants appear to imply that, if the Court determines

12 that they are not a public accommodation, then the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ ADA claim

13 (and the Complaint) in full. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 1, 22-25. Any such implication would

14 reflect a misunderstanding about the scope of Title III’s coverage. The success of Plaintiffs’

15 ADA claim is not dependent on a finding that Defendants are a public accommodation, because

16 § 12184 of Title III of the ADA applies to private entities that are primarily engaged in providing

17 transportation services regardless of whether the private entity is a public accommodation. See

18 42 U.S.C. § 12184. Furthermore, because coverage under this provision of Title III is not

19 dependent upon coverage under any other provision, even if Defendants were not covered as a

20 public accommodation under § 12182, they still could be covered as a transportation service

21 provider under § 12184. The United States respectfully submits this Statement of Interest to 22 clarify the proper interpretation and application of the ADA with respect to this issue.2

23

24

25

2 The United States takes no position on any other issues currently before the Court. We seek only to clarify any possible confusion regarding the scope of Title III’s coverage as a result of

26 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we do not address herein the issue of whether, under the facts alleged in the Complaint, Uber is a public accommodation.

27

- 2 -

28

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-04086-NC

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document29 Filed12/23/14 Page4 of 9

1

I. INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES

2

Under 28 U.S.C. § 517, the Attorney General may send any officer of the United States

3 Department of Justice “to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court

4 of the United States….” The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is the federal agency

5 charged with primary responsibility for enforcing Title III of the ADA and its implementing

6 regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b) (2008); 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.502-36.504 (2010); 49 C.F.R.

7 § 37.11 (1996); 49 C.F.R. pt. 37, app. D § 37.11 (2014). Consistent with this statutory charge,

8 DOJ has an interest in supporting the ADA’s proper interpretation and application; furthering the

9 statute’s explicit congressional intent to provide clear, strong, consistent, and enforceable

10 standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities; and ensuring that the

11 United States plays a central role in enforcing the standards established in the ADA. See 42

12 U.S.C. § 12101(b).

13

The United States’ interests are particularly strong here, where Plaintiffs allege

14 discriminatory denial of full and equal access to transportation—an issue that goes to the very

15 heart of the ADA’s goals “to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent

16 living, and economic self-sufficiency” for individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(7).

17 The right to travel with one’s service animal is critical to achieving these goals. See 49 C.F.R.

18 § 37.167; see also Tamara v. El Camino Hosp., 964 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2013)

19 (finding that separating an individual from his or her service animal can cause irreparable harm

20 and deprive that individual of independence). Accordingly, the United States respectfully

21 requests that the Court, in resolving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, consider the interpretation 22 of Title III and the applicable regulation as set forth in this Statement of Interest.3

23

II. DISCUSSION

24

While Title III is routinely characterized as the public accommodation title of the ADA,

25

26 3 The United States does not intend to attend the February 5 hearing unless the Court requests its presence.

27

- 3 -

28

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-04086-NC

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document29 Filed12/23/14 Page5 of 9

1 its reach is much broader. Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability

2 by a range of entities, including public accommodations and, as applicable here, private entities

3 primarily engaged in providing transportation services. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, 12184. This

4 latter category is covered by § 12184 of Title III, which is not contingent on an entity’s status as

5 a public accommodation.

6

A. SECTION 12184 COVERS TAXI AND OTHER DEMAND RESPONSIVE

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 7

The statute and applicable regulation define coverage under 42 U.S.C. § 12184 to include

8

most types of transportation provided by private companies. Section 12184 prohibits

9

discrimination “on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of specified public

10

transportation services provided by a private entity that is primarily engaged in the business of

11

transporting people and whose operations affect commerce.” 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a). The term

12

“specified public transportation” is broadly defined as transportation by any “conveyance” (other

13

than aircraft) “that provides the general public with general or special service (including charter

14

service) on a regular and continuing basis.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181(10).

15

Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to implement the

16

Title III transportation provisions, including § 12184. 42 U.S.C. § 12186(a). Pursuant to this

17

mandate, the United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) promulgated 49 C.F.R. Part

18

37 and accompanying guidance that explains DOT’s construction and interpretation of its

19

implementing regulation. 49 C.F.R. pt. 37, app. D. Cf. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461

20

(1997) (concluding that an agency’s interpretation of its regulations is “controlling unless plainly

21

erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Chevron,

22

U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984) (“Considerable weight

23

should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is

24

entrusted to administer.”).

25

The DOT regulation broadly defines the types of transportation services subject to Title

26

27

- 4 -

28

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-04086-NC

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document29 Filed12/23/14 Page6 of 9

1 III. The regulation and guidance clarify that such services include any transportation services

2 provided by private entities that involve calling for a vehicle and a driver to take one places,

3 including taxi services. See 49 C.F.R. § 37.29; 49 pt. 37, app. D § 37.29 (“For purposes of this

4 section, other transportation services that involve calling for a car and a driver to take one places

5 … are regarded as taxi services.”). The DOT regulation includes a specific provision for private

6 entities providing taxi service and explains why they are covered by § 12184 of Title III:

7 Because they are “private entities primarily engaged in the business of transporting people which

8 provide demand responsive service.” 49 C.F.R. § 37.29. The definition of “demand responsive”

9 service or system is far from limited to just taxi service, however; it is in fact quite expansive,

10 referring to “any system of providing transportation of individuals by a vehicle, other than … a 11 fixed route system.”4 42 U.S.C. § 12181(3); 49 C.F.R. § 37.3.

12

In addition, the regulation defines what it means to “operate” a “demand responsive”

13 system (or non-fixed route transportation system); in this context, “operates” includes “the

14 provision of transportation services by a … private entity itself or by a person under a contractual

15 or other arrangement or relationship with the entity.” 49 C.F.R. § 37.3. Thus, an entity may

16 operate a demand responsive system even if it does not itself provide transportation services, if it

17 does so through a contractual relationship with another entity or even individual drivers. Indeed,

18 as explained in the DOT guidance, while an entity may contract out its service, it may not

19 contract away its ADA responsibilities. See 49 C.F.R. pt. 37, app. D § 37.23; see also 49 C.F.R.

20 § 37.23(d).

21

B. DISCRIMINATION UNDER § 12184 INCLUDES DENYING OR PROVIDING

UNEQUAL SERVICE TO INDIVIDUALS WITH SERVICE ANIMALS 22

Under § 12184, discrimination is defined broadly to include refusing to provide

23

transportation service, or providing unequal service, to individuals with disabilities who can

24

physically access the vehicle. 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.5, 37.29(c). The DOT regulation expressly states

25

26 4 A fixed route system operates along a prescribed route according to a fixed schedule, like a

train or a fixed-route bus. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(4); 49 C.F.R. § 37.3.

27

- 5 -

28

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-04086-NC

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document29 Filed12/23/14 Page7 of 9

1 that such entities “shall permit service animals to accompany individuals with disabilities in

2 vehicles.” 49 C.F.R. § 37.167(d). Discrimination also includes the imposition or application of

3 eligibility criteria that screen out an individual with a disability, or any class of individuals with

4 disabilities, from fully enjoying the transportation services provided by the entity, unless such

5 criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the services being offered. 42 U.S.C.

6 § 12184(b)(1); 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(f).

7

Private entities that provide transportation services also have affirmative obligations

8 under the ADA. Such entities must make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or

9 procedures when necessary to avoid discrimination, unless the entity can demonstrate that

10 making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the transportation services.

11 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(2)(A). And every private entity that operates a taxi service or other

12 demand responsive system must “ensure that personnel are trained to proficiency, as appropriate

13 to their duties, so that they … properly assist and treat individuals with disabilities who use the

14 service in a respectful and courteous way, with appropriate attention to the difference among

15 individuals with disabilities.” 49 C.F.R. § 37.173.

16

C. PLAINTIFFS NEED NOT SHOW THAT UBER IS A PUBLIC

ACCOMMODATION TO SUCCEED ON THEIR CLAIM UNDER § 12184 17

Private entities primarily engaged in providing transportation services are covered by

18

§ 12184 of Title III, irrespective of whether they are also public accommodations. Section

19

12182, in contrast, sets out statutory requirements applicable only to “public accommodations.”

20

Section 12182 includes general and specific prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of

21

disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,

22

or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or

23 leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.5 42 U.S.C. § 12182. Sections 12182

24

25 5 Section 12182 also includes specific prohibitions addressing discrimination in the provision of

26 certain types of transportation services operated by private entities that are not primarily engaged in the business of transporting people. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b).

27

- 6 -

28

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-04086-NC

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document29 Filed12/23/14 Page8 of 9

1 and 12184 of Title III are premised on and impose separate and distinct requirements, and 2 2 coverage under one permits but does not necessitate coverage under the other.6 3

3

Within this statutory and regulatory framework, Plaintiffs can prevail on their ADA claim

4

4 by demonstrating that (1) Plaintiffs have standing to sue under the ADA; (2) Defendants provide 5

5 specified public transportation services and are primarily engaged in the business of transporting 6

6 people, 42 U.S.C. § 12184; and (3) Defendants, directly or through a contractual or other 7

7 relationship, discriminated on the basis of disability as proscribed by § 12184 and the applicable 8

8 regulation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12184; 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.5, 37.23; see also Doud v. Yellow Cab Co., 9

9 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120243, *11-12 (D. Nev. Aug. 28, 2014). Importantly, Plaintiffs do not 10

10 need to show that Defendants are public accommodations or operate a place of public 11

11 accommodation to succeed on their ADA claim under § 12184. 12

12

III. CONCLUSION

13

13

Because Defendants’ alleged failure to provide transportation services to customers with

14

14 service animals directly implicates the ADA’s statutory and regulatory protections for 15

15 individuals with disabilities, the United States requests that this Court consider the Title III 16

16 framework discussed in this Statement of Interest when analyzing the pending motion to dismiss. 17

17 18

18 19

19 20

20 21

21 22

22 23 23 6 While coverage under Title III can be premised on either § 12182 or § 12184, these provisions 24 are not mutually exclusive; entities to which § 12184 applies also may be subject to the public

24 accommodations provision of Title III. 49 C.F.R. § 37.21; 49 C.F.R. pt. 37, app. D § 37.21; see,

25 e.g., Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119, 129 (2005) (“Although the statutory

25 26

definitions of ‘public accommodation’ and ‘specified public transportation’ do not expressly

26 mention cruise ships, there can be no serious doubt that the NCL cruise ships in question fall

27 within both definitions under conventional principles of interpretation.”).

27

- 7 -

28

28

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-04086-NC STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Case3:14-cv-04086-NC Document29 Filed12/23/14 Page9 of 9

1

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of December, 2014.

2

MELINDA HAAG

3

United States Attorney

4

Northern District of California

VANITA GUPTA Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

5

/s/ Sara Winslow

SARA WINSLOW

6

Assistant United States Attorney

7

Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

8

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-6925

9 Facsimile: (415) 436-6748

Sara.Winslow@usdoj.gov 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

EVE L. HILL Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
REBECCA B. BOND Chief KATHLEEN P. WOLFE Special Litigation Counsel KEVIN J. KIJEWSKI Deputy Chief Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division
/s/ Megan E. Schuller MEGAN E. SCHULLER Trial Attorney Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. – NYA Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 307-0663 Facsimile: (202) 305-9775 Megan.Schuller@usdoj.gov
Counsel for the United States of America

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

- 8 -

28

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-04086-NC

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 </s> 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

United States District Court Northern District of California

10 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA; MICHAEL
11 KELLY; MICHAEL HINGSON; MICHAEL PEDERSEN,
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v.
14
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 15 RASIER, LLC; RASIER-CA, LLC,

16

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 25

17

The National Federation of the Blind of California and three individuals allege that

18 Uber and its California subsidiaries discriminate against blind persons by refusing to

19 transport guide dogs. Plaintiffs charge that Uber’s practices violate the Americans with

20 Disabilities Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled

21 Persons Act. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish standing

22 and failure to state a claim, and also move for a more definite statement. Specifically,

23 defendants allege that NFBC, Hingson, and Pedersen do not have standing to sue under the

24 ADA or state law claims and that Uber is not a public accommodation under the ADA.

25

Guided by the policy of encouraging private enforcement of anti-discrimination

26 statutes, the Court finds that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged both standing and a

27 plausible claim under the ADA and state law. Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion to

28 dismiss on all grounds. Uber must answer the complaint. Case No.: 14-cv-04086-NC

1 I. BACKGROUND

2

UberX is a widely available transportation service that uses mobile software

3 applications to arrange rides between passengers and Uber’s fleet of UberX drivers. First

4 Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 17, at ¶ 2. To use UberX services, an individual

5 must either (1) create a user account, and provide Uber with his phone number, credit card

6 information, and email address, or (2) travel as the guest of an individual with an Uber user

7 account. FAC ¶ 29. The customer then submits a request on behalf of himself and other

8 passengers through Uber’s mobile software application. FAC ¶ 30. Once Uber identifies

9 the vehicle that will provide the customer with transportation, Uber notifies the customer

10 via text message or through its smart phone application. FAC ¶ 30. The notification

11 includes vehicle and driver identification information and an estimated time of arrival.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 FAC ¶ 30. When the vehicle has arrived, Uber notifies the customer, and the customer and

13 passengers may board the vehicle. FAC ¶ 30. Uber provides several different

14 transportation services in California, and UberX is one of Uber’s most cost-effective

15 transportation services. FAC ¶ 29. Those individuals who download Uber’s mobile phone

16 application agree to Uber’s terms of service, including an agreement to submit all disputes

17 to binding arbitration. Dkt. No. 25 at Exhibit A.

18

Plaintiff National Federation of the Blind of California (“NFBC”) is a nonprofit

19 association of blind Californians, which aims to achieve integration of the blind into

20 society on a basis of equality with the sighted. FAC ¶ 22. Members of NFBC use UberX

21 on Uber’s smart phone application using text-to-speech technology. FAC ¶ 40.

22 Additionally, members of NFBC use UberX as guests of UberX customers, without

23 creating their own Uber account. FAC ¶ 43.

24

For example, Manveen Chahal is a NFBC member and does not have an Uber

25 account. FAC ¶ 43. On May 21, 2014, Jamey Gump used the Uber mobile app to request

26 an UberX vehicle for himself and Chahal. FAC ¶ 43. Both men had service animals with

27 them. FAC ¶ 43. When the UberX vehicle pulled up to the curb, Gump and Chahal

28 attempted to enter the vehicle and opened a passenger door. FAC ¶ 43. The UberX driver

Case No.:14-cv-04086-NC

2

1 began shouting “no dogs!” and cursed at the men. FAC ¶ 43. The UberX driver left

2 without transporting Gump and Chahal. FAC ¶ 43.

3

Plaintiff Michael Kelly is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFBC. FAC

4 ¶ 66. Kelly travels with his girlfriend, Brooklyn Rodden, who is also blind and uses a

5 guide dog. FAC ¶ 66. Rodden has an Uber account that she uses to request UberX

6 vehicles for herself and Kelly. FAC ¶ 66. On September 13, 2014, an UberX driver

7 refused to transport Rodden and Kelly because of their guide dogs. FAC ¶ 66. Both

8 intend to keep using UberX transportation services. FAC ¶ 66.

9

Plaintiff Michael Hingson is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFBC.

10 FAC ¶ 67. Hingson does not have an Uber account and has not used UberX. FAC ¶ 67.

11 On October 9-12, 2014, Hingson attended the annual state convention for NFBC in El

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 Segundo, California. FAC ¶ 67. There, Hingson met attendees with service animals who

13 were being denied transportation by UberX to and from the convention hotel. FAC ¶ 67.

14 Hingson was deterred from using UberX on December 5, 2013, because he could not

15 afford to be delayed by an UberX driver refusing to take his guide dog. FAC ¶ 67.

16 Hingson would like to use UberX in the future, but does not believe that UberX is a

17 reliable source of transportation. FAC ¶ 67.

18

Plaintiff Michael Pedersen is blind and uses a guide dog. FAC ¶ 73. On September

19 12, 2014, Pedersen’s wife used her Uber account to request an UberX for Pedersen. FAC

20 ¶ 73. Pedersen heard the UberX driver pulled up in front of his home, but the driver

21 refused to transport Pedersen’s guide dog. FAC ¶ 73. As a result, Pedersen missed his

22 connection to a commuter shuttle and was late for work. FAC ¶ 73. Pedersen would like

23 to keep using UberX without fear that he will be denied service and made late for work or

24 other appointments. FAC ¶ 73.

25

Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a for-profit transportation network company.

26 FAC ¶ 27. Defendants Rasier LLC and Rasier-CA LLC are wholly-owned subsidiaries of

27 Uber Technologies, Inc. that operate within the state of California. FAC ¶ 28. Defendants

28 (collectively, “Uber”) use smart phone software applications to arrange transportation

Case No.:14-cv-04086-NC

3

1 between passengers and its fleet of drivers. FAC ¶ 27.

2

Plaintiffs allege that Uber engages in discriminatory practices by permitting UberX

3 drivers to deny access to blind individuals and their guide dogs. Plaintiffs bring claims

4 under (1) Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); (2) California Unruh

5 Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”); (3) California Disabled Persons Act (“DPA”); and (4) for

6 declaratory relief.

7

The parties attended a hearing on the motion on March 3, 2015. All parties have

8 consented to this Court’s jurisdiction. Dkt. Nos. 6, 22.

9 II. DISCUSSION

10

Uber brings a motion to dismiss on a variety of issues, boiling down to questions of

11 (1) NFBC’s associational standing to sue on behalf of its members; (2) Plaintiff Hingson’s

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 satisfaction of standing under the deterrent effect doctrine; (3) which plaintiffs are entitled

13 to bring a claim under state law theories; (4) Plaintiff Pedersen’s standing as to the

14 likelihood of future harm; and (5) whether Uber falls within the scope of the ADA’s

15 regulation as a public accommodation. The Court will first address standing challenged

16 under Rule 12(b)(1), then Uber’s motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e),

17 and finally, the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

18

A. Standing

19

A Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenges subject matter jurisdiction, including a

20 plaintiff’s standing to sue, and the Court takes the allegations in the complaint as true.

21 Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). The court must determine whether

22 a lack of federal jurisdiction appears from the face of the complaint itself. Thornhill

23 Publ’g Co. v. General Tel. Elec., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). “A party invoking the

24 federal court’s jurisdiction has the burden of proving the actual existence of subject matter

25 jurisdiction.” Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352, 353 (9th Cir. 1996).

26

“Whether a party has a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to

27 obtain judicial resolution of that controversy is what has traditionally been referred to as

28 the question of standing to sue.” Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 731-32 (1972).

Case No.:14-cv-04086-NC

4

1 Standing under Article III of the Constitution has three basic elements: (1) an “injury in

2 fact,” which is neither conjectural nor hypothetical; (2) causation, such that a causal

3 connection between the alleged injury and offensive conduct is established; and (3)

4 redressability, or a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

5 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).

6

“The question whether the litigant is a ‘proper party to request an adjudication of a

7 particular issue,’ is one within the power of Congress to determine.” Sierra Club, 405 U.S.

8 at 732 n.3 (1972) (citing Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 100 (1968)). When private

9 enforcement suits “are the primary method of obtaining compliance” with a civil rights act,

10 such as the ADA, courts must take a “broad view of constitutional standing.” Doran v. 7-

11 Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008)(citing Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 409 U.S. 205, 209 (1972)).

13

1. NFBC’s Associational Standing Under the ADA

14

The test for associational standing is set out in Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver.

15 Com’n, 432 U.S. 333, 342 (1977): an association has standing when (1) its members would

16 otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interest it seeks to protect are

17 germane to the organization’s purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief

18 requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. In Hunt, the

19 Court stated that claims for declaratory and injunctive relief do not require individualized

20 proof, thereby satisfying the third prong. Id. at 344.

21

NFBC meets the Hunt test for associational standing. First, the parties do not

22 contest that at least plaintiff Kelly has standing to sue in his own right. Second, NFBC set

23 out the purpose of its organization in the complaint, which is to achieve the integration of

24 the blind into society on a basis of equality with the sighted. FAC ¶ 22. The Court finds

25 this germane to the purpose of this litigation, which is to bring a private ADA enforcement

26 suit to ensure that blind individuals have equal access to transportation services as sighted

27 individuals. Third, because NFBC is seeking to represent its members only in claims for

28 declaratory and injunctive relief, its claim is within the realm of associational standing

Case No.:14-cv-04086-NC

5

1 envisioned by the Supreme Court in Hunt. FAC ¶¶ 123-127.

2

Uber has presented in its briefing and at the hearing diverging case law which

3 suggests that two factual scenarios may distinguish the current case from Hunt: (a) the

4 presence of arbitration agreements covering some of NFBC’s membership; and (b) the

5 prudential consideration that NFBC is not the proper party, but rather, the individuals

6 should be tasked with representing their own claims. Dkt. No. 25 at 10-12.

7

a. Arbitration Agreements

8

Uber argues that NFBC’s membership includes individuals who are bound by

9 arbitration agreements with Uber. Dkt. No. 25 at 10. Therefore, NFBC’s suit on behalf of

10 all its members would violate the sanctity of those agreements by permitting bound

11 members to litigate in court via their proxy, NFBC. Id. at 11.

United States District Court Northern District of California

12

The Court recognizes that “[a]n association has standing to sue or defend in such

13 capacity, however, only if its members would have standing in their own right.” Arizonans

14 for Official English v. Arizona, 530 U.S. 43, 65-66 (1977). Uber draws the Court’s

15 attention to Pa. Chiropractic Ass’n v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass’n, 713 F. Supp. 2d 734,

16 744-45 (N.D. Ill. 2010), where the district court considered similar questions of whether an

17 association lacked standing because some members of its association were bound by

18 arbitration agreements. There, the Court found the third Hunt factor weighed in favor of

19 individual claims because the association could not represent those members bound by

20 arbitration agreements. Id. However, even under those circumstances, the Court

21 recognized that the association would have standing to pursue claims on behalf of only the

22 non-bound members. Id at n.6. Additionally, all of the members of the Pennsylvania

23 Chiropractic Association were seeking monetary relief. Id. at 737-38.

24

Here, NFBC alleges that it only brings the claim on behalf of members who would

25 have standing (therefore, the non-bound members), and it does not seek monetary relief.

26 Dkt. No. 28 at 4; see generally, Ass’n Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Coal. for Econ.

27 Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding that individual participation is not

28 required even if there is disagreement among the organization’s members when the

Case No.:14-cv-04086-NC

6

1 organization seeks declaratory and injunctive relief). The Court finds Pennsylvania

2 Chiropractic Association distinguishable from this case, and thus not persuasive in

3 establishing that an exception to Hunt should apply.

4

b. Prudential Considerations

5

In addition to constitutional standing requirements, the Court must also weigh

6 prudential considerations, inquiring whether the plaintiff seeks to protect another person’s

7 legal rights. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). A few district court cases have

8 found that an organization is not the proper party to bring a claim where the organization

9 was “merely repeating the claims” of the individuals. Access 123, Inc. v. Markey’s Lobster

10 Pool, Inc., 2001 WL 920051 at *4 (D.N.H. Aug. 14, 2001); Disabled in Action of Metro.

11 N.Y. v. Trump Int’l Hotel & Tower, 2003 WL 1751785 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2003). In those

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 cases, the organization only sought to represent the only one or two individuals who were

13 plaintiffs as well. Id. Here, NFBC has joined with three individuals and claims to

14 represent the interest of its membership at large. NFBC is not simply standing in for one

15 of its members, but rather represents a broad membership base, which it alleges has

16 sufficiently been injured by Uber. FAC ¶ 22. Therefore, the Court does not believe that

17 prudential considerations preclude NFBC’s associational standing.

18

Uber also argues that NFBC does not have standing to sue in its own right. Dkt.

19 No. at 7-8. The Court declines to reach this issue because “even if the organization has not

20 suffered injury to itself, it may have standing to assert the rights of its members.” Warth v.

21 Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511 (1975). Therefore, an association need not prove injury to itself.

22 Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 582 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1191-92 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

23 NFBC has associational standing, so does not need to demonstrate standing to sue in its

24 own right.

25

2. Hingson’s Standing Under the ADA

26

In order to establish an injury in fact, the ADA does not require “a person with a

27 disability to engage in a futile gesture if such person has actual notice that a person or

28 organization . . . does not intend to comply.” 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1); Pickern v. Holiday

Case No.:14-cv-04086-NC

7

1 Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002). “Allegations that show plausible

2 intention or desire to return to the place but for barriers to access are sufficient.” Pickern,

3 293 F.3d at 1138. Interpreting Pickern, the Ninth Circuit clarified, “if a plaintiff can show

4 either that he was deterred from visiting the accommodation on specific past occasions

5 when he otherwise would have visited it because of the known barriers there . . . he has

6 established an injury in fact.” Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1041 n.4 (9th Cir.

7 2008).

8

In Disabled in Action, 2003 WL 1751785 at *7 n.4, the district court surveyed

9 nationwide cases that considered the “intent to return” requirement and found that

10 generally, “courts have held that plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief under the

11 ADA when they have not stated an intention or desire to return . . . or have failed to show a

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 likelihood of discrimination should they return to that place.” Therefore, at the pleading

13 stage, a plaintiff must allege (1) actual notice of discriminatory practices; (2) specific

14 occasions when he was deterred from visiting the accommodation; (3) an intent to return;

15 and (4) a likelihood of continued discrimination.

16

Here, Hingson alleges that “he has specific and general knowledge of the

17 experiences of multiple Uber passengers with service animals who have been denied

18 access.” FAC ¶ 67. Specifically, he alleges that during the annual state convention for

19 NFBC in El Segundo, California on October 9-12, 2014, he met “attendees with service

20 animals who were experiencing denials when attempting to use UberX to travel to and

21 from the convention hotel.” FAC ¶ 67. In addition, he lists a number of specific dates and

22 instances when he was deterred from using UberX. FAC ¶¶ 68-71. Hingson alleges that

23 he would like to use UberX on March 9, 2015 during a business trip in Sacramento, but is

24 deterred based on his belief of continued discrimination. FAC ¶ 72.

25

Uber argues that Hingson has not sufficiently demonstrated an injury in fact

26 because he never attempted to use any Uber vehicles. Dkt. No. 25 at 14. In addition, Uber

27 challenges Hingson’s ability to demonstrate “actual notice” of Uber’s alleged

28 discriminatory practices that would be sufficient to invoke the Pickern “deterrence theory”

Case No.:14-cv-04086-NC

8

1 because not all Uber drivers turn away blind individuals and their service animals. Id.

2

The Court notes that the factual scenario presented here is different than that

3 discussed in Pickern and Doran. Those cases envisioned physical barriers that prevented a

4 disabled person from gaining equal access, which would be present until removed. Here,

5 Hingson cannot know with certainty whether an Uber driver will accept or reject him and

6 his service animal. However, the Court is guided by the policy emphasized in Doran.

7

In Doran, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that a plaintiff need only allege one instance

8 of ADA violation to achieve standing, but could then challenge other ADA violations

9 found in the course of discovery. 524 F.3d at 1047. The Court noted that “a rule limiting

10 plaintiff to challenging the barriers he or she had encountered or personally knew about

11 would burden business and other places of public accommodation with more ADA

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 litigation, encourage piecemeal compliance with the ADA, and ultimately thwart the

13 ADA’s remedial goals of eliminating widespread discrimination against the disabled into

14 the mainstream American life.” Id.

15

The ADA directs this Court to relax its standard for injury in fact in order to

16 discourage both piecemeal litigation and futile attempts at access. Hingson does not need

17 to use Uber’s services and risk being turned away when he has knowledge that disabled

18 individuals with service animals have been turned away, and he believes there is a

19 likelihood of continued discrimination. Accordingly, the Court finds that Hingson has

20 alleged sufficient facts in the complaint, taken as true at the pleading stage, to demonstrate

21 that he had actual notice of Uber’s alleged discriminatory practice and that he was in fact

22 deterred from using Uber’s service.

23

3. Unruh Act Claims and the DPA

24

Uber argues that NFBC and Hingson are not “aggrieved persons” under Unruh and

25 DPA, so do not have standing to assert those claims. Dkt. No. 25 at 18-20.

26

Plaintiffs’ second and third claims are state law claims under the California Unruh

27 Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code §§ 51, 52) and the California Disabled Persons Act

28 (California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3). FAC ¶¶ 105-119. The Unruh Act and the DPA

Case No.:14-cv-04086-NC

9

1 incorporate ADA standards, so a “violation of the ADA also constitutes a violation of both

2 the Unruh Act and the DPA.” Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s LLC, 165

3 Cal. App. 4th 571, 586 (2008); Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 731 (9th Cir.

4 2007). The Unruh Act provides declaratory and monetary relief to “aggrieved persons”

5 who suffer from discrimination on the basis of their disability. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51, 52.

6 The DPA provides for both monetary damages and attorney’s fees. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54-

7 54.3. Therefore, a plaintiff who has standing to, and does prevail, on an ADA claim can

8 also seek monetary relief under the Unruh Act and the DPA.

9

In fact, the California Supreme Court recognized that the DPA affords “greater

10 protection compared to the ADA” because its “standing provision is broader than its

11 federal counterpart.” Jankey v. Song Koo Lee, 290 P.3d 187, 195 (Cal. 2012). “Under

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 state law, because a plaintiff need only show he or she is ‘aggrieved or potentially

13 aggrieved’ (§ 55) to seek injunctive relief, ‘virtually any disabled person can bring an

14 action to compel compliance with’ state disability access guarantees.” Id. (quoting

15 Urhausen v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc., 155 Cal. App. 4th 254, 265 (2007)).

16 Notably, California courts do not require “proof that a plaintiff intends to encounter or has

17 been deterred from encountering a given architectural barrier” under the DPA. Jankey,

18 290 P.3d at 195. Although a plaintiff may have standing, he may not be sufficiently

19 injured to recover monetary damages. Urhausen, 155 Cal. App. 4th at 265-66.

20

It is clear to the Court that these state law statutory provisions are meant to work in

21 harmony with the ADA, whereby a plaintiff proving an ADA violation can seek monetary

22 recovery for (1) his actual harm, and (2) his attorney’s fees, two remedies not provided for

23 under the ADA. Additionally, the Court follows the reasoning of its own district that an

24 association establishing standing under the ADA will also have standing to pursue the state

25 law claims. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind, 582 F. Supp. 2d at 1192; Coal. of Human Advocates

26 for K9’s and Owners v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 06-cv-1887 MMC, 2007 WL

27 641197 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2007). Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiffs NFBC and

28 Hingson do have standing to pursue their claims under both the Unruh Act and the DPA

Case No.:14-cv-04086-NC

10

1 because they have standing under the ADA.

2

4. Pedersen’s Standing

3

Uber alleges that Pedersen’s standing fails because his allegations are too vague.

4 Dkt. No. 25 at 21. The complaint alleges that Pedersen’s wife uses her Uber account to

5 request rides for Pedersen. FAC ¶ 25. Pedersen alleges that he “has been denied access to

6 UberX taxi services multiple times because of his service animal.” FAC ¶ 25.

7 Additionally, Pedersen provides an account of his September 12, 2014 attempt to use

8 UberX where he was refused because of his service animal. FAC ¶ 74. Finally, Pedersen

9 claims that he would like to continue using UberX. FAC ¶ 74. As noted in the discussion

10 of plaintiff Hingson’s standing, the ADA simply requires Pedersen to allege that he intends

11 to use the service again and a likelihood of future discrimination. Pedersen has alleged

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 what is required to demonstrate standing under the ADA.

13

Therefore, the Court denies Uber’s motion to dismiss based on lack of standing.

14

B. Motion For A More Definite Statement

15

Uber moves for an order requiring Pedersen to provide a more definite statement

16 under Rule 12(e) as to his alleged harm. Dkt. No. 25 at 21.

17

A party may move for a more definite statement when a pleading is “so vague or

18 ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). “A

19 motion for a more definite statement attacks intelligibility, not simply lack of detail. For

20 this reason, the motion fails where the complaint is specific enough to apprise the

21 defendant of the substance of the claim being asserted.” Gregory Vill. Partners, L.P. v.

22 Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 805 F. Supp. 2d 888, 896 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

23

Uber argues that Pedersen’s claims lack detail and that “[d]efendants cannot even

24 determine whether he has standing to sue in the first place.” Dkt. No. 30 at 13. As

25 discussed above, the Court finds Pedersen’s pleadings specific enough to establish his

26 standing. Therefore, the Court similarly denies Uber’s 12(e) motion.

27 //

28

Case No.:14-cv-04086-NC

11

United States District Court Northern District of California

C. Uber’s ADA Liability 1
Uber urges this Court to find that it is not a public accommodation under the ADA,
2 placing it outside the scope of regulated businesses. Dkt. No. 25 at 22-25.
3 A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal
4 sufficiency of a complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). On a
5 motion to dismiss, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the
6 light most favorable to the non-movant. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-
7 38 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court, however, need not accept as true “allegations that are
8 merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re
9 Gilead Scis. Secs. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). Although a complaint need
10 not allege detailed factual allegations, it must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
11 true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
12 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when it “allows the court to draw
13 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft
14 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). When deciding whether to grant a Rule 12(b)(6)
15 motion to dismiss, the Court generally “may not consider any material beyond the
16 pleadings.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19
17 (9th Cir. 1990). Therefore, the question is not whether plaintiff’s assertions are factually
18 accurate, but rather, whether taking the complaint as true, there exists a plausible legal
19 claim.
20 If a court grants a motion to dismiss, leave to amend should be granted unless the
21 pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts. Lopez v. Smith, 203
22 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000).
23 Plaintiffs have alleged Uber is liable under the ADA under 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b), as
24 a “public accommodation,” or 42 U.S.C. § 12184, as a “specified public transportation
25 service.” FAC ¶¶ 82, 91. Uber asserts only that it is not a “public accommodation” under
26 the ADA, but does not ask the Court to dismiss the complaint as to the specified public
27 transportation service claim. Dkt. No. 30 at n.12. The ADA lists twelve categories of
28

Case No.:14-cv-04086-NC

12

1 private establishments that are considered a “public accommodation” if they affect

2 interstate commerce. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Plaintiffs allege that Uber’s operations fall

3 under the “travel service” category, so Uber qualifies as a public accommodation. 42

4 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(f). Dkt. No. 28 at 19. The ADA does not define travel services.

5

In Carparts Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v. Auto. Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New England, Inc., 37

6 F.3d 12, 13 (1st Cir. 1994), the First Circuit reviewed a district judge’s dismissal of a

7 complaint alleging that health care insurers constituted a public accommodation under the

8 ADA. There, the Court discussed the meaning of “public accommodation” and reasoned

9 that “[b]y including ‘travel service’ among the list of services considered ‘public

10 accommodations,’ Congress clearly contemplated that ‘service establishments’ include

11 providers of services which do not require a person to physically enter an actual physical

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 structure.” Id. at 19. The First Circuit did not ultimately decide whether a health care

13 insurer was a public accommodation, but rather found the term “public accommodation”

14 vague and concluded that at the motion to dismiss stage, “it is unwise to go beyond the

15 possibility that the plaintiff may be able to develop some kind of claim under Title III.” Id.

16 at 20. Similarly here, defendants have not cited any binding law that Uber’s service is

17 precluded from regulation as a “travel service” under § 12182(b). In the absence of clear

18 law to the contrary, the Court finds that plaintiffs’ allegations, when taken as true,

19 demonstrate a plausible claim for Uber’s ADA liability under § 12182.

20

The Court denies Uber’s motion to dismiss and finds that the determination of

21 Uber’s potential liability under the public accommodation provision of the ADA requires

22 more factual development.

23 III. CONCLUSION

24

In conclusion, this Court is guided by two primary factors in denying the

25 defendants’ motion to dismiss. First, the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the DPA require the

26 court to construe standing liberally. Second, at the pleading stage, the Court must take all

27 facts pled in the complaint as true and consider whether the information provided is

28 sufficient to allege a plausible claim. The ADA, the Unruh Act, and the DPA have granted

Case No.:14-cv-04086-NC

13

1 private citizens a broad right to enforce their mandates, and this Court has been instructed

2 that disabled plaintiffs should not be required to engage in “futile” attempts at access.

3 Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged claims for discrimination

4 under the ADA, the Unruh Act, the DPA, and for declaratory relief.

5

Uber has raised a number of concerns about the scope of the relief requested,

6 particularly in regard to NFBC and Hingson on the state law grounds, as well as the relief

7 sought on behalf of individuals allegedly bound by arbitration clauses. The Court’s

8 findings today do not preclude Uber from raising these defenses at a later stage of

9 litigation.

10

Defendants have 14 days to answer the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). The

11 Court also sets a case management conference for June 3, 2015, at 10:00 a.m in Courtroom

United States District Court Northern District of California

12 A, 15th Floor, U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

13 The parties may participate by telephone by contacting the Courtroom Deputy in advance

14 at (408) 535-5343.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

17 Dated: April 17, 2015 18

_____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No.:14-cv-04086-NC

14

 </s> Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 34

1 LAURENCE PARADIS – Cal. Bar No. 122336

JULIA MARKS – Cal. Bar No. 300544

2 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor

3 Berkeley, California 94704-1204

Telephone: (510) 665-8644

4 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

Email:

lparadis@dralegal.org

5

TIMOTHY ELDER – Cal. Bar No. 277152

6 TRE LEGAL PRACTICE

4226 Castanos Street

7 Fremont, California 94536

Telephone: (410) 415-3493

8 Facsimile: (888) 718-0617

Email:

telder@trelegal.com

9

MICHAEL W. BIEN – Cal. Bar No. 096891

10 MICHAEL S. NUNEZ – Cal. Bar No. 280535

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

11 50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105-2235

12 Telephone: (415) 433-6830

Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

13 Email:

mbien@rbgg.com

mnunez@rbgg.com

14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15

16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
18

19 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE
20 BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, MICHAEL KELLY, MICHAEL HINGSON, and
21 MICHAEL PEDERSEN,

22

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 3:14-cv-04086-NC
JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

23

v.

24 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, AND RASIER-CA, LLC,
25 Defendants.
26

Judge: Hon. Magistrate Nathaniel Cousins Date: June 8, 2016 Time: 1:00 PM Crtrm.: 7, 4th Floor
Trial Date: Jun. 13, 2016

27

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 34

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page

3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION............................................................................... 1

4 RELIEF SOUGHT................................................................................................................. 1

5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES....................................................... 2

6 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 2

7 THE PARTIES ...................................................................................................................... 5

8 PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS ............................... 6

9

A. Prelitigation Stage And Initial Litigation ........................................................ 6

10

B. Settlement Negotiations And Preparation For Trial........................................ 7

11 SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT ................................................................................. 8

12

A. Enhanced Dissemination Of Information To Drivers. .................................... 8

13

B. Changes To Enforcement Practices Related To Nondiscrimination. .............. 8

14

C. Cleaning Fee Policy For Riders With Service Animals .................................. 9

15

D. Changes To Complaint Processing Procedures............................................... 9

16

E. Revisions To Uber’s Service Animal Policy................................................. 10

17

F. Compliance Record Keeping And Testing.................................................... 10

18

G. Third-Party Monitor ...................................................................................... 11

19

H. Duration Of The Agreement.......................................................................... 12

20

I. Further Modifications To Uber’s Policies, Practices, And Procedures......... 12

21

J. Dispute Resolution Process ........................................................................... 12

22

K. Compensation To NFB.................................................................................. 13

23

L. Payments To Individual Plaintiffs ................................................................. 13

24

M. Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses, And Costs......................................... 13

25

N. Objecting To The Settlement Agreement...................................................... 14

26

O. Release Of Individual Damages Claims And Class Injunctive Claims ........ 14

27

28

i

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 34

1 ARGUMENT....................................................................................................................... 14

2 I. CERTIFYING THE CLASS IS APPROPRIATE UNDER FED. R. CIV. P.

23(a) AND (b)(2) ...................................................................................................... 14

3

A. The Proposed Class Meets The Numerosity, Typicality,

4

Commonality, And Adequacy Requirements Of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) ........ 15

5

1. The Proposed Class Meets The Numerosity Requirement ................ 15

6

2. The Proposed Class Satisfies The Commonality Requirement.......... 16

7

3. The Proposed Class Satisfies The Typicality Requirement ............... 17

8

4. Class Representatives And Experienced Class Counsel Here

Easily Meet The Adequacy Requirement........................................... 18

9

5. The Ascertainability Requirement Does Not Apply Here, But

10

Even If It Did, The Class Is Sufficiently Ascertainable ..................... 20

11

B. The Proposed Class Meets the Requirements Of Rule 23(b)(2) ................... 21

12 II.
13 III.
14

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT IS APPROPRIATE ....................................................................................................... 22
THE COURT SHOULD DIRECT DISTRIBUTION OF THE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT ........................................................................................................ 25

15 IV. THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER..................................................................................................................... 26
16 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................... 26
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ii

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 34

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

Page

3

CASES

4

Abdullah v. U.S. Sec. Associates, Inc.,

5

731 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................... 18

6 Amone v. Aveiro,

226 F.R.D. 677 (D. Haw. 2005) ............................................................................... 17

7

Astiana v Kashi Co.,

8

291 F.R.D. 493 (S.D. Cal. 2013) .............................................................................. 22

9 Baby Neal for and by Kanter v. Casey,

43 F.3d 48 (3rd Cir. 1994) ........................................................................................ 23

10

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp.,

11

249 F.R.D. 334 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ............................................................................. 23

12 Dunakin v. Quigley,

99 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (W.D. Wash. 2015) ................................................................. 22

13

Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell,

14

688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 17, 19, 20

15 Gay v. Waiters’ & Dairy Lunchmen’s Union,

489 F. Supp. 282 (N.D. Cal. 1980), aff’d, 649 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1982) ................. 17

16

Grant v. Capital Management Services, L.P.,

17

10–cv–2471–WQH (BGS), 2013 WL 6499698 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2013) ............. 24

18 Gray v. Golden Gate Nat’l Recreational Area,

279 F.R.D. 501 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ............................................................................. 23

19

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,

20

150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................... 19, 21, 24

21 Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.,

976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................... 19

22

Hernandez v. Cnty of Monterey,

23

305 F.R.D. 132 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................. 18

24 In re Abbott Laboratories Norvir Anti-Trust Litigation,

Nos. C 04-1511 CW, C 04-4203 CW, 2007 WL 1689899 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11,

25

2007) ......................................................................................................................... 17

26 In re Immune Response Securities Litigation,

97 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ...................................................................... 24

27

In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litigation,

28

309 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................. 20

iii

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 5 of 34

1 In re M.L. Stern Overtime Litig.,

07–CV–0118–BTM (JMA), 2009 WL 995864 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009) .............. 24

2

In re Yahoo Mail Litigation,

3

308 F.R.D. 577 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................. 22

4 Kim v. Space Pencil, Inc.,

C 11–03796 LB, 2012 WL 5948951 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2012) ............................. 27

5

Lane v. Facebook, Inc.,

6

696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 24, 25, 27

7 Lanovaz v. Twinings North America, Inc.,

2014 WL 1652338 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2014).......................................................... 22

8

Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,

9

666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................... 18

10 Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,

707 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................. 19

11

Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp.,

12

582 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (N.D. Cal. 2007).................................................................... 20

13 Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Uber Techs., Inc.,

103 F. Supp. 3d 1073 (N.D. Cal. 2015).................................................................... 16

14

Parsons v. Ryan,

15

754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ 18, 19, 23

16 Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp.,

563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................... 27

17

Shelton v. Bledsoe,

18

775 F.3d 554 (3d Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................... 22

19 Shook v. El Paso Cnty.,

386 F.3d 963 (10th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................. 22

20

Wolph v. Acer Am. Corp.,

21

No. 09–01314, 2012 WL 993531 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2012) .................................. 22

22

23

STATUTES

24 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et. seq. ................................................................................................... 6

25 Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 et. seq. ................................................................................................. 6

26 Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54-54.3 ..................................................................................................... 6

27

28

iv

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 6 of 34

1

RULES

2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.......................................................................................................... passim

3

4

OTHER AUTHORITIES

5 1 Alba Cone & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 3.3 (4th ed. 2002) ......................................................................................................................... 16
6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

v

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 7 of 34

1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on June 8, 2016 or as soon thereafter as the matter

3 may be heard, Plaintiffs National Federation of the Blind of California, National

4 Federation of the Blind, Michael Kelly, Michael Hingson, and Michael Pedersen

5 (hereafter, collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier LLC,

6 and Rasier-CA LLC (hereafter “the Parties”) will jointly move the Court for (1) approval

7 to file Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint submitted herewith as Ex. 2 to the

8 Declaration of Laurence Paradis (“Paradis Decl.”), (2) preliminary approval of the

9 proposed class settlement agreement (“the Agreement”) submitted herewith as Ex. 1 to the

10 Paradis Declaration, (3) an order certifying the proposed settlement class, (4) an order

11 directing notice to the proposed settlement class, and for a scheduling order setting

12 deadlines for objections and setting a fairness hearing, and (5) final approval of the

13 agreement following a fairness hearing.

14

15

In support of this motion, the Parties state:

16

1. The Agreement represents a comprehensive settlement of the issues raised in

17

the above-captioned case.

18

2. The Agreement offers a fair and equitable result to those affected by it.

19

3. The Agreement will result in significant long-term benefits both for

20

individuals who are members of the proposed settlement class and for

21

Defendants.

22

RELIEF SOUGHT

23

The Parties respectfully request that the Court enter the attached proposed order:

24

1. Granting Plaintiffs leave to file the Second Amended Complaint attached as

25

Ex. 2 to the accompanying Declaration of Laurence Paradis;

26

2. Conditionally certifying a settlement class for injunctive relief under Federal

27

Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2);

28

3. Granting preliminary approval of the Agreement so that the Parties may

1

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 8 of 34

1

proceed with notice to the class and to a fairness hearing for final approval of

2

the Agreement;

3

4. Directing the proposed form of notice to the settlement class; and

4

5. Setting a schedule for notice to the class, objections, and a fairness hearing

5

for final approval of the Agreement.

6

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

7

INTRODUCTION

8

This lawsuit and the proposed class settlement agreement address Plaintiffs’

9 allegations of discrimination against blind individuals who travel with service animals in

10 the provision of transportation arranged through the Uber mobile software application.

11 The Agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Laurence Paradis (“Paradis

12 Decl.”), is the product of thorough arm’s length negotiations, several in-person settlement

13 meetings, a day-long JAMS mediation session, and exchange of information and numerous

14 proposals over the past eleven months. The Agreement provides for significant injunctive

15 relief that will modify Uber’s policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that blind riders

16 with service animals receive reliable access to transportation arranged through the Uber

17 rider mobile application (“Uber Rider App”), comprehensive monitoring, a method to

18 adjust the injunctive relief to address unforeseen access issues that arise, and payment of

19 attorneys’ fees and costs. The Parties request an Order from the Court determining that the

20 settlement is fair and reasonable.

21

Under the Agreement, Uber will implement an array of policies and practices

22 nationwide to ensure that blind or visually-disabled riders with service animals (“Riders

23 with Service Animals”) receive reliable access to transportation arranged through the Uber

24 app and to effectively address any discriminatory treatment that Riders with Service

25 Animals encounter from the transportation providers licensed to use the app (“Drivers”)

26 when attempting to use the Uber Rider App. Uber will revise its national service animal

27 policy to clarify that no exceptions exist for allergies or religious objections to the Drivers’

28 contractual and legal obligation to transport Riders with Service Animals, will require that

2

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 9 of 34

1 all Drivers who provide transportation through the Uber platform agree to transport riders

2 with service animals consistent with Drivers’ legal obligation as a condition of continued

3 access to the Uber platform, and will adopt enhanced enforcement mechanisms,

4 terminating contractual relationships with Drivers who knowingly refuse to transport

5 Riders with Service Animals, thus preventing them from receiving trip requests through

6 the Uber platform. Uber will also inform riders who submit service animal complaints

7 about the result of Uber’s investigation of any complaint, including whether Uber severed

8 its contractual relationship with the driver.

9

The agreement also provides for comprehensive reporting and monitoring on a

10 national scale, and provides a procedure to further enhance the injunctive relief if

11 necessary. Under the Agreement, Uber will retain and periodically report aggregate data

12 concerning service animal complaints, trip and enforcement data associated with each

13 report asserting that a driver refused to transport a rider with a service animal, and trip data

14 associated with each ride where Uber charged a rider with a service animal a cleaning fee.

15 The Agreement additionally provides for a third-party monitor who will review and

16 evaluate Uber’s compliance with the Agreement. Moreover, the Agreement allows the

17 Parties to modify the injunctive relief to address unforeseen service animal access issues

18 that class members encounter during the term of the agreement.

19

The Agreement is conditioned on certification of the following proposed class1 for

20 settlement purposes:

21

All blind or visually disabled individuals nationwide who travel with the

assistance of Service Animals and who have used, attempted to use, or been

22

deterred from attempting to use transportation arranged through the Uber

Rider App.

23

24 1 The Parties acknowledge and agree that Uber is not, by stipulating to a settlement on a

25

class basis, waiving any right to seek enforcement of any arbitration agreement and class action waiver and/or representative action waiver between any proposed class member (or

26

anyone else) and Uber or any of its subsidiaries or affiliated entities in any other action or in any other circumstances. As this is a critical consideration to Uber in agreeing to a class

27

settlement, the Parties request that any approval order expressly reference and confirm this point.

28

3

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 10 of 34

1 The Parties stipulate that certification of the proposed class under Federal Rule of Civil

2 Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) is appropriate for settlement purposes. The settlement

3 contemplated herein would result in a single set of national policies, practices, and

4 procedures concerning transportation of Riders with Service Animals that is applicable to

5 all class members. Similarly, the modifications to current policies, practices, and

6 procedures in the Agreement will enhance access to transportation arranged through the

7 Uber Rider App for all class members.

8

This settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The settlement process posed

9 difficult factual questions concerning crafting effective relief for the class while

10 accounting for Uber’s existing business model, i.e., that the Drivers are independent

11 contractors. The Parties effectively addressed this challenge by negotiating an agreement

12 at arm’s length that provides significant benefits to the class and avoids protracted

13 litigation, while not altering the Drivers’ relationships with Uber. Accordingly, the Parties

14 respectfully request: (1) approval to file Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, which

15 adds the National Federation of the Blind as a plaintiff and expands the scope of the case

16 by asserting class allegations regarding access to all transportation nationwide arranged

17 through the Uber Rider App, (2) certification of the proposed settlement class under

18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2); (3) preliminary approval of the

19 settlement agreement; (4) an order approving notice to the class of the settlement

20 agreement and setting a fairness hearing; and (5) final approval of this agreement at the

21 time of the fairness hearing. The Parties’ counsel have negotiated the foregoing and agree

22 to the form and content.

23

The proposed class will upon final approval release all claims for injunctive or

24 declaratory relief relating to the subject matter of the Second Amended Complaint,

25 including claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and any and all applicable state

26 disability access laws. The named plaintiffs will also release any and all claims for

27 damages, while the class will not release any damage claims that may exist.

28

4

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 11 of 34

1

THE PARTIES

2

The National Federation of the Blind (“NFB”), a nonprofit corporation, is the

3 nation’s oldest and largest association of blind persons. NFB has affiliates in all fifty

4 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. NFB has approximately fifty thousand

5 members nationwide. The National Federation of the Blind of California (“NFB-CA”) is

6 an association of blind Californians and is the California State affiliate of the NFB. The

7 mission of NFB and NFB-CA is to promote the vocational, cultural, and social advance-

8 ment of the blind and to achieve the integration of the blind into society on a basis of

9 equality with the sighted. Securing reliable access to transportation, including using

10 modern technology, advances the goal of NFB and NFB-CA to ensure that blind individ-

11 uals may travel in the same way that sighted individuals travel. See Declaration of Mark

12 Riccobono ¶ 3 (“Riccobono Decl.”); Declaration of Mary Willows ¶ 3 (“Willows Decl.”).

13

Individual plaintiffs Michael Pedersen and Michael Kelly are legally blind, reside in

14 California, use guide dogs, and allege that Drivers on the Uber platform refused to

15 transport them because of their service animals. Plaintiff Kelly is a member of NFB-CA.

16 Individual Plaintiff Michael Hingson is a legally blind resident of California, uses a guide

17 dog, and is a member of NFB-CA. Mr. Hingson alleges that he is deterred from

18 attempting to use transportation arranged through the Uber Rider App because he has

19 learned from others that Drivers on the Uber platform have refused to transport blind

20 Riders with guide dogs in California and elsewhere on many occasions.

21

Uber Technologies Inc. (“Uber”) is a company that offers a smart phone application

22 (“Uber Rider App”) that connects individuals looking for transportation (“Riders”) with

23 independent transportation providers looking for passengers (“Driver Partners” or

24 “Drivers”). Uber’s platform offers access to multiple different vehicle types based on the

25 rider’s vehicle preference. These categories currently include, for example, UberX,

26 UberPool, UberXL, UberBLACK, UberTaxi, UberSUV, UberSelect, and UberAccess.

27 Rasier LLC and Rasier-CA LLC (hereafter referred to collectively with Uber as “Uber”)

28 are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Uber that provide lead generation services via Uber’s

5

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 12 of 34

1 platform to driver partners. Transportation arranged through the Uber Rider App is

2 available in over 150 metropolitan areas across most states.

3

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

4

NFB-CA and three blind individuals brought this action to challenge alleged

5 discrimination against blind Riders with guide dogs in the provision of transportation

6 arranged through the Uber Rider App. Plaintiffs allege that Uber denies blind Riders with

7 Service Animals full and equal access to the transportation services that Uber makes

8 available to other Riders. Plaintiffs allege that Uber has violated the Americans with

9 Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et. seq., the California Unruh Civil Rights Act,

10 California Civil Code §§ 51 et. seq., and the California Disabled Persons Act, California

11 Civil Code §§ 54-54.3. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief under Plaintiffs’

12 ADA and Unruh Act claims. Plaintiffs Kelly and Pedersen also seek statutory damages

13 under their state law claims in an amount ranging from $1,000 to $4,000 for each occasion

14 where a driver on the Uber platform allegedly refused to transport them because of their

15 service animals, and Plaintiff Hingson seeks statutory damages based on his state law

16 deterrence claims.

17

Uber has denied and continues to deny liability under the federal and state laws at

18 issue, and further asserts that its current policies, practices, and procedures meet its

19 obligations under applicable law. Uber has also asserted defenses based on the

20 applicability of these laws to Uber.

21

A. Prelitigation Stage And Initial Litigation

22

Prior to initiating this litigation, Plaintiffs notified Uber on June 3, 2014 that

23 Drivers on the Uber platform had refused to transport plaintiffs and many other blind

24 individuals because of their service animals. The Parties met but were unable to resolve

25 the issue, and Plaintiffs initiated this litigation.

26

On September 9, 2014, Plaintiffs NFB-CA and Hingson filed this action in federal

27 court in San Francisco. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on November 12,

28 2014. The FAC joined Plaintiffs Kelly and Pedersen and Defendants Rasier and

6

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 13 of 34

1 Rasier-CA.

2

On December 3, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a

3 claim against all Plaintiffs based on Plaintiffs’ ADA claims and a Motion to Dismiss for

4 lack of standing against some of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs opposed the motion. On

5 April 17, 2015, this Court issued an order denying Uber’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’

6 claims. The Court held that all Plaintiffs possessed standing.

7

B. Settlement Negotiations And Preparation For Trial

8

The Parties then complied with the procedures set forth in the Northern District’s

9 General Order 56. On May 1, 2015, the Parties exchanged initial disclosures, and

10 Defendants answered Plaintiffs’ FAC. On May 8, 2015, the Parties conducted a joint

11 inspection and review and held an initial in person settlement meeting. The Parties held an

12 additional settlement meeting on June 18, 2015. On August 10, 2015, the Parties held an

13 all-day mediation before Hon. Jamie Jacobs-May (ret.) at JAMS. At the end of the

14 mediation, the Parties agreed to the parameters of a settlement with respect to non-

15 monetary terms and continued to pursue final settlement regarding all other terms.

16

On July 30, 2015, the Court opened discovery, and on August 13, 2015, the Court

17 set a trial date for April, 2016. Because of the trial schedule, Plaintiffs pursued a two-track

18 approach, continuing to work toward settlement while preparing for trial. In September,

19 2015, Plaintiffs provided Defendants with a written settlement proposal. The Parties

20 continued to engage in settlement negotiations, exchanging settlement proposals and

21 holding conference calls to discuss these proposals. In addition, beginning October 1,

22 2015, Plaintiffs served written discovery requests and noticed depositions.

23

In January 2016, the Parties reached an agreement on the key elements of a

24 settlement. Shortly thereafter, the Parties stipulated and the Court ordered that the

25 discovery deadlines be vacated, and the Court rescheduled the trial for June 13, 2016. The

26 Parties continued to negotiate the specific language of certain provisions of the Agreement

27 and addendums to the Agreement through early April of this year.

28

7

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 14 of 34

1

SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT

2

The proposed settlement includes the following terms.

3

A. Enhanced Dissemination Of Information To Drivers.

4

Uber agrees to enhance distribution of information to Drivers regarding their legal

5 and contractual obligation to transport Riders with Service Animals. Uber will require that

6 new Drivers expressly confirm that they have reviewed, understand, and agree to comply

7 with their legal obligations as outlined in Uber’s Service Animal Policy during the on-

8 boarding process and in Uber’s mobile application for Drivers (“Driver App”). In

9 addition, both new and existing Drivers will be blocked from receiving trip requests from

10 Riders through the Uber platform until they confirm in an interactive popup notification in

11 the Uber Driver App that they are willing to transport Riders with Service Animals.

12 Drivers that indicate that they are unwilling to transport Riders with Service Animals will

13 be permanently blocked from receiving trip requests through the Uber platform and their

14 contractual relationships with Uber terminated. Uber will also revise its written

15 agreements with Drivers to inform Drivers of their legal obligation to transport Riders with

16 Service Animals and the consequences of refusing to transport Riders with Service

17 Animals.

18

In addition, Uber will send quarterly email reminders to all Drivers for the term of

19 the Agreement reminding them of their legal obligation to transport Riders with Service

20 Animals. Uber has and/or will provide Class Counsel with drafts of the quarterly email

21 reminders and draft revisions to the driver licensing agreement for review and feedback

22 before issuance.

23

B. Changes To Enforcement Practices Related To Nondiscrimination.

24

Uber will adopt an enhanced enforcement policy, whereby Uber will permanently

25 terminate its contractual relationship with a driver and permanently terminate that driver’s

26 ability to receive trip requests through the Uber platform if Uber determines that the driver

27 knowingly refused to transport a rider because that rider was accompanied by a service

28 animal anywhere in the United States. Uber will also permanently terminate its contractual

8

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 15 of 34

1 relationship with a driver and permanently terminate that driver’s ability to receive trip

2 requests through the Uber platform if Uber receives plausible complaints on more than one

3 occasion asserting that a driver unlawfully refused to transport Riders with Service

4 Animals because of the service animal anywhere in the United States, regardless of

5 whether the driver’s refusal was knowing.

6

C. Cleaning Fee Policy For Riders With Service Animals

7

Uber will not charge Riders with Service Animals cleaning fees for shedding by

8 their service animals. Uber will not charge cleaning fees to Riders with Service Animals

9 for the first two reported messes involving the bodily fluid of the rider’s service animal.

10 Riders with service animals will be able to contest cleaning fees.

11

D. Changes To Complaint Processing Procedures

12

Uber will modify the incident reporting features within the Uber rider app and on

13 the Uber website to enhance Riders’ ability to effectively and efficiently submit service

14 animal complaints. Uber will modify the incident reporting form in the Uber Rider App so

15 that a user can easily mark the submission as a service animal complaint. Uber will place a

16 link to a similar form that can be easily located from the homepage of Uber’s website. A

17 document presenting the design of the enhanced website and Rider App incident report

18 forms is attached to the Agreement as Addendum 3.

19

Uber will forward all service animal complaints that it receives to Uber’s Access

20 Complaint Team, a team of employees dedicated to handling disability access complaints.

21 This team will review and evaluate every report asserting that a driver refused to transport

22 a rider with a service animal because of the service animal. Uber will notify each rider

23 who submitted a service animal complaint that Uber is reviewing the complaint. Uber will

24 make reasonable and good faith efforts to, within one week of receiving the complaint,

25 inform the complainant of the outcome of Uber’s review of the complaint, including

26 whether Uber has terminated its contractual relationship with the driver who was the

27 subject of the complaint, and whether Uber has recorded the complaint.

28

Uber will reverse any cancellation or other fees that were charged in connection

9

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 16 of 34

1 with an incident that is the basis of a service animal complaint. In addition, Uber will

2 provide the complaining rider with a $25 account credit if Uber terminates its relationship

3 with the driver who is the subject of the complaint. Information will be distributed to the

4 blind community, either by Uber or in conjunction with NFB or NFB-CA, about the

5 enhanced methods for submitting service animal complaints, and Uber’s policy to

6 reimburse complaining Riders for trip cancellation charges.

7

Uber will provide the Access Complaint Team and other employees who review

8 these complaints with a guidance document, attached as Addendum 2 to the Agreement,

9 that provides step-by-step instructions on evaluating a report that a driver refused to

10 transport a rider with a service animal because of the service animal. This document also

11 provides guidance on when charging cleaning fees to Riders with Service Animals is

12 permissible. Uber will train the Team on identifying situations where a driver has violated

13 Uber’s service animal policy.

14

E. Revisions To Uber’s Service Animal Policy

15

Uber will adopt a revised written service animal policy that incorporates the

16 enhanced enforcement policy, enhanced procedures for investigating and acting on service

17 animal complaints, and the cleaning fee policy for Riders with Service Animals established

18 by the agreement. The updated document also clarifies that there are no exceptions for

19 allergies or religious objections to Drivers’ contractual and legal obligations to transport

20 Riders with Service Animals. It further clarifies what questions Drivers may and may not

21 ask Riders with Service Animals about their service animals under applicable law. The

22 updated policy is attached to the Agreement as Addendum 4.

23

F. Compliance Record Keeping And Testing

24

Uber will collect and retain a national database of information to facilitate

25 monitoring compliance with the Agreement. This information will include rider, driver,

26 and trip data associated with each report that asserts that a driver refused to transport a

27 rider with a service animal because of the service animal, and each ride that results in Uber

28 charging a rider with a service animal a cleaning fee. It will also include information

10

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 17 of 34

1 concerning actions that Uber took with respect to the driver and the rider in connection

2 with each service animal complaint. Furthermore, it will include the number of service

3 animal complaints that Uber received and the number of Drivers with whom Uber has

4 terminated its contractual relationship due to violation of Uber’s service animal policy

5 during the reporting period.

6

Uber will report this data to Class Counsel quarterly for the first year of the term of

7 the Agreement, biannually for the second year of the term, and annually for the remainder

8 of the term. However, if the number of service animal complaints significantly increases

9 or if it is determined that Uber did not comply with the Agreement, Uber will resume

10 reporting on a quarterly basis for the remainder of the Agreement’s term.

11

NFB and NFB-CA will administer a compliance testing program for the term of the

12 Agreement. The testing program will deploy blind individuals with guide dogs across the

13 United States who will request and take trips using the Rider App to evaluate Uber’s

14 compliance with the Agreement.

15

G. Third-Party Monitor

16

A monitor will be selected to review, evaluate, and report annually on Uber’s

17 compliance with the Agreement. The monitor will propose further modifications to Uber’s

18 policies, practices, and procedures if the monitor concludes that Uber’s policies, practices,

19 and procedures are insufficient to ensure equal access for Riders with Service Animals.

20

The Parties will attempt to jointly select the monitor. If the Parties are unable to

21 select a monitor, the Parties will each submit three proposed candidates to the magistrate

22 judge who retains jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement, and the magistrate judge will

23 select the monitor. This approach will be used to select a replacement monitor if

24 necessary.

25

Uber will pay the monitor’s reasonable fees and costs, which will be originally

26 capped at $50,000 for the 3.5 year term of the Agreement, and an additional $35,000 for

27 the 1.5 year extension period if the agreement’s term is extended. Negotiating increases to

28 these caps is subject to the Agreement’s dispute resolution process.

11

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 18 of 34

1

H. Duration Of The Agreement.

2

The default term of the Agreement is 3.5 years. However, if the Parties agree or the

3 monitor determines that Uber did not substantially comply with the Agreement during the

4 second and/or third year of the Agreement’s term, the Agreement’s term will extend by 1.5

5 years to a total of five years.

6

I. Further Modifications To Uber’s Policies, Practices, And Procedures

7

Beginning one year after the effective date of the Agreement, the Parties may

8 negotiate additional modifications, upon Plaintiffs’ request, to Uber’s policies, practices,

9 and procedures concerning transporting blind Riders with Service Animals. The Parties

10 included this provision to provide the flexibility to further enhance the injunctive relief if

11 monitoring reveals it necessary, and to address unintended consequences of the relief or

12 unforeseen service animal access issues that arise during the Agreement’s term. If the

13 Parties reach an agreement on modifications, it will be memorialized in a binding written

14 memorandum of understanding. If the Parties are unable to reach an agreement, Plaintiffs

15 may use the Agreement’s dispute resolution process to attempt to secure additional

16 modifications to Uber’s relevant policies, practices, and procedures, but in no event will

17 the modifications lessen the benefits or protections for members of the settlement class.

18

J. Dispute Resolution Process

19

Enforcement of the Agreement will be subject to continuing jurisdiction of the

20 Court. The Parties request that, upon final approval of the Agreement, Magistrate Judge

21 Cousins retain jurisdiction to oversee enforcement of the Agreement, including resolving

22 disputes regarding Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs for work performed after

23 the effective date of the Agreement. If Magistrate Judge Cousins is or becomes

24 unavailable, the Parties request that the Court appoint another magistrate judge in the

25 Northern District of California to retain jurisdiction over this matter.

26

The Agreement establishes a three-step procedure for resolving disputes. First, the

27 Parties will meet and confer to attempt to resolve the dispute. If the Parties are unable to

28 resolve the dispute within twenty-one days after Plaintiffs’ raised the issue and if Uber is

12

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 19 of 34

1 willing to pay for a mediation, the Parties will submit the dispute for mediation at JAMS.

2 Finally, if the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute through mediation, or if the Parties

3 are unable to resolve the dispute through meeting and conferring within twenty-one days

4 after Plaintiffs first raised the issue and Uber is unwilling to pay the cost of a JAMS

5 mediation, the Parties will submit the matter to the magistrate judge who retains

6 jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement for binding resolution of the dispute.

7

K. Compensation To NFB

8

Uber will make three annual payments of $75,000 to NFB during the first three

9 years of the Agreement’s term. If the term of the Agreement is extended to five years,

10 Uber will make a fourth payment of $75,000 to NFB at the beginning of the extended term.

11

L. Payments To Individual Plaintiffs

12

Uber will pay a total of $45,000 which will be apportioned equally among the three

13 individual Plaintiffs, Michael Pedersen, Michael Kelly, and Michael Hingson. These

14 payments will resolve the individual Plaintiffs’ state law damages claims.

15

M. Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses, And Costs

16

No later than fourteen days before the deadline for class members to submit

17 objections to the Agreement, Class Counsel will move the Court for an award of

18 reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for their work on this matter up through the effective

19 date of the Agreement. Class Counsel will include instructions for accessing this motion

20 in the notice to the class. Uber agrees that the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable

21 attorneys’ fees and costs for Class Counsel’s work on this matter up through the effective

22 date of the Agreement, but Uber may dispute the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs.

23

The Agreement establishes a procedure for recovery of Plaintiffs’ reasonable

24 attorneys’ fees and costs for work performed after the Agreement is executed for

25 monitoring and enforcement. Beginning one year after the effective date, Class Counsel

26 will annually submit a request for reasonable fees, costs, and expenses for work performed

27 under this agreement. If Uber contests the requested amount, the Parties will attempt to

28 negotiate a resolution. The Parties will submit the dispute for resolution by the magistrate

13

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 20 of 34

1 judge who retains jurisdiction if the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 60

2 days.

3

N. Objecting To The Settlement Agreement

4

If this agreement is preliminarily approved and the proposed settlement class is

5 certified, the Parties will distribute notice to the settlement class in the manner approved

6 by this Court within sixty (60) days from the date of the Court’s order preliminarily

7 approving the agreement. The notice to class members will describe the agreement and

8 inform them of their right to object to the agreement. The notice disseminated to members

9 of the settlement class is attached as Exhibit 3 to the Paradis Declaration. Uber will pay

10 KCC LLC, a class settlement administrator, to post the notice on a settlement website that

11 KCC will maintain for this settlement, and to publish the notice in publications distributed

12 by the National Federation of the Blind and the American Council of the Blind, the two

13 largest associations of blind persons in the country.

14

O. Release Of Individual Damages Claims And Class Injunctive Claims

15

In exchange for the injunctive relief in this Agreement, Plaintiffs and the settlement

16 class agree to release any injunctive relief and declaratory relief claims against Uber

17 relating to the subject matter of the litigation. The release will apply to claims that arose

18 before the effective date of the Agreement.

19

In exchange for the damages relief in the Agreement, the named Plaintiffs also

20 release all of their damages claims against Uber relating to the subject matter of the

21 litigation. The settlement class, however, will not release any damages claims.

22

ARGUMENT

23 I. 24 25

CERTIFYING THE CLASS IS APPROPRIATE UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a) AND (b)(2)2 The Parties have stipulated to seek certification of the following settlement class at

26 2 To be clear, Defendants join in this motion only for settlement purposes and do not waive

27

any defenses they might raise as to class certification or the standing of Plaintiffs to pursue the relief sought herein should settlement approval not be granted.

28

14

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 21 of 34

1 the time of the fairness hearing:

2

all blind or visually disabled individuals nationwide who travel with the

assistance of Service Animals and who have used, attempted to use, or been

3

deterred from attempting to use transportation arranged through the Uber

Rider App.

4

5 The proposed settlement class is coextensive with the proposed class set forth in the

6 Second Amended Complaint. The class includes all individuals with service animals who

7 have been deterred from attempting to use transportation arranged through the Uber Rider

8 App because the parties agree for settlement purposes that these persons have standing to

9 allege that Uber has violated their rights under the ADA and equivalent state laws. Nat’l

10 Fed’n of the Blind v. Uber Techs., Inc., 103 F. Supp. 3d 1073, 1080-82 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

11

A. The Proposed Class Meets The Numerosity, Typicality, Commonality,

And Adequacy Requirements Of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)

12

13

Plaintiffs assert, and Defendants do not contest for purposes of settlement only, that

14 the proposed class satisfies the four threshold requirements for class certification under

15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). These requirements are: (1) numerosity of

16 potential class members, (2) commonality of factual and legal issues among class

17 members, (3) typicality of the class representatives’ claims, and (4) adequate

18 representation of class-wide interests by class representatives and class counsel.

19

1. The Proposed Class Meets The Numerosity Requirement

20

A class meets the numerosity requirement if the class is so large that joinder of all

21 members would be impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1); Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney

22 Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1029 (9th Cir. 2012) (certifying class of 262 individuals); Gay v.

23 Waiters’ & Dairy Lunchmen’s Union, 489 F. Supp. 282 (N.D. Cal. 1980), aff’d, 649 F.2d

24 531 (9th Cir. 1982) (certifying class of 184 identified potential class members). A class

25 consisting of forty or more individuals may satisfy the numerosity requirement. Amone v.

26 Aveiro, 226 F.R.D. 677, 684-85 (D. Haw. 2005) (certifying class where thirty members

27 had been identified and class likely had more than forty members). When “the exact size

28 of the class is unknown, but general knowledge and common sense indicate that it is large,

15

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 22 of 34

1 the numerosity requirement is satisfied.” In re Abbott Laboratories Norvir Anti-Trust

2 Litigation, Nos. C 04-1511 CW, C 04-4203 CW, 2007 WL 1689899, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jun.

3 11, 2007) (quoting 1 Alba Cone & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 3.3

4 (4th ed. 2002)).

5

The proposed class has well over forty members, and likely includes hundreds or

6 thousands, easily satisfying the numerosity requirement. Plaintiffs have identified seventy-

7 four blind individuals who use service animals and belong to the class. Paradis Decl. ¶ 33.

8 There are likely hundreds or thousands of additional class members. Approximately ten

9 thousand blind individuals use guide dogs in the United States, and blind individuals also

10 use service animals for other purposes. Id. Over one hundred thousand Drivers provide

11 transportation arranged through the Uber Rider App in over 150 metropolitan areas

12 nationwide. Thus, Plaintiffs submit that hundreds or thousands of blind individuals who

13 travel with service animals across the United States have actually used, or have reason to

14 and the opportunity to use transportation arranged through the Uber Rider App.

15

2. The Proposed Class Satisfies The Commonality Requirement

16

The Ninth Circuit construes the commonality requirement permissively. To satisfy

17 this requirement, there must be “questions of law or fact common to the class.” Fed. R.

18 Civ. P. 23(a)(2). “[A]ll that Rule 23(a)(2) requires is ‘a single significant question of law

19 or fact’” that will “generate common answers[.]” Abdullah v. U.S. Sec. Associates, Inc.,

20 731 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581,

21 589 (9th Cir. 2012)). In civil rights actions, “commonality is satisfied where the lawsuit

22 challenges a system-wide practice or policy that affects all of the putative class members.

23 Under such circumstances, individual factual differences among class members pose no

24 obstacle to commonality.” Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 682 (9th Cir. 2014); Hernandez

25 v. Cnty of Monterey, 305 F.R.D. 132, 153 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (commonality satisfied in

26 action including ADA claims where defendants operating jail had system-wide policies

27 and practices concerning inmate medical care, mental health care, and safety needs).

28

Here, Plaintiffs contend, and Defendants do not contest for settlement purposes

16

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 23 of 34

1 only, that the commonality requirement is satisfied because Uber has system-wide policies

2 and practices related to transporting Riders with Service Animals. Plaintiffs contend, and

3 Defendants do not contest for settlement purposes only, that Uber has a single nationwide

4 service animal policy, that Riders nationwide submit service animal complaints in a similar

5 manner, and that Uber will, as part of the settlement, implement uniform practices and

6 procedures nationwide for responding to complaints that Drivers have refused to transport

7 Riders with Service Animals. In addition, Drivers’ refusal to transport blind Riders with

8 Service Animals similarly affects members of the proposed class. They are all either

9 denied transportation and/or deterred from attempting to use transportation arranged

10 through the Uber Rider App. Plaintiff further contends, and Defendants do not contest for

11 settlement purposes only, that the determination of whether Uber’s policies and practices

12 concerning transporting blind Riders with Service Animals comply with state and federal

13 disability law will not vary based on the particular facts of each denial of service or

14 instance of deterrence.

15

3. The Proposed Class Satisfies The Typicality Requirement

16

The named class representatives must have claims that are typical of those of the

17 class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). “The test of typicality ‘is whether other members have the

18 same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the

19 named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same course

20 of conduct.’” Evon, 688 F.3d at 1030 (quoting Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d

21 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992)). Representative claims are typical if they are “reasonably co-

22 extensive with those of absent class members; they need not be substantially identical.”

23 Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 707 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2012)

24 (quoting Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1998)). “Differing

25 factual scenarios resulting in a claim of the same nature as other class members does not

26 defeat typicality.” Parsons, 754 F.3d at 686 (typicality satisfied where named plaintiffs

27 were state prisoners who asserted exposure, like other members of putative class, to risk of

28 future harm by challenged policies and practices, even if named plaintiffs might have

17

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 24 of 34

1 previously suffered varying injuries or have differing healthcare needs).

2

Plaintiffs allege, and Defendants do not contest for settlement purposes only, that

3 the named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the class. Proposed class

4 representatives Michael Kelly, Michael Pedersen, and Michael Hingson all have the same

5 disability and travel using the same mobility aid as other class members. They are blind

6 and use service animals. Plaintiffs contend they have all also alleged the same injury as

7 other members of the class due to the same conduct. Plaintiffs further contend they have

8 all alleged denial of transportation or deterrence from attempting to access transportation

9 through the Uber Rider App because Drivers on the Uber platform have refused to

10 transport Riders with Service Animals and because Uber has not adopted practices and

11 procedures adequate to prevent this conduct. Kelly Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Hingson Decl. ¶ 5;

12 Pedersen Decl. ¶ 4-5. NFB and NFB–CA are each membership organizations and have

13 members who have been denied rides because they are blind persons using service animals

14 and members deterred from using transportation arranged through the Uber Rider App by

15 the practices at issue. Each has a mission to support full integration and equal access for

16 blind persons. Plaintiffs contend that neither the claims asserted nor the relief requested in

17 this action require participation of individual members because injunctive relief has been

18 the principle goal sought. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 582 F. Supp. 2d 1185,

19 1192 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (holding that NFB and NFB-CA had standing to pursue claims on

20 behalf of class of blind persons).

21

4. Class Representatives And Experienced Class Counsel Here

Easily Meet The Adequacy Requirement

22

23

Finally, named Plaintiffs and class counsel must both adequately represent the class

24 to satisfy Rule 23(a). To establish adequacy, the named plaintiffs and class counsel must:

25 (1) not have conflicts of interest with the proposed class, and (2) prosecute the action

26 vigorously on behalf of the class. Evon, 688 F.3d at 1031; see also In re LinkedIn User

27 Privacy Litigation, 309 F.R.D. 573, 584-85 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (adequacy requirement

28 satisfied where named plaintiff and other members of class shared interest in securing

18

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 25 of 34

1 relief, there was no evidence of conflicts of interest, named plaintiff demonstrated

2 willingness to vigorously prosecute case, and class counsel had relevant experience).

3

Plaintiffs contend, and Defendants do not contest for settlement purposes only, that

4 no conflicts exist between named Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, and the settlement class with

5 respect to the negotiation and consummation of the terms of this settlement. All named

6 Plaintiffs and other class members seek the same relief here: changes to Uber’s policies

7 and practices that will ensure that they consistently receive full and equal access to

8 transportation arranged through the Uber Rider App. By ensuring that all Drivers are

9 aware of and agree to comply with their legal and contractual obligation to transport Riders

10 with Service Animals and enhancing Uber’s practices related to enforcing its agreements

11 with Drivers and the service animal policy, the proposed agreement is crafted to provide

12 such relief.

13

In addition, Plaintiffs contend that the named Plaintiffs and class counsel have

14 vigorously pursued relief for the class. Named Plaintiffs have knowledge of the case and

15 of their duties as class representatives, and are willing to continue to prosecute this action

16 if necessary. Riccobono Decl. ¶ 5; Willows Decl. ¶ 5; Kelly Decl. ¶ 7; Pedersen Decl. ¶ 6;

17 Hingson Decl. ¶ 6.

18

Only the individual named Plaintiffs receive damages under the Settlement. These

19 damages payments are based on multiple instances in which they allege they have been

20 denied access to or been deterred from attempting to access transportation through the

21 Uber Rider App. Pedersen Decl. ¶¶ 4-5; Kelly Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Hingson Decl. ¶ 5. The

22 damage payments are in exchange for a release of the individual plaintiffs’ damages

23 claims. The damage claims have always been secondary to the goal of seeking equal

24 access to the Uber transportation services, which the Agreement achieves for the class.

25 The compromise here that does not provide for damages to absent class members but does

26 not disturb their damage claims is reasonable. Continuing to litigate the case for damages

27 purposes would not serve the best interests of the class. See Paradis Decl. ¶ 20.

28

Plaintiffs contend that Class Counsel has vigorously pursued relief here on behalf of

19

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 26 of 34

1 the class through litigation and eventually through detailed arms-length settlement

2 negotiations. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1021 (vigorous representation measured by

3 “competency of counsel and … an assessment of the rationale for not pursuing further

4 litigation”). Class Counsel has served as Class Counsel in numerous and varied disability

5 rights cases across the country. Paradis Decl. ¶¶ 8-14. Based on Class Counsel’s

6 experience litigating disability claims concerning transportation access, the practices and

7 procedures that this Agreement authorizes will successfully ensure that blind Riders with

8 Service Animals will consistently receive full and equal access to transportation arranged

9 through the Uber Rider App. The relief that the Agreement provides demonstrates that

10 further litigation is unnecessary to remedy the class claims. In addition, attempting to

11 reach a resolution through additional litigation could have taken years and, due to the

12 novel nature of the claims, might not have yielded a resolution as favorable as that

13 contained in the proposed settlement.

14

5. The Ascertainability Requirement Does Not Apply Here, But

Even If It Did, The Class Is Sufficiently Ascertainable

15

16

Plaintiffs allege, and Defendants do not contest for settlement purposes only, that

17 the ascertainability requirement does not apply to classes certified under Rule 23(b)(2). In

18 re Yahoo Mail Litigation, 308 F.R.D. 577, 597 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (holding ascertainability

19 requirement inapplicable to (b)(2) class and noting that Ninth Circuit has not ruled on the

20 issue but other circuits have held the requirement inapplicable to (b)(2) classes); Dunakin

21 v. Quigley, 99 F. Supp. 3d 1297, 1386 (W.D. Wash. 2015); Shelton v. Bledsoe, 775 F.3d

22 554, 563 (3d Cir. 2015); Shook v. El Paso Cnty., 386 F.3d 963, 972 (10th Cir. 2004)

23 (explaining “lack of identifiability” of class members cannot defeat certification of a (b)(2)

24 class and “many courts have found Rule 23(b)(2) well suited for cases where the

25 composition of a class is not readily ascertainable”).

26

Even if the Court concludes that the ascertainability requirement applies, Plaintiffs

27 allege that the class here is ascertainable. In this circuit, ascertainability may be satisfied if

28 the class is defined with “objective criteria” and if it is “administratively feasible to

20

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 27 of 34

1 determine whether a particular individual is a member of the class.” Lanovaz v. Twinings

2 North America, Inc., 2014 WL 1652338, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2014) (quoting

3 Wolph v. Acer Am. Corp., No. 09–01314, 2012 WL 993531, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23,

4 2012)); see also Astiana v Kashi Co., 291 F.R.D. 493, 500 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (if “the class

5 definition is sufficiently definite to identify putative class members,” the challenges of

6 administering the class will not defeat certification) (citations omitted).

7

Plaintiffs allege the proposed class satisfies this standard. Membership in the class

8 can be determined by a short list of common characteristics. Class members must (1) have

9 a vision disability, (2) travel with a service animal, and (3) have used, attempted to use, or

10 been deterred from using transportation arranged through the Uber Rider App because of

11 their service animal. Plaintiffs further contend that determining whether a rider with a

12 vision disability who uses a service animal belongs to the class as a deterred individual is

13 simple: that person must have learned of reports that Drivers had refused to transport other

14 blind Riders who use service animals, and as a result of knowledge of such reports,

15 declined to attempt to use transportation arranged through the Uber Rider App on a

16 specific occasion.

17

B. The Proposed Class Meets the Requirements Of Rule 23(b)(2)

18

Rule 23(b)(2) was designed to facilitate civil rights class actions. Parsons, 754 F.3d

19 at 686. Plaintiffs assert, and Defendants do not contest for settlement purposes only, that it

20 is “unquestionably satisfied when members of a putative class seek uniform injunctive or

21 declaratory relief from policies or practices that are generally applicable to the class as a

22 whole.” Id. at 688 (certifying (b)(2) class of prisoners challenging defendant’s centralized

23 policies and practices of “uniform and statewide application” even where those practices

24 “may not affect every member of the proposed class … in exactly the same way”); Fed. R.

25 Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) is “‘almost automatically satisfied in actions primarily

26 seeking injunctive relief.’” Gray v. Golden Gate Nat’l Recreational Area, 279 F.R.D. 501,

27 520 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (quoting Baby Neal for and by Kanter v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48, 58 (3rd

28 Cir. 1994)). “Cases challenging an entity’s policies and practices regarding access for the

21

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 28 of 34

1 disabled represent the mine run of disability rights class actions certified under Rule

2 23(b)(2).” Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., 249 F.R.D.

3 334, 345 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (certifying (b)(2) class of persons with disabilities challenging

4 transportation agency’s use of deficient design guidelines and provision of inaccessible

5 facilities) (collecting cases).

6

Certifying the proposed settlement class under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate for

7 settlement purposes because the Agreement will result in uniform class wide injunctive

8 relief by modifying Uber’s national policies and practices applicable to the overall class.

9 Plaintiffs contend that Uber has and/or will have one set of national policies and practices

10 concerning transportation of blind Riders with Service Animals. All members of the

11 proposed class are subject to the effects of these common policies and practices.

12 Certification is also appropriate because the Agreement provides only injunctive relief to

13 the class, and only incidentally includes payments to the individual named Plaintiffs to

14 resolve their individual damages claims.

15 II. 16

PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT IS APPROPRIATE

17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) conditions the settlement of any class action

18 on court approval. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1025. Preliminary approval of a settlement allows

19 the parties to efficiently determine whether the proposed settlement is “within the range of

20 possible judicial approval[.]” Grant v. Capital Management Services, L.P., 10–cv–2471–

21 WQH (BGS), 2013 WL 6499698, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2013) (quoting In re M.L. Stern

22 Overtime Litig., 07–CV–0118–BTM (JMA), 2009 WL 995864, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13,

23 2009)). A court may probe the parties’ consensual agreement only “to ensure that it is

24 ‘fair, adequate, and free from collusion.’” Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 819 (9th

25 Cir. 2012) (Quoting Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1027). In addition, there is a presumption of

26 fairness when “the settlement agreement was reached in arm's length negotiations after

27 relevant discovery [has] taken place[.].” In re Immune Response Securities Litigation, 97

28 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1171 (C.D. Cal. 2007).

22

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 29 of 34

1

Courts consider the following factors to determine whether a settlement is fair,

2 adequate, and reasonable: (1) the strength of the plaintiff’s case; (2) the risk, expense,

3 complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action

4 status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery

5 completed and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel;

6 (7) the presence of a government participant; and (8) the reaction of the class members to 7 the proposed settlement. Lane, 696 F.3d at 819.3

8

The proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. By

9 implementing a set of policies, practices, and procedures concerning Riders with Service

10 Animals, the Agreement is crafted to provide the class with full and equal access to

11 transportation available through the Uber Rider App. Uber will significantly enhance its

12 procedures for informing all new and existing Drivers in the United States about their legal

13 and contractual obligation to transport Riders with Service Animals, and require that every

14 driver nationwide agree to transport Riders with Service Animals and provide informed

15 consent to Uber’s service animal policy as a condition of continuing to provide

16 transportation arranged through the Uber platform. Uber will also enhance its service

17 animal enforcement practices and investigation and response practices. The Agreement

18 provides for extensive third-party monitoring and testing, and provides a method to adjust

19 the injunctive relief if monitoring and testing indicate that modifications are necessary. In

20 sum, this Agreement comprehensively addresses measures to ensure that class members

21 receive reliable access to transportation arranged through the Uber Rider App, and it

22 contains flexibility to address unanticipated service animal access issues that may arise

23 during the Agreement’s term.

24

Additionally, all parties have concluded that the settlement is appropriate after

25

26 3 The last two factors are not relevant here. Although the government filed a Statement of

27

Interest in this Action, the government did not participate in settlement negotiations and is not a party to the settlement. Preliminary approval also occurs before notice to the class.

28

23

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 30 of 34

1 exchanging pertinent information and weighing the benefits of this agreement against the

2 risks, costs, and delay of continued litigation. The Parties’ thorough settlement

3 discussions, which included two in-person settlement meetings, a day-long mediation at

4 JAMS, and other exchanges of information, have provided them with ample information

5 with which to evaluate the settlement agreement. Paradis Decl. ¶¶ 15, 17-20. For

6 example, the Parties exchanged information concerning Uber’s training of customer

7 support staff, the on-boarding process for new Drivers on the Uber platform, internal

8 procedures for investigating service animal complaints, the Uber Driver App, the Uber

9 driver portal, and Uber’s driver-rider matching process. Paradis Decl. ¶¶ 19-20.

10 Accounting for this information, the Parties concluded that the agreed upon modifications

11 to Uber’s policies, practices, and procedures will provide effective relief to the class while

12 efficiently and expeditiously resolving disputed issues.

13

In contrast, additional litigation would involve uncertainty and delay for all parties.

14 The extensive factual issues and novel legal issues in the case would involve extensive

15 resources at trial, including the use of experts. Both parties agree that the litigation risks

16 presented by this case are significant.

17

Furthermore, counsel experienced in class action litigation crafted the proposed

18 agreement. Class counsel are well-qualified litigators with specialized expertise with

19 major class actions to improve programmatic access for persons with disabilities to

20 transportation and to other private and public entities. Paradis Decl. ¶¶ 8-14. Counsel for

21 Defendants also possesses substantial experience defending corporate clients against class

22 actions. Counsel on both sides view this agreement as a successful compromise that will

23 resolve class members’ claims in a fair and efficient manner.

24

The Agreement is presumptively fair because its negotiation was thorough and

25 conducted at arm’s length. The Parties attended several in-person settlement meetings and

26 a full-day mediation, and exchanged several versions of the settlement agreement and

27 addendums before arriving at language and remedies that all parties found acceptable.

28 Class representatives attended the mediation and participated in settlement negotiations.

24

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 31 of 34

1 Pedersen Decl. ¶ 7; Hingson Decl. ¶ 7; Willows Decl. ¶ 6. The named Plaintiffs have

2 reviewed the terms of the settlement agreement and fully support it. Pedersen Decl. ¶ 8;

3 Kelly decl. ¶ 9; Hingson Decl. ¶ 8; Willows Decl. ¶ 7; Riccobono Decl. ¶ 7. That the

4 Parties negotiated an agreement on the injunctive relief for the benefit of the proposed

5 Settlement Class while leaving determination of Plaintiffs’ claims for attorney’s fees and

6 costs for later negotiation and/or for the Court to determine further demonstrates the

7 absence of any collusion.

8 III. THE COURT SHOULD DIRECT DISTRIBUTION OF THE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT
9

10

Notice to a settlement class certified under Rule 23(b)(2) is within the Court’s

11 discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(a), (e)(1); Kim v. Space Pencil, Inc., C 11–03796 LB,

12 2012 WL 5948951, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2012). Notice provided under Rule 23(e)

13 must ““generally describe[ ] the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail to alert those

14 with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come forward and be heard.” Lane, 696 F.3d

15 at 826 (quoting Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 962 (9th Cir. 2009)).

16

The Parties have agreed on a form of notice and a notice distribution plan that will

17 effectively inform the class about the settlement and their right to object. The notice

18 summarizes the key components of the settlement and provides procedures for submitting

19 objections and for participating in the fairness hearing. KCC LLC, the settlement

20 administrator, will maintain a settlement website during the notice period, and the Parties

21 will post the notice and Settlement Agreement on this website. The website and the notice

22 will be compatible with screen reading technology that blind persons use to operate

23 computers. Within sixty days of the order preliminarily approving the Agreement, KCC

24 will also publish the notice in the newsletters and magazines of the National Federation of

25 the Blind and the American Council of the Blind, the largest associations of blind persons

26 in the U.S.

27

Class Counsel will also distribute the notice. Class Counsel will electronically mail

28 the notice in a screen reader compatible format to persons who contacted Class Counsel to

25

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 32 of 34

1 complain about access to transportation available through the Uber Rider App for Riders

2 with Service Animals and for whom Class Counsel has email addresses. Class Counsel

3 will also post the notice on the websites of Disability Rights Advocates, Rosen Bien

4 Galvan & Grunfeld, LLP, and TRE Legal Practice for the duration of the notice period.

5 Class Counsel will arrange for the notice to be electronically mailed to the membership

6 email list serves for the NFB, the American Council of the Blind, the National Association

7 of Guide Dog Users, and Guide Dog Users, Inc. Uber will also post a link to the

8 settlement notice on its news blog (newsroom.uber.com).

9

This distribution of the notice is likely to reach thousands of class members. The

10 NFB’s magazine is distributed to approximately 35,000 people. Paradis Decl. ¶ 29. Many

11 of the other publications through which notice will be distributed each are circulated to

12 thousands of individuals. Id. ¶¶ 29-31. Many recipients of these publications are class

13 members. Id. ¶¶ 30-31.

14 IV. THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER
15

16

The Parties are submitting herewith a proposed scheduling order including dates for

17 issuance of the notice, deadlines for objections, a date for the fairness hearing to determine

18 final approval of the agreement, and related orders and deadlines. The Parties request that

19 the Court enter this proposed order with such changes as the Court deems appropriate.

20

CONCLUSION

21

The proposed settlement will benefit individuals with vision disabilities who travel

22 with service animals nationwide. Plaintiffs hope that this Agreement will serve as a model

23 for the ride sharing industry on ensuring access for Riders with Service Animals. It is a

24 fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement of the claims at issue. The Parties therefore

25 request that the Court approve filing of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint,

26 conditionally certify the proposed settlement class, give preliminary approval to the

27 / / /

28 / / /

26

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 33 of 34

1 proposed agreement, approve the proposed notice, and issue the proposed scheduling

2 order, including setting a date for a fairness hearing.

3

4 DATED: April 29, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

5

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

6

7

By:

8

Michael S. Nunez

9

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

10 DATED: April 29, 2016
11

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.

12 By: /s/

13

Andrew M. Spurchise

14

Attorneys for Defendants

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 84 Filed 04/29/16 Page 34 of 34

1 FILER’S ATTESTATION

2 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), I, Michael S. Nunez, attest that concurrence in
3
4 the filing of this document has been obtained.

5

6

7

8

Michael S. Nunez

9

___ _

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS

 </s> 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

United States District Court Northern District of California

10 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., 14
Defendants. 15

Case No.14-cv-04086-NC
ORDER REQUESTING AMICUS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO RESPOND TO SETTLEMENT

16

Earlier in this case, the United States appeared as an amicus and commented on the

17 motion to dismiss. Now, the parties have filed a class action settlement and seek

18 preliminary approval of the settlement. The Court requests that the United States comment

19 on the proposed settlement by June 8, 2016.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

22 Dated: May 9, 2016 23

_____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge

24

25

26

27

28 Case No.14-cv-04086-NC

 </s> Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 56

1 LAURENCE PARADIS – Cal. Bar No. 122336

JULIA MARKS – Cal. Bar No. 300544

2 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor

3 Berkeley, California 94704

Telephone: (510) 665-8644

4 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

Email:

lparadis@dralegal.org

5

TIMOTHY ELDER – Cal. Bar No. 277152

6 TRE LEGAL PRACTICE

4226 Castanos Street

7 Fremont, California 94536

Telephone: (410) 415-3493

8 Facsimile: (888) 718-0617

Email:

telder@trelegal.com

9

MICHAEL W. BIEN – Cal. Bar No. 096891

10 MICHAEL S. NUNEZ – Cal. Bar No. 280535

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

11 50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105

12 Telephone: (415) 433-6830

Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

13 Email:

mbien@rbgg.com

mnunez@rbgg.com

14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

17

18 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE
19 BLIND, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA,
20 MICHAEL KELLY, MICHAEL HINGSON, and MICHAEL PEDERSEN,
21 Plaintiffs,
22 v.
23 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
24 Defendant.
25

Case No. 3:14-cv-04086-NC
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

26

27

28

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 56

1

This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE (“Agreement” or

2 “Settlement”) is entered into by and between Uber Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiary

3 and affiliate entities nationwide (collectively “Uber”) on the one hand, and the National

4 Federation of the Blind (“NFB National”), the National Federation of the Blind of

5 California (the “NFBC”), and Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, and Michael Pedersen, on

6 the other hand (“Plaintiffs”). Pursuant to Section 13.B below, the parties consent to the

7 National Federation of the Blind national organization (hereafter “NFB National”) joining

8 this action and this settlement as an additional Plaintiff. NFB National and NFBC will

9 collectively be referred to as NFB. Uber, the original Plaintiffs, and NFB are all hereafter

10 referred to jointly as the “Parties.”

11

RECITALS

12

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Uber with the U.S. District Court for

13 the Northern District of California, case no. 3:14-cv-4086-NC (“Complaint”) on

14 September 9, 2014 to challenge alleged discrimination in the provision of the uberX

15 service against Plaintiffs and other individuals who use guide dogs;

16

WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged that Uber violated the Americans

17 with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., the California Unruh Civil

18 Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 & 52, and the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ.

19 Code §§ 54-54.3;

20

WHEREAS, Uber disputes Plaintiffs’ allegations and denies it has violated any

21 laws;

22

WHEREAS, after considering the expense and uncertainty associated with

23 litigation, the Parties desire to fully, fairly, and finally settle all claims Plaintiffs have or

24 may have against Uber for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are

25 hereby acknowledged, and that desire manifests itself by concluding all pending and/or

26 threatened litigation between the Parties related to the Complaint and/or the allegations in

27 the Complaint;

28

WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to resolve their differences and disputes

1
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 56

1 between them related to the Complaint and/or the allegations in the Complaint in

2 consideration of the following terms set forth in this Agreement; and

3

WHEREAS, the mutual goal of this agreement is to, with the cooperation of both

4 Parties, enhance Uber’s policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that, to the maximum

5 extent feasible, Plaintiffs and other blind and visually disabled individuals with service

6 animals receive full and equal access to Uber’s services;

7

NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the mutual covenants and promises

8 contained herein and other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of

9 which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

10

1. Definitions

11

The following terms shall have the following meanings with respect to this

12 Agreement. All other terms shall be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary

13 meaning.

14

“Accessible” refers to digital content that meets the success criteria of the Web

15 Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, Level AA including the WAI-ARIA,

16 and/or the BBC Mobile Accessibility Standards and Guidelines currently available at

17 http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/accessibility/mobile_access.shtml.

18

“Access Complaint Team” refers to the team created by Uber to address

19 complaints alleging Driver discrimination against Riders with Service Animals and other

20 disability access issues.

21

“Agreement Term” refers to the time from the Effective Date through the end of

22 three (3) years and six (6) months from the Effective Date or, if extended pursuant to

23 Section 7, through the end of five (5) years from the Effective Date (hereafter the

24 “Extended Agreement Term”).

25

“Driver” and “Drivers” refers to any driver registered to use the Driver App to

26 arrange for the transportation of rider-users of Uber’s service in the United States.

27

“Driver App” refers to the technology platform interface that Uber provides to

28 Drivers in the United States for them to connect with rider-users who request

2
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 5 of 56

1 transportation services, including all versions of mobile software applications, websites or

2 any future dynamic electronic interface that Uber might adopt during the Term of this

3 Agreement.

4

“Effective Date” refers to the date on which all conditions precedent set forth in

5 Section 2 of this Agreement are completed.

6

“Final Approval” means approval given in a written order to this Agreement by a

7 United States District Court Judge or Magistrate of competent jurisdiction after notice to

8 the Settlement Class and Hearing.

9

“Guide Dog” refers to a Service Animal that has been specially trained to complete

10 tasks for a person with a disability of blindness or visual impairment.

11

“Licensing Agreement” refers to the agreement Drivers must affirmatively accept

12 before they are able to receive transportation requests from Riders using Uber’s Driver

13 App and the various versions of this document as it is amended through the Term of the

14 Parties’ Agreement. This document is titled in various Uber documents as, inter alia, the

15 “Software Sublicense & Online Services Agreement” or “Software License and Online

16 Services Agreement” or “Technology Services Agreement.”

17

“Monitor” refers to the person described in Section 8 of this Agreement.

18

“Plaintiffs’ Counsel” refers to the law firms of Disability Rights Advocates, Rosen

19 Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, and TRE Legal Practice.

20

“Preliminary Approval” means the initial approval by the Court of the terms of

21 this Agreement, which will occur before any notice being provided in accordance with this

22 Agreement.

23

“Riders” refers to all individuals who travel with a Service Animal in the United

24 States while requesting or using transportation services by Drivers.

25

“Rider App” refers to the technology platform interface that Uber provides to all

26 rider-users in the United States to offer them access to transportation services, including all

27 versions of mobile software applications, websites or any future dynamic electronic

28 interface that Uber might adopt during the Term of this Agreement.

3
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 6 of 56

1

“Service Animal” refers to service animals as defined by the regulations and

2 guidance of the U.S. Department of Justice’s interpretation, as amended from time to time,

3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s

4 interpretation, as amended from time to time, of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and

5 any state law that might define that term more broadly than the federal definition.

6

“Service Animal Policy” refers to the public, comprehensive document set forth in

7 Addendum 4 to this Agreement which explains Uber’s national Service Animal policies

8 and practices including the policies set forth in this Agreement, the rights of Riders with

9 Service Animals to use Uber to arrange transportation, and the methods for Riders to

10 report complaints that a Driver refused service because of a Rider’s Service Animal.

11

“Settlement Class” or “Settlement Class Members” means all blind or visually

12 disabled individuals nationwide who travel with the assistance of Service Animals and

13 who have used, attempted to use, or been deterred from attempting to use transportation

14 arranged through the Uber Rider App.

15

“Uber” refers to Uber Technologies, Inc., its subsidiary and affiliate entities

16 nationwide, and each of their directors, officers and employees.

17

2. Conditions Precedent of this Settlement Agreement Becoming Effective

18

This Settlement Agreement is conditioned upon, and will be effective only upon,

19 the occurrence of all the following events specified below:

20

A. Discovery And Trial Dates Vacated: The Parties apply jointly for an Order

21

vacating the current discovery and trial deadlines pending Preliminary and

22

Final Approval of Class Settlement.

23

B. Joint Motion Approved: The Parties move jointly for an Order Granting

24

Approval to File Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, Preliminary

25

Approval to Class Settlement, Certifying Settlement Class, Authorizing

26

Distribution of Notice, and Setting Fairness Hearing, and the motion is

27

granted by the Court. If the settlement does not receive preliminary or final

28

approval the parties agree to then stipulate to the second amended complaint

4
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 7 of 56

1

being withdrawn and the first amended complaint thereafter becoming the

2

operative pleading.

3

C. Notice: Notice is provided to the Settlement Class in accordance with

4

Section 13.D of this Agreement.

5

D. Final Approval: The Court grants Final Approval of Class Settlement,

6

certifies the Settlement Class, enters judgment in accordance with the terms

7

of this Settlement Agreement, and all opportunity for further review or

8

appeals have expired or been exhausted. The judgment will resolve all

9

issues raised in this proceeding for Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ Counsel, and the

10

Settlement Class.

11

3. Denial of Liability

12

Uber has denied and continues to deny any liability to Plaintiffs or the Settlement

13 Class. Uber has denied and continues to deny that it has violated any laws pertaining to

14 access for persons with disabilities with respect to the services provided by transportation

15 providers using the Uber App. Neither this Agreement nor any actions taken by Uber in

16 satisfaction of this Agreement constitute, or may be construed as, an admission of any

17 liability or wrongdoing, or recognition of the validity of any allegations of fact or law

18 made by Plaintiffs in this action or in any other action or proceeding. This Agreement, any

19 statements or negotiations made in connection with this Agreement, and any actions taken

20 by Uber under this Agreement, may not be offered or be admissible in evidence or in any

21 other fashion against Uber in any action or proceeding for any purpose, except in any

22 action or proceeding brought to enforce the terms of this Agreement by or against

23 Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class, or Uber, or by Uber in defense of any claims brought by

24 Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, or the Settlement Class or any third party. Except as, and only to

25 the extent necessary to the approval, implementation and enforcement of the terms of this

26 Agreement, any class certification entered in this lawsuit under this Agreement or

27 otherwise does not constitute, in this or in any other proceeding, an admission by Uber, or

28 a finding or evidence, that Plaintiffs’ claims are appropriate for class or representative

5
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 8 of 56

1 treatment or that any requirement for class certification or representative standing is

2 otherwise satisfied in this lawsuit. Except as and only to the extent necessary to the

3 approval, implementation and enforcement of the terms of this Agreement, Uber does not

4 waive any otherwise applicable arbitration and class and representative action waiver

5 provisions contained in any agreements with Plaintiffs and/or the Settlement Class, and

6 this Agreement and the settlement of this action may not be used as evidence of and shall

7 not constitute waiver in any other proceeding of any applicable arbitration and class and

8 representative action waiver provisions. This Agreement and any settlement effectuated

9 hereunder is not intended to constitute an admission by either party concerning Uber’s

10 treatment of Drivers as independent contractors, and shall not be construed as evidence

11 that the Drivers are anything other than independent contractors.

12

4. Enhanced Dissemination of Information to Drivers

13

A. New Drivers

14

1. Uber agrees that Drivers, before they are given access to the Driver

15

App, must expressly acknowledge that they have read and understood

16

Uber’s Service Animal Policy (as outlined in Section 5.A, below),

17

which document shall state that Drivers have a legal obligation to

18

provide service to Riders with Service Animals anywhere in the

19

United States with no exceptions, including but not limited to for

20

reasons related to allergies or religious objections.

21

2. Uber agrees to add an interactive pop-up notification prompt in the

22

Driver App that verifies all newly-registered Drivers, anywhere in the

23

United States, are aware of Uber’s Service Animal Policy and are

24

willing and able to transport Riders with Service Animals. The

25

prompt will first appear in the Driver App for every new Driver

26

within two weeks after the Driver accepts the Licensing Agreement.

27

New Drivers will be blocked from using the Driver App until they

28

complete the interactions required by the pop-up notification and

6
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 9 of 56

1

confirm their agreement to transport Riders with Service Animals.

2

The exact content of the prompt and description of the interactive

3

nature of the pop-up notification is contained in Addendum 1 to this

4

Agreement.

5

3. Uber agrees to add the following statement, along with a link to the

6

Service Animal Policy, on the “background” tab page of its Driver

7

sign-up flow: “You understand that, in order to access the Uber app,

8

you will be obligated to transport passengers with Service Animals in

9

accordance with applicable federal, state and local law and Uber’s

10

Service Animal Policy [insert link].”

11

4. Uber will amend the practices applicable to Drivers as described in

12

this section 4.A above within 30 days of the Effective Date.

13

B. Active Drivers

14

1. Within 30 days after the Effective Date, Uber will push the interactive

15

pop-up notification prompt referred to in section 4.A.2 above and

16

described in Addendum 1 to all valid, registered Driver App accounts

17

regardless of app version or mobile device platform. No Driver will

18

be able to access the Driver App until the Driver completes the

19

interactions prompted by the pop-up notification and agrees to

20

transport Riders with Service Animals.

21

2. During the Agreement Term, Uber will send quarterly email

22

reminders to all Drivers with active accounts reminding Drivers of

23

their obligation to accept Riders with Service Animals. The emails

24

shall contain photographs of blind individuals with guide dogs to

25

remind Drivers of how to readily identify Service Animals.

26

3. Uber agrees to and has added detailed language to its Driver

27

Licensing Agreement that expressly explains that Drivers have an

28

obligation to transport Riders with Service Animals under the

7
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 10 of 56

1

Americans with Disabilities Act with no exception for allergies or

2

religious objections. The Licensing Agreement also expressly states

3

that any Drivers who refuse to transport Riders with Service Animals

4

in violation of this obligation consent to the permanent restriction of

5

their Driver App account and the permanent termination of their

6

contractual relationship with Uber if, based on the evidence, it is

7

reasonable for Uber to conclude the Driver knowingly refused service

8

to a Rider with a Service Animal, or if Uber receives plausible reports

9

from Riders of more than one cancellation or refusal by such Driver

10

alleged to be on the basis of the presence of a Rider’s Service Animal.

11

4. Uber agrees that, consistent with its current cleaning fee policy,

12

Riders will only be charged, if at all, upon a third instance of a

13

reported mess involving a Rider’s Service Animal’s bodily fluids. If a

14

Rider contests that a Service Animal created such a mess, Uber shall

15

undertake a reasonable good faith effort to determine whether such a

16

mess actually occurred. Riders will not be charged for any instance of

17

reported shedding of dog hair. These policies regarding cleaning fees

18

shall be disseminated to all customer support staff and shall be

19

incorporated into the Service Animal Policy.

20

5. Uber agrees to provide Plaintiffs’ Counsel drafts of the quarterly

21

emails and amended Driver Licensing Agreement at least 15 days

22

before issuance, and shall consider any comments or proposed

23

revisions from Plaintiffs’ Counsel on these draft documents in good

24

faith. Uber will send Plaintiffs’ Counsel a copy of the finalized

25

quarterly emails and amended Driver Licensing Agreement within 10

26

days after issuance.

27

6. Uber agrees to implement the changes described in this Section 4.B

28

within 30 days of the Effective Date unless this timeline is otherwise

8
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 11 of 56

1

prohibited by an applicable court order.

2

5. Changes to Licensing Agreement Language and Enforcement Practices

3

Related To Nondiscrimination

4

A. Driver Contract Termination

5

1. In conjunction with the issuance of an updated Licensing Agreement,

6

Uber agrees to implement an enforcement practice pursuant to which

7

Uber shall have the right to, and shall, permanently terminate its

8

contractual relationship with a Driver and the Driver’s access to the

9

Driver App if Uber discovers that a Driver knowingly refused to

10

transport a Rider with a Service Animal because of that Service

11

Animal anywhere in the United States. All such instances shall be

12

specifically identified as a material breach of the Licensing

13

Agreement by the Driver. Plaintiffs acknowledge that, pursuant to the

14

Licensing Agreement, a Driver may have the opportunity to have any

15

contract termination reviewed by a neutral arbitrator, and that Uber

16

may be bound by any decision of that arbitrator. Should any Driver

17

seek to challenge the termination by an arbitration petition, Uber will

18

notify Plaintiffs’ Counsel of such, provide Plaintiffs’ Counsel with

19

copies of the material submitted to the arbitrator, provide Plaintiffs’

20

Counsel with an opportunity to provide a submission to such

21

arbitrator, and inform Plaintiffs’ Counsel of the outcome. Uber shall

22

not be responsible for paying Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s fees for time spent

23

reviewing materials submitted to an arbitrator or preparing Plaintiffs’

24

Counsel’s submission to an arbitrator pursuant to this paragraph in

25

connection with any Driver contract termination arbitration

26

proceedings.

27

2. Uber will review whether the Driver knowingly refused service to a

28

Rider with a Service Animal because of that Service Animal for every

9
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 12 of 56

1

report that Uber receives from Riders of such denial.

2

3. Uber agrees to produce an internal guidance document for customer

3

support staff and train such staff on how to reliably identify situations

4

where a Driver has knowingly refused to transport a Rider with a

5

Service Animal because of that Service Animal in violation of the

6

Licensing Agreement. This document will contain a non-exhaustive

7

list of the most common situations in which a contract termination

8

should occur. A copy of this internal document is attached to this

9

Agreement as Addendum 2.

10

4. The revised Licensing Agreement also contains express language

11

pursuant to which Uber shall have the right to, and shall, permanently

12

terminate its contractual relationship with a Driver and the Driver’s

13

access to the Driver App if Uber receives plausible complaints from

14

Riders on more than one occasion that a particular Driver refused to

15

transport a Rider with a Service Animal because of that Service

16

Animal anywhere in the United States, without regard to the intent or

17

knowledge of the Driver. Uber will rigorously enforce this

18

contractual provision.

19

B. Complaint Processing Procedures

20

1. Within 30 days after the Effective date, Uber will ensure that Riders

21

can more easily report denials of rides through the Rider App. From

22

the “Trip Details” screen reflecting the last trip completed or

23

cancelled, the Rider will have the ability to open a Service Animal

24

complaint submission screen in the Rider App by navigating through

25

no more than two linked screens or display interactions. There shall

26

be an Accessible control on the screen reflecting the trip cancellation

27

entitled “Need Help?”, which will link to a screen with a prominently-

28

located option labeled “I want to report a service animal issue.” This

10
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 13 of 56

1

control shall open an Accessible form which permits the Rider to

2

enter and submit a narrative description in an edit field and to report

3

what occurred with the Driver. At all times, a Rider shall have the

4

ability to navigate from the “Menu” screen to the Service Animal

5

complaint submission screen by navigating through no more than

6

three linked screens or display interactions. The button to reach the

7

service animal complaint submission screen shall be labeled “I want

8

to report a service animal issue” and will be prominently located.

9

Once the Rider submits a complaint of Service Animal discrimination,

10

the complaint will be forwarded to the internal Access Complaint

11

Team at Uber that handles accessibility issues or escalated complaints

12

from general customer support. The process for accessing the form

13

and further details regarding the complaint submission form, are

14

contained in Addendum 3 to this Agreement.

15

2. Within 30 days after the Effective Date, Uber will add an Accessible

16

link that may be accessed from the home page of its website labeled “I

17

want to report a service animal issue.” that links to an Accessible

18

complaint form. This link shall open an Accessible form which

19

permits the Rider to submit a narrative description and quickly select

20

a predetermined option to report what occurred with the Driver (see

21

Addendum 3). Once submitted, the report will be automatically

22

forwarded to the Access Complaint Team for investigation and

23

response. There will be a link to Uber’s Service Animal Policy

24

accessible from the home page as well. Uber agrees to maintain the

25

Access Complaint Team for the duration of the Agreement Term.

26

The process for accessing the form and further details regarding the

27

complaint submission form, are contained in Addendum 3 to this

28

Agreement.

11
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 14 of 56

1

3. Within 30 days after the Effective Date, Uber will train all customer

2

service and support staff on how to process and respond to reports that

3

a Driver refused service to a Rider with a Service Animal in the

4

United States. All such reports shall be forwarded to the Access

5

Complaint Team for review and response. Uber will inform the Rider

6

promptly after submission of a complaint that the complaint has been

7

received and is being reviewed. If Uber has an email address

8

associated with the Rider the response will be sent to this email

9

address. Uber will endeavor in good faith to complete its review of

10

each complaint within one week of the complaint submission and

11

notify the Rider about the outcome, including the following: whether

12

Uber has terminated its contractual relationship with the Driver at

13

issue or, if not, whether Uber will terminate this contractual

14

relationship with the Driver at issue if a second plausible Service

15

Animal complaint is submitted concerning the Driver.

16

4. Uber will reverse any trip cancellation charges or otherwise reimburse

17

any charges imposed where the Rider submits a complaint that the

18

Driver denied service due to the presence of a Service Animal.

19

5. The two methods for reporting to Uber complaints concerning

20

discrimination against Riders with Service Animals described in

21

paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section and the policy on reversing

22

improper trip cancellation charges described in paragraph 4 of this

23

section above shall be included in the Service Animal Policy, and

24

marketed to the disability community nationwide along with a guide

25

no more than three pages long that details the steps to submit a

26

complaint using the Rider App or Uber’s website and where to find

27

Uber’s Service Animal Policy.

28

6. Uber will provide a Rider an account credit of $25 for each instance in

12
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 15 of 56

1

which a Driver’s contractual relationship is terminated as the result of

2

a report that the Driver refused to transport the Rider anywhere in the

3

United States because of a Service Animal.

4

7. Uber will not automatically block future trip pairing between Riders

5

and Drivers as a result of a Rider submitting a complaint to Uber

6

about a Service Animal denial of service. However, Uber may block

7

future trip pairing between a specific Driver and Rider if a Rider

8

expressly requests that result.

9

6. Compliance Record-Keeping and Testing

10

A. Data collection

11

Uber shall collect and retain a national database of account-specific data for Drivers

12 and Riders that links all of the following categories of information and that can be queried

13 by any of the data categories:

14

• Date and Driver account number for every trip cancellation for which Uber

15

receives a report that the Driver refused service to a Rider with a Service

16

Animal due to the presence of a Service Animal or otherwise relates to a

17

complaint of discrimination by a Rider with a Service Animal

18

• Rider name and, if available, email address and account number for every

19

Rider that reports a trip cancellation or refusal of service linked to a report of

20

discrimination against a Rider with a Service Animal

21

• Rider name and, if available, email address and account number for every

22

Rider that reports any form of unlawful discrimination against a Rider with a

23

Service Animal, other than trip cancellation or refusal of service

24

• Date, location, and Driver account number, of every alleged incident that a

25

Driver refused service to a Rider with a Service Animal because of that

26

Service Animal or otherwise discriminated against a Rider with a Service

27

Animal because of that Service Animal

28

• Date and location for every ride that results in Uber charging a Rider with a

13
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 16 of 56

1

Service Animal a cleaning fee

2

• Date and account status change or indication for every entry made on a

3

Driver’s account documenting a report of alleged Service Animal

4

discrimination, and any action applied to the Driver’s account status as a

5

result of that report

6

• Complaints that a Driver has unlawfully discriminated against a Rider with a

7

Service Animal from any source

8

• For each Rider who reports a denial of service due to the presence of a

9

Service Animal, the total number of reported denials based on a Service

10

Animal, total number of documented reports of discrimination applied to

11

Driver accounts because of a reported incident involving that Rider, total

12

number of resulting Driver contract terminations resulting from incidents

13

involving that Rider, and total number of trip cancellation charges refunded

14

to the Rider

15

• Date and numerical rating that a Driver gives to a Rider for each trip request

16

where a Rider with a Service Animal reports any form of discrimination due

17

to the presence of a Service Animal

18

• Uber will also collect and report to Plaintiffs’ Counsel the following: the

19

average rating of all Riders and the average rating of all Riders with Service

20

Animals who report any form of complaints to Uber concerning Service

21

Animals.

22

B. Data Reporting

23

1. Uber shall report the raw data in Section 6.A to Plaintiffs’ Counsel

24

without disclosing the name or email address of the Driver or the

25

Rider involved. Starting on the Effective Date, this reporting will

26

occur quarterly for the first year of the Term, biannually for the

27

second year of the Term and annually for the remainder of the Term.

28

However, Uber shall resume reporting the data to Plaintiffs’ Counsel

14
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 17 of 56

1

on a quarterly basis if any of the following occurs:

2

(a) The reported data shows more than a 7.5% increase in the

3

number of reported instances where a Driver refused to

4

transport a Rider with a Service Animal during the reporting

5

period as compared with the prior period;

6

(b) In resolving a dispute pursuant to Section 10 of this

7

Agreement, the magistrate judge concludes that Uber has not

8

complied with a provision of this Agreement.

9

(c) The Parties agree or the Monitor determines that there has not

10

been substantial compliance by Uber with the terms of the

11

Agreement during the prior reporting period.

12

2. With the exception of the Driver’s name, Uber shall verify all the

13

other corresponding data described in Section 6.A as to any Rider

14

Uber account with respect to which Plaintiffs’ Counsel provides Uber

15

with (a) a documented complaint by the Rider of alleged

16

discrimination; (b) the email address for the Rider’s account and; (c)

17

proof that the Rider consented to disclosure of that data for the

18

purposes of testing compliance with this Agreement. With regards to

19

the Driver’s name, Uber shall assign a unique number identifier for

20

each such Driver in the reporting so that Plaintiffs’ Counsel can

21

determine if a particular Driver was involved in multiple instances of

22

alleged discrimination and/or their contract was terminated. Items (a)

23

- (c) above can be satisfied by either of the following:

24

(i) An email from the Rider confirming such a complaint

25

was submitted and agreeing to disclosure of the data.

26

(ii) A document signed by hand or electronically by the

27

Rider confirming such a complaint was submitted and

28

agreeing to disclosure of the data.

15
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 18 of 56

1

3. Uber shall produce the data in an .xls file, .xlsx file, .csv file, or other

2

common database format that can be read by Microsoft Excel while

3

retaining column, row, heading and other organizational information.

4

The format shall enable Plaintiffs’ Counsel to easily determine the

5

sum total number of contracts terminated and total number of reports

6

that a particular Driver refused to transport a Rider with a Service

7

Animal or otherwise discriminated against a Rider with a Service

8

Animal due to the presence of that Service Animal.

9

4. Notwithstanding the above, the Monitor shall be permitted to review

10

Driver names and account details necessary if there is reason to

11

believe a Driver (a) has not had his/her contractual relationship

12

terminated in accordance with the Driver’s Licensing Agreement and

13

as described in this Agreement; or (b) has fraudulently resumed

14

driving after having his/her contractual relationship with Uber

15

terminated.

16

C. NFB Testing

17

NFB National in coordination with NFBC shall administer a compliance

18

testing program that uses blind individuals with guide dogs as testers to

19

document trips using the uberX service in a sample of trip requests across the

20

United States and California. NFB will have complete discretion in

21

administering the testing program, including, but not limited to, the

22

frequency and location of tests, and reporting of test results. Test results

23

may not be shared publically and are subject to the terms of the Parties’

24

Stipulated Protective Order in this case. NFB’s testing program shall be

25

consistent with Uber’s ordinary provision of service and testers shall not

26

disclose testing to Drivers or influence their typical operations. In the event

27

Uber believes the testing program is interfering with or undermining the

28

Rider and Driver experience or Uber’s business relationship with Drivers,

16
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 19 of 56

1

and the Parties cannot come to an agreement regarding changes thereto, the

2

Parties agree to resolve the dispute through the Dispute Resolution provision

3

in Section 10.

4

7. Term of the Agreement

5

A. The term of this Agreement shall be three and one half (3.5) years from the

6 Effective Date except as follows: if the Parties agree or the Monitor determines that there

7 has not been substantial compliance by Uber with the terms of the Agreement for years

8 two and/or three, the term shall extend to five years from the Effective Date (hereafter the

9 “Extended Agreement Term”). Any disputes concerning substantial compliance shall be

10 resolved through the dispute resolution process set forth in Section 10 of this Agreement.

11

8. Further Modifications to Information, Enforcement, and Monitoring

12

A. The Parties recognize and agree that other relevant issues may arise during

13 the term of this Agreement that were not anticipated when this Agreement was executed,

14 and that data that Uber provides to Plaintiffs’ Counsel pursuant to Section 6 of this

15 Agreement may show that the policies, practices, and procedures adopted by this

16 Agreement have unintended consequences or are insufficient to comprehensively address

17 discrimination because of Service Animals. The Parties have agreed that a third-party

18 monitor (“Monitor”) will review and analyze the data that Uber reports pursuant to Section

19 6.B of this Agreement as well as any other information provided to the Monitor by the

20 Parties. Beginning twelve months after the Effective Date, if the Monitor’s analysis of this

21 data reveals that Uber’s practices, policies, and procedures are insufficient to address

22 discrimination because of Service Animals, the Monitor shall propose to the Parties further

23 modifications to Uber’s policies, practices, and procedures to improve access to

24 transportation available through the Rider App. The Monitor will report to the Parties

25 within two months after the end of each year during the Agreement Term whether Uber

26 has substantially complied with its obligations under the Agreement during the prior year,

27 except that in the fifth year under an Extended Agreement Term, the Monitor shall base the

28 Monitor’s assessment on the first 9 months of the fifth year and submit the Monitor’s final

17
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 20 of 56

1 report to the Parties 30 days prior to the expiration of the Extended Agreement Term.

2 Uber will consider in good faith any requests by the Monitor for information or documents

3 beyond those specified in Section 6 of this Agreement. Either party may use the Dispute

4 Resolution procedure set forth in Section 10 of this Agreement to resolve disputes

5 concerning the Monitor including, but not limited to, disputes concerning the Monitor’s

6 reports, recommendations or requests for documents and information.

7

B. The Parties agree that at any point after twelve months from the Effective

8 Date of this Agreement, Plaintiffs may request, if there is good cause to believe there is

9 need for further modifications to Uber’s policies and practices, that the Parties meet and

10 confer to negotiate further modifications to Uber’s policies and practices, including the

11 measures adopted in this Agreement, to more effectively address alleged Driver

12 discrimination against Riders with Service Animals. Within thirty days of Plaintiffs’

13 request under this paragraph, unless extended by agreement of the Parties or for good

14 cause, the Parties shall meet and confer to negotiate such further modifications, if any, to

15 Uber’s policies, practices, and procedures, including the measures adopted by this

16 Agreement, but in no event will the modifications lessen the benefits or protections for

17 members of the settlement class.

18

C. To the extent that the Parties reach agreement to further modify the policies,

19 practices, and procedures set forth in this Agreement, the Parties agree that such agreement

20 will be reduced to writing as a binding Memorandum of Understanding between the

21 Parties. The Parties agree that, unless the written agreement expressly states otherwise,

22 disputes under any Memoranda of Understanding adopted will be resolved using the

23 Dispute Resolution process set forth in Section 10 of this Agreement.

24

D. If the Parties are unable to reach agreement concerning additional measures

25 within sixty days of first meeting and conferring, then the Parties shall resolve the dispute

26 using the dispute resolution process set forth in Section 10 of this Agreement.

27

E. Selection and Compensation of Monitor

28

1. The Parties will attempt to jointly agree upon an individual to serve as

18
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 21 of 56

1

the Monitor for the purposes of this part of the Agreement. If the

2

Parties cannot agree on a Monitor within sixty days of the Effective

3

Date, each side shall present three candidates to the Magistrate Judge

4

who retains jurisdiction to resolve disputes. The Magistrate Judge

5

shall then select the Monitor. If this individual becomes unavailable,

6

the parties shall meet and confer within thirty days to try to reach

7

agreement on a replacement Monitor, and the same process described

8

above to select the initial Monitor will be used to select the

9

replacement Monitor.

10

2. Compensation of Monitor.

11

(a) Uber shall pay the reasonable fees and costs incurred by the

12

Monitor during the 3.5 year term of the Agreement up to

13

$50,000. If the term of this agreement is extended pursuant to

14

Section 7, then Defendants shall pay the Monitor’s reasonable

15

fees and costs for the Extended Agreement Term up to

16

$35,000. If Plaintiffs contend that additional compensation

17

beyond the $50,000, or beyond $35,000 for the fourth and fifth

18

years if applicable, is needed to reasonably compensate the

19

monitor, the Parties shall meet and confer to attempt to

20

negotiate an increase to the cap. If the Parties are unable to

21

agree upon a modification to the cap, the parties shall resolve

22

the dispute pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provision set

23

forth in Section 10 herein.

24

(b) Invoices will be provided to all Parties for their review before

25

payment. There will be a yearly budget negotiated with the

26

monitor. If the Monitor exceeds the budget for fees or costs

27

without prior approval, he or she may be removed and

28

replaced. If the Parties do not agree on removal, either party

19
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 22 of 56

1

may refer the matter to dispute resolution to determine whether

2

the Monitor should be retained or removed.

3

3. All communications, including invoices, data, questions, information,

4

documents, between the Monitor, Uber, Plaintiffs and counsel for the

5

Parties, shall be copied to opposing counsel. No ex parte

6

communications shall be permitted.

7

9. Scope of the Agreement

8

A. The provisions of this Agreement shall apply to Uber’s policies, practices,

9 and procedures with respect to Riders with Service Animals nationwide within the United

10 States. The data that Uber periodically reports to Plaintiffs’ Counsel pursuant to Section 6

11 of this Agreement shall contain relevant information for Drivers and Riders with Service

12 Animals nationwide within the United States.

13

B. Plaintiffs expressly agree that the resolution described herein is fair and

14 adequate, and that the policies and procedures set forth in this Agreement are intended to

15 remedy any and all alleged violations of the ADA and related state and local laws by

16 Defendants with respect to the claims alleged by Plaintiffs in this case.

17

10. Dispute Resolution

18

A. All disputes concerning compliance with this Agreement, enforcement of

19 Uber’s Service Animal Policy, modifications to Uber’s policies and procedures pursuant to

20 Section 8 of this Agreement, and Uber’s procedures for responding to complaints

21 concerning discrimination against Riders with Service Animals, shall be resolved through

22 a three-step process as follows:

23

• Step One: Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall send a letter to counsel for Uber

24

concerning any dispute, and counsel for the Parties shall meet and confer in a

25

good faith effort to resolve any dispute.

26

• Step Two: In the event that the Parties are unable to resolve their dispute

27

through such meet and confer negotiations within 21 days of receipt of the

28

letter raising the dispute, the dispute shall be submitted to mediation at

20
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 23 of 56

1

JAMS in San Francisco. JAMS shall assign Hon. Jamie Jacobs-May to

2

mediate. If she is not available within 45 days of the request to JAMS by the

3

Parties, JAMS will assign another mutually-agreed upon mediator or a

4

randomly assigned mediator if the Parties cannot mutually agree. Uber shall

5

pay the cost of the mediation. If Uber declines to pay such costs, the dispute

6

shall skip directly to Step Three.

7

• Step Three: In the event that the Parties are unable to resolve a dispute

8

through Step Two, they shall submit the dispute for binding resolution by the

9

Federal District Court for the Northern District of California under the

10

Court’s continuing jurisdiction over this case. The Parties agree that

11

Magistrate Judge Cousins shall continue to have jurisdiction to fully resolve

12

any such dispute. If Magistrate Judge Cousins becomes unavailable, the

13

Parties agree to accept the jurisdiction of any other Magistrate Judge

14

assigned by the Federal District Court for continuing jurisdiction purposes.

15

Plaintiffs’ Counsel may claim and recover reasonable fees and costs in

16

connection with proceedings under this Step Three if Plaintiffs prevail in

17

such proceedings. Uber may recover its fees and costs in the event the

18

Magistrate Judge finds Plaintiffs’ motion to be frivolous, unreasonable or

19

groundless, or that Plaintiffs continued to litigate it after it clearly became so.

20

11. Monetary Payments

21

A. Compensation for NFB

22

Uber will make three payments of $75,000 during the 3.5 year term of the

23

Agreement, totaling $225,000, payable to NFB National. These payments

24

are intended to support the testing program outlined elsewhere in this

25

Agreement. Uber shall make the first payment of $75,000 within 30 days

26

after the Effective Date, and Uber shall make the second and third payments

27

of $75,000 annually thereafter. If this Agreement is extended pursuant to

28

Section 7, then Uber shall make one additional payment of $75,000 to NFB

21
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 24 of 56

1

within 30 days of the beginning of the Extended Agreement Term. Uber

2

shall remit these payments to TRE Legal Practice, c/o NFB, and make

3

arrangements for wire transfer to the IOLTA trust account for the TRE Legal

4

Practice.

5

B. Damages to Individual Plaintiffs

6

1. Within 30 days of the Effective Date, Uber shall pay $45,000 to the

7

Disability Rights Advocates Client Trust Account to be apportioned

8

among the individual plaintiffs as they agree among themselves.

9

2. Uber shall mail this payment to Disability Rights Advocates, 2001

10

Center Street, Fourth Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704-1204.

11

3. Uber will issue a form 1099-MISC for this payment to Disability

12

Rights Advocates.

13

C. Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Costs

14

The parties agree that, if the Parties do not agree on an appropriate amount of

15 reasonable attorneys’ fees, Plaintiffs may seek reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation

16 expenses and costs (hereafter collectively “Attorneys’ Fees”) and are entitled to apply to

17 the Court for reasonable Attorneys’ Fees under applicable law. Uber retains the right to

18 dispute the amount of Attorneys’ Fees requested but agrees not to dispute the entitlement

19 to reasonable Attorneys’ Fees incurred up through the Effective Date of this Agreement.

20 The Parties agree that Magistrate Judge Cousins shall determine the amount of reasonable

21 Attorneys’ Fees incurred by Plaintiffs’ Counsel for their work on this matter up through

22 the Effective Date after briefing by the Parties. Judge Cousins shall also retain jurisdiction

23 to resolve any disputes concerning Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and to award such payments.

24

1. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Counsel expressly reserve their rights to

25

pursue claims for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses for work

26

performed after the time the Settlement Agreement is signed by all

27

Parties, including for work spent on compliance monitoring,

28

enforcement, and/or work spent securing their fees and collecting any

22
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 25 of 56

1

and all fees, costs and expenses that are due to them. The Parties

2

agree that all issues pertaining to any such attorneys’ fees, costs and

3

expenses are unresolved and therefore are subject to the continuing

4

jurisdiction of the Court.

5

2. The Parties will use the following procedure to resolve Plaintiffs’

6

Counsel’s requests for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses to monitor

7

Uber’s compliance with this Agreement. Beginning twelve (12)

8

months after the Effective Date, Plaintiffs’ Counsel will annually

9

submit a request for reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses to

10

Uber for the preceding year of work. Uber will have 45 days to

11

contest or pay the requested amount of attorneys’ fees, costs and

12

expenses. Uber may contest the amount of attorneys’ fees, costs and

13

expenses. If Uber contests the amount of attorneys’ fees, costs or

14

expenses, the Parties have 60 days to negotiate those amounts. If

15

disagreements as to such fees, costs and expenses cannot be

16

informally resolved, they will be submitted to the Magistrate Judge

17

who retains jurisdiction over this Agreement by appropriate motion.

18

The Parties agree that the Court shall retain jurisdiction beyond the

19

three and one half-year Term or five year Extended Agreement Term

20

as necessary to resolve and award fees, costs and expenses for

21

monitoring for the final year of the Agreement Term.

22

12. The Parties agree that the judgment entered by the Court after the Effective

23

Date of this Agreement shall include the following language: “The parties,

24

having negotiated resolution of claims asserted in this action agree that

25

settlement has altered the legal and juridical relationship of the parties.

26

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the Parties, the

27

Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement, including

28

without limitation, disputes over compliance with the terms of the

23
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 26 of 56

1

Agreement and the amounts of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, if any, to

2

be paid to Plaintiffs’ attorneys.”

3

13. Filings, Preliminary Approval, Notice, Final Approval

4

A. Vacating Discovery and Trial Deadlines. Within seven (7) days after

5 execution of this Agreement by the Parties, the Parties shall apply to the Court for an order

6 vacating the current discovery and trial deadlines in light of this Agreement.

7

B. Preliminary Approval. Within fourteen (14) days after the Court vacates

8 the discovery and trial deadlines, the Parties will jointly move for an order granting

9 amendment of the Complaint to include NFB National as a party and incorporate class

10 relief, preliminary approval of the terms of this Agreement as a stipulated Class Action

11 Settlement, provisional certification of the Settlement Class, approving the proposed form

12 of notice to the Settlement Class, and scheduling a hearing for final approval of this

13 Agreement within 120 days after preliminary approval of this Agreement, or as soon

14 thereafter as the Court may set.

15

C. Objections and Responses. Any member of the Settlement Class may

16 object to the terms of this Agreement by filing, within 30 days after the Notice described in

17 Section 13.D, below, is issued, written objections with the Court. Only objecting

18 Settlement Class Members will have the right, if they so request in their objection, to

19 present objections orally at the hearing on final approval of the settlement. Responses by

20 the Parties to any objections must be filed within 30 days after the date for objections by

21 Settlement Class Members has passed.

22

D. Notice.

23

1. As soon as practicable, but no later than three (3) weeks / twenty-one

24

(21) days after the Court’s entry of a Preliminary Approval Order,

25

Uber will pay the cost of publishing a stipulated class action

26

settlement notice on a search-engine -optimized (“SEO”) settlement

27

website operated by a stipulated class action settlement administrator.

28

Uber will pay the cost of the settlement administrator. After the

24
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 27 of 56

1

settlement website is posted online, Uber will post a link to the

2

settlement notice on its news blog (newsroom.uber.com) and

3

https://www.facebook.com/uber within 30 days of the Preliminary

4

Approval Order. Uber will further pay the cost, if any, of ensuring the

5

notice is published in the electronic newsletters and Braille magazines

6

of the National Federation of the Blind and the American Council of

7

the Blind so notice is sent out within 60 days of the Preliminary

8

Approval Order.

9

E. Final Approval.

10

1. At the Final Approval Hearing, the Parties will jointly request that the

11

Court enter a Final Judgment and Order granting Final Approval of

12

this Settlement Agreement and certifying the Settlement Class.

13

2. This action will be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rules of

14

Civil Procedure, Rule 41, within 30 days after expiration of the Term

15

of this Agreement and after any remaining disputes concerning

16

recovery of attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses have been resolved.

17

14. Release

18

A. Release of Claims in Full/Covenant Not to Sue. Effective on the Effective

19 Date of this Agreement, Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class, and each of their executors,

20 successors, heirs, assigns, administrators, agents, and representatives, in consideration of

21 the relief set forth herein, fully and finally release Uber Technologies, Inc., and all of its

22 subsidiary and/or affiliate entities operating anywhere in the United States (including, but

23 not limited to Rasier, LLC and Rasier-CA, LLC) and each of their present, former or future

24 officers, directors, shareholders, agents, employees, representatives, consultants, attorneys,

25 parent companies, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and assigns, to the fullest extent

26 allowable by law, from any and all equitable relief claims, rights, demands, charges,

27 complaints, actions, suits, and causes of action, currently known or unknown, foreseeable

28 or unforeseeable, whether based upon Title III of the ADA, the Unruh Act or Disabled

25
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 28 of 56

1 Persons Act, or based upon any other federal, state or local law, rule or regulation, order,

2 or ordinance relating to or concerning equal access for legally blind or visually disabled

3 persons who travel with Service Animals, which were alleged, or which could have been

4 alleged, in the Complaint or any other court or administrative proceeding relating to the

5 subject matter of the Complaint, that arose on or before the Effective Date. This is

6 intended to include claims for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees, costs

7 and expenses relating to the current action. The named Plaintiffs also release all damage

8 claims that arose up through the Effective Date. This release excludes damage claims by

9 the Settlement Class.

10

15. Miscellaneous

11

A. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between

12 the Parties. The terms of this Agreement supersede any prior discussions, understandings,

13 or agreements between the Parties relating to this matter. No modifications or limits will

14 be binding on the Parties unless expressly provided for in this Agreement or made by

15 writing signed by all of the Parties.

16

B. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of

17 which will be considered an original, but all of which, when taken together, will constitute

18 one and the same instrument.

19

C. Interpretation. This Agreement is deemed to have been drafted by all

20 Parties hereto, as a result of arm’s length negotiations among the Parties. Whereas all

21 Parties have contributed to the preparation of this Agreement, it shall not be construed

22 more strictly against one party than another. The headings in this Agreement are solely for

23 convenience and will not be considered in its interpretation. Where required by context,

24 the plural includes the singular and the singular includes the plural.

25

D. Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be governed, construed, and

26 interpreted in accordance with the laws of California.

27

E. Severability. In the event any portion of this Agreement is deemed to be

28 unenforceable, or is in conflict with applicable law, the remainder of this Agreement will

26
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 29 of 56

1 be enforced and will remain in full force and effect. Nothing in this Agreement shall be

2 construed to require the Parties to act contrary to state or federal laws, regulations, or

3 guidelines.

4

F. Execution. The Parties, having carefully read this Agreement, and having

5 consulted or having been given an opportunity to consult legal counsel, hereby

6 acknowledge their agreement to all of the foregoing terms and conditions by executing this

7 Agreement. Each signatory hereto represents and warrants that it is authorized to sign this

8 Agreement on behalf of the respective party. Facsimile and PDF signatures on this

9 Agreement shall be treated as original signatures. A copy of this Agreement shall be

10 treated as an original.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 30 of 56

[2911177-24]

1 Dated: April 29, 2016
2 3 4 5 6 7 Dated: April ___, 2016 8 9 10 11 12 Dated: April __, 2016 13
Dated: April __, 2016 14 15 Dated: April __, 2016 16 17
Dated: April 29, 2016 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
By: Mark Riccobono President
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA By:
Mary Willows President
Michael Kelly
Michael Hingson
Michael Pedersen
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
By: Dalene Bramer Senior Counsel

28
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 31 of 56

1 Dated: April ___, 2016
2 3 4 5 6 Dated: April __29_, 2016 7 8 9 10 11 12 Dated: April __, 2016 13
Dated: April __, 2016 14 15 Dated: April __, 2016 16 17
Dated: April 29, 2016 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND By:
Mark Riccobono President NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA
By: Mary Willows President
Michael Kelly
Michael Hingson
Michael Pedersen
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
By: Dalene Bramer Senior Counsel

28
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 32 of 56

:
Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 33 of 56

1 Dated: April, 2016
2 3 4 5 6 Dated: April, 2016 7 8 9 10 11 Dated: April_,2016 12 13 Dated: April ,2016 14
Dated: April Af, 2016 15 16 17 Dated: April 29,2016 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
By: Mark Riccobono President
-
’i
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA
By: Mary Willows President

Michael Kelly

Michael

A
Hjn^onwrvw

47

Michael Pedersen

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

By: Dalene Bramer Senior Counsel

28
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

3:14-cv-04086-NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 34 of 56

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 35 of 56
ADDENDUM 1

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 36 of 56
ADDENDUM 1
This document describes the “pop-up” notification that Uber will push to new and existing Drivers in accordance with the accompanying Settlement Agreement. Once the pop-up is pushed to the Driver App, the Driver will be unable to proceed to use the Driver App until the Driver completes the user interactions outlined below. A Driver shall not be able to circumvent the suspended functionality by using a different device or logging in and out of their account. The content of the pop-up notification will be as follows: [Screen 1]: [This screen shall contain the following text]: You have a legal obligation to transport riders who have guide dogs or other service animals. Allergies and religious objections are not exceptions. Uber will terminate its contractual relationship with any drivers who refuse to transport riders with service animals as required by governing law. For more information read the [link]: Service Animal Policy. [If the Driver taps the link they will be taken to the Service Animal Policy along with a back button to return to the original screen.]
Service animals are animals trained to assist people with disabilities. Most service animals are dogs. There are many types of service animals, including guide dogs that help blind people travel and signal dogs that alert people who are deaf or hard of hearing about relevant sounds. [Link]: Learn more about service animals. [Tapping the “Learn more about service animals” link will launch a webpage containing information about guide dogs and other types of service animals. The page shall contain pictures of guide dogs and other service animals.] [Below the above text is a continue button that moves to the next screen if pressed.] [Button]: Continue

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 37 of 56
[Screen 2]: [This screen shall contain three-choice checkbox buttons with no choices selected by default and a “Continue” button deactivated by default until all three checkbox buttons are selected.] [The following text shall appear at the top of the screen]: To comply with your legal obligations as outlined in Uber’s Service Animal Policy, you must agree to: (Check each box to indicate that you understand.) [Checkbox 1]: Transport riders with service animals even if you are afraid of dogs, dislike dogs, or hold other objections to dogs. [Checkbox 2]: Transport riders with service animals even if you are allergic to dogs, and even if someone else who uses the car is allergic to dogs. [Checkbox 3]: Transport groups of riders with more than one service animal if they can safely fit in your vehicle. [Button]: Continue [When the user clicks the “continue” button, then proceed to screen 3.]

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 38 of 56
[Screen 3]: [Screen 3 will contain the following text]:
Do you agree to transport riders with service animals and consent to Uber’s Service Animal Policy?
[Below this text, this screen shall contain a two-choice radio button with neither choice selected by default and a “Continue” button deactivated by default until either radio option is selected.]
[Radio option 1]: Yes, I agree to transport riders with Service Animals in my vehicle, and I consent to Uber’s Service Animal Policy. [Radio option 2]: No, I disagree. I will not transport service animals, and I do not consent to Uber’s Service Animal Policy. [Button]: Continue [If radio option 1 is selected when the Continue button is pressed, then the pop up will proceed to Screen 4.] [If radio option 2 is selected when the continue button is pressed, then Uber will store an internal record that the specific Driver account initially activated the “disagree” option and the pop up will continue to Screen 5.]

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 39 of 56
[Screen 4]
Includes the following text: Thank you for agreeing to Uber’s Service Animal Policy. If Uber determines you have breached your obligations as outlined in this policy, you will be permanently blocked from the Uber Driver App. [The pop up then proceeds with normal functionality.]

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 40 of 56
[Screen 5]: [This screen shall contain the following text]: Unfortunately you are not eligible to drive on the Uber platform at this time. [DRIVER GETS SECOND OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THE THREE QUESTIONS. FAILURE TO AGREE TO TRANSPORT SERVICE ANIMALS AND COMPLY WITH UBER’S SERVICE ANIMAL POLICY BY CHECKING THE THREE CHECKBOXES ON SCREEN 3 AND INDICATING AGREEMENT ON SCREEN 4 ABOVE WILL LEAD TO PERMANENT BAR OR DEACTIVATION FROM THE PLATFORM.]

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 41 of 56
ADDENDUM 2

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 42 of 56
Addendum 2 Guidance For Customer Service Team Members On How To Evaluate Complaints Against Driver-Partners
About Alleged Discrimination Against Riders With Service Animals*
[*Subject to further non-substantive, stylistic revision]
I. When To Use This Document:
Members of the Access Complaint Team should use this document when evaluating:
a. Complaints from riders with service animals; AND
b. Driver-partner requests for cleaning fees for trips involving riders with service animals.
II. What Is A “Service Animal”?
Service animals are animals that are trained to assist people with disabilities. Most service animals are dogs. Service animals are trained to assist people with many different types of disabilities.
Here are a few examples of common service animals. Remember that there are other types of service animals as well.
1. Guide animals. Guide animals, which are typically dogs, guide blind people.
2. Signal dogs. Signal dogs alert people who are deaf or hard of hearing to relevant noises, such as a door bell or an alarm.
3. Seizure dogs. Seizure dogs help people when they are having seizures.
4. Mobility assistance dogs. These dogs assist people with mobility disabilities by opening doors or retrieving dropped items.
III. What Is Uber’s Service Animal Policy?
Governing law requires that driver-partners transport riders with service animals. There is no exemption for animal allergies, religious objections, or a generalized fear of animals.

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 43 of 56
Uber will terminate its contractual relationship with a driver-partner in either of the following situations:
1. Uber determines that the driver-partner knowingly refused to transport a rider with a service animal because of the service animal ; OR
2. Uber receives plausible complaints on more than one occasion that the driver-partner refused to transport a rider with a service animal.
IV. Navigating A Service Animal Complaint
After receiving a complaint that a driver-partner refused to transport a rider with a service animal, you should do all of the following:
1. Investigate the complaint. 2. Determine whether the driver-partner violated his/her legal
obligations and Uber’s service animal policy. 3. Determine, in conjunction with Legal, whether the driver-partner’s
conduct warrants contract termination. 4. Follow up with the rider who experienced the denial of service.
A. Step 1: Investigate The Complaint
1. Reach out to the rider or the person who filed the complaint to get more information about what happened. Here are a few points to keep in mind for the call:
a. The rider does NOT need to disclose his or her specific disability.
b. The rider does NOT need to provide documentation proving that his or her animal is a service animal.
c. Inform the rider that you will follow up with him or her within one week, if possible, to let the rider know what action was taken regarding the complaint.
d. If the rider had a companion or companions who observed the incident, you should also speak with these individuals if they are willing to discuss the incident with you.
2. Reach out to the driver-partner to get more information about what happened.

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 44 of 56
a. If this is the first complaint that the driver-partner has refused to take a rider with a service animal, let the driver-partner know that Uber has deactivated their account pending review of the complaint. Then you should ask the driver-partner to explain what happened during the incident. You should ask the driver-partner open-ended questions to give the driver-partner an opportunity to fully explain his or her understanding of the situation.
i. If the driver-partner tells you that the rider’s dog was dangerous or was out of control, you should ask the driverpartner to provide specific details about why he or she thought the dog was dangerous or out of control. You should also reach out to the rider again to ask him or her about the dog’s behavior during the incident.
ii. If the driver-partner says that the rider’s dog had an accident or vomited in the vehicle, then you should ask the driverpartner to provide evidence (e.g., photo) of the accident.
b. If this is the second plausible complaint after [date by which all drivers must accept service animal policy through Uber app] that the driver-partner has refused to take a rider with a service animal, let the driver-partner know that Uber has permanently deactivated their account.
B. Step 2: Determine Whether The Driver-Partner Violated The Law
The driver-partner violated the law if the driver-partner knowingly refused to transport a rider with a service animal because of the animal.
Here are the only situations where a driver-partner can lawfully refuse to transport a rider with a service animal without violating the ADA or similar state law:
1. The rider’s service animal actually bit the driver-partner or another rider, or made a serious attempt to bite the driver-partner or another rider.
2. The rider’s service animal either urinated or defecated in the driverpartner’s vehicle.
3. The rider’s service animal was out of control and the rider was unable or unwilling to regain control over the service animal.
4. The driver-partner refused to transport the rider for reasons unrelated to the service animal. For example, the rider’s desired destination was far away,

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 45 of 56
such as over one hundred miles, and the driver did not want to drive that far.
The following are NOT acceptable reasons for a driver-partner to refuse to transport a rider with a service animal:
1. The driver-partner is allergic to animals.
2. Another person who drives the vehicle is allergic to animals.
3. The driver-partner is afraid of animals or dislikes animals.
4. The driver-partner has religious or cultural objections to animals.
5. The rider did not have written documentation proving that the rider’s animal is a service animal. People with disabilities are not required to carry documentation proving that their animals are service animals.
6. The rider’s service animal was not wearing a special vest, ID tag, or harness. Service animals are not required to wear special vests, ID tags, or harnesses.
7. The rider’s service animal began to bark or make other noises, but the rider stopped this behavior.
8. The rider’s service animal was smelly.
9. The driver-partner was worried that the rider’s service animal would shed hair in the vehicle.
10. The driver-partner was worried that the rider’s service animal would make a mess by vomiting, urinating, or defecating in the vehicle.
How Do I Know If The Driver-Partner Is Subject To Contract Termination Under Uber’s Service Animal Policy?
1. If this is the first service animal complaint against the driver-partner, you should conclude that the driver-partner is subject to contract termination under Uber’s service animal policy if:
a. The driver-partner admits that he/she was on notice that the rider’s animal was a service animal and that the driver-partner refused to transport the rider because of the service animal; or

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 46 of 56
b. You obtain reliable evidence (including a text message thread or phone message) through your investigation of the incident showing all of the following are true:
i. The driver-partner refused to transport a rider with a service animal.
ii. The rider communicated to the driver-partner that the rider’s animal was a service animal, or it was clear from the circumstances that the rider’s animal was a service animal.
iii. There was no legitimate reason for the driver’s refusal. Legitimate reasons for canceling the ride include the service animal not being housebroken, the service animal being out of control, the service animal engaging in dangerous behavior such as biting or attempted biting, and other permissible reasons unrelated to the service animal.
2. If this is the second service animal complaint against the driver-partner, you should conclude that the driver-partner is subject to contract termination under Uber’s service animal policy if it is the second such plausible complaint since [date when drivers must accept service animal policy in popup].
C. Step 3: What Action To Take With The Driver-Partner?
You should terminate the driver-partner’s contractual relationship with Uber if the conduct in question meets the standards set forth in Section B above.
If this is the first plausible complaint that a driver-partner refused a ride because of a service animal and you do not determine that the driver-partner violated Uber’s service animal policy, you should note in the driver-partner’s account that there was a complaint that the driver-partner refused to transport a rider with a service animal. You may not always be able to reliably determine what happened without significant investigation. In such cases a Rider’s complaint is always plausible unless there is an objective reason that the Rider is misstating the facts or not telling the truth. Disputes in which the Driver and the Rider have competing plausible versions of what happened should be resolved in favor of the Rider.
D. Step 4: Following Up With The Rider
First, you must refund any cancellation fees that were charged in connection with the cancelled trip that is the basis of the complaint.

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 47 of 56
If you terminate Uber’s relationship with the driver-partner, you must provide the rider with a $25 account credit.
You must also email the rider within one week from the date of the complaint, if possible, to inform him or her about all of the following:
1. Whether Uber determined that the driver-partner violated Uber’s service animal policy.
2. Whether Uber (i) terminated its relationship with the driver-partner (this applies if there was a knowing violation or if this is the second plausible complaint); (ii) determined that the complaint was plausible but could not determine if there was an intentional violation, and thus has noted in the driver-partner’s account that a plausible complaint was made against the driver-partner (this applies if this is the first such plausible complaint); or (iii) determined that the complaint was not plausible. (Customer service responses need not use the word plausible so long as it is clear from the response that the complaint was not addressed by either termination or a warning.) When noting in the driver-partner’s account that a plausible complaint has been made, you should explain to the rider that any second complaint submitted to Uber alleging that the particular driver-partner at issue refused to transport a rider with a service animal will result in permanent termination of Uber’s relationship with the driver-partner.
3. Whether you have refunded any cancellation fees that were charged to the rider.
4. Whether Uber has issued an account credit to the rider.
V. When May Driver-Partners Recover Cleaning Fees From Riders With Service Animals?
Drivers-Partners may be entitled to a cleaning fee based on a ride provided to a rider with a service animal. This section explains when it is appropriate to charge a cleaning fee to a rider with a service animal.
You may charge a rider with a service animal a cleaning fee in any of the following situations:
1. The rider’s service animal urinates, vomits, or defecates in the driverpartner’s vehicle, and at least two reports have previously been submitted to Uber asserting that the rider’s service animal urinated, vomited or defecated in a driver-partner’s vehicle.

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 48 of 56
2. The rider’s service animal tears or shreds the upholstery in the driverpartner’s vehicle.
3. The rider’s service animal cracks, shatters, or destroys doors, windows, or vehicle controls in the driver-partner’s vehicle.
4. For any reason unrelated to the rider’s service animal where Uber would ordinarily charge a rider without a service animal a cleaning fee. For example, the rider spills a beverage in the vehicle and stains the vehicle’s seats.
You may NOT charge a rider with a service animal a cleaning fee in any of the following situations:
1. This is the first or second report that the rider’s service animal urinated, vomited, or defecated in a driver-partner’s vehicle; OR
2. The rider’s service animal shed hair in the driver-partner’s vehicle.

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 49 of 56
ADDENDUM 3

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 50 of 56
Addendum 3 Complaint Submission Screens**
[**Note: The engineering around this project is ongoing, and therefore the final product may not comport precisely with the below. However, the fundamental features described below will be
included.]
Rider App Submission Screen:
Paths to Rider App Service Animal Complaint Screen
1. From The Trip Details (i.e., “Last Trip”) Screen
The “I want to report a service animal issue” link shall be reachable through no more than two linked screens or display interactions from the screen that is presented (1. “Need help?” 2. “I want to report a service animal issue.” The button to reach the service animal complaint submission screen shall be labeled “I want to report a service animal issue” and shall be prominently located.
2. From The Menu Button
The “I want to report a service animal issue” complaint screen shall be reachable through no more than three linked screens or display interactions from the side Menu bar:
1. Help 2. Accessibility 3. I want to report a service animal issue
The button to reach the service animal complaint submission screen shall be labeled “I want to report a service animal issue” and shall be prominently located.
The “I want to report a service animal issue” screen shall contain features similar to those appearing and described below:

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 51 of 56
Text: I want to report a service animal issue. Service animals must be accommodated in compliance with applicable accessibility laws. Please report any issue involving your service animal here. Was your service animal denied? [Field box with prompt to type: “Yes or No”] Tell us what happened:

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 52 of 56
[Field box: “If possible, please include the trip date and time, along with partner-driver’s name and if the Driver knew it was a Service Animal.”]
[To input details of the incident, click on the field box and it will clear.]
Button: Submit [**Note: Method of submission to be clearly marked, and will be dependent on Operating System (iOS, Android, etc.)]
[Clicking the Submit or other similarly titled button will transmit the information that the user provided in the form to Uber, and will return the user to their prior location in the app.]
Service Animal Policy On The App:
Uber’s Service Animal Policy can be accessed from the Menu button as follows:
1. Help 2. Accessibility 3. Service Animal Policy
Website Submission Screen:
The form for reporting a service animal issue shall be exactly the same whether filed via the website or the mobile apps.
A rider will arrive at this page by the following process after they have signed into their account:
1. Help 2. Accessibility 3. I want to report a service animal issue The “I want to report a service animal issue” screen will the same text as that described above.
Service Animal Policy On The Website:
Uber’s Service Animal Policy can be accessed from the Menu button as follows:
1. Help 2. Accessibility 3. Service Animal Policy

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 53 of 56
ADDENDUM 4

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 54 of 56
Addendum 4 Service Animal Policy*
[*Subject to further non-substantive, stylistic revision]
State and federal law prohibit driver-partners using the Uber app from denying service to riders with service animals because of the service animals, and from otherwise discriminating against riders with service animals. As explained in Uber’s NonDiscrimination Policy, driver-partners who engage in discriminatory conduct in violation of this legal obligation will lose access to the Uber platform.
What is a Service Animal?
A service animal is an animal that is trained to work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability.
The law provides that there are only two questions that a driver-partner may ask to confirm that a rider’s animal is a service animal: 1. Is the animal required because of a disability? And, 2. What work or task has the animal been trained to perform? The driver-partner may not request that the rider present documentation proving that the rider’s animal is a service animal.
There is no requirement that a service animal wear a tag, be registered, or display any kind of proof that it is a service animal.
Legal Obligations of Driver-Partners
Driver-Partners have a legal obligation to provide service to riders with service animals.
A driver-partner CANNOT lawfully deny service to riders with service animals because of allergies, religious objections, or a generalized fear of animals.
By virtue of their written Technology Services Agreement with Uber, all driver-partners on the Uber platform have been made aware of their legal obligation to provide service to riders with service animals and have agreed to comply with the law. If a driver-partner refuses to drive a rider with a service animal because of the service animal, the driverpartner is in violation of the law and is in breach of their contract with Uber.
Consequences for Refusal to Transport a Rider with a Service Animal
If Uber determines that a driver-partner knowingly refused to transport a rider with a service animal because of the service animal, the driver-partner will be permanently

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 55 of 56
removed from the Uber platform. Uber shall make this determination in its sole discretion following a review of the incident.
If Uber receives plausible complaints on more than one occasion from riders that a particular driver-partner refused to transport a rider with a service animal, that driverpartner will be permanently removed from the Uber platform, regardless of the justification offered by the driver-partner.
How to Report a Service Animal Complaint
If a rider has an issue related to his or her service animal—including issues regarding ride cancellations, harassment, or improper cleaning fees—the rider can report the issue to Uber.
Once a rider submits a service animal complaint, Uber’s Access Complaint Team will investigate the issue and take appropriate action in accordance with Uber’s Technology Services Agreement with driver-partners and this Service Animal Policy. The Access Complaint Team will make a reasonable and good faith effort to notify the rider within a week of the outcome of the investigation and the actions taken.
To file a complaint from the rider application, navigate to the “I Want To Report A Service Animal Issue” complaint screen, which is available through both the trip details screen and the account menu button.
To file a complaint from the Uber website, select the [link] “I Want To Report A Service Animal Issue” link here or through the “Help” link on the home page of the website.
[Activating the “I Want To Report A Service Animal Issue” link will open a webpage containing a form that is substantially similar in function and appearance to the form described in Addendum 3 of the settlement agreement.]
Rights of Riders with Service Animals
Riders cannot be denied service because they travel with a service animal. A rider will be refunded any trip cancellation charges or other charges imposed because a driver-partner denied a Rider service because of a service animal.
Riders will be informed by Uber what action Uber takes in response to their complaint about discrimination on the basis of a service animal, including whether Uber has terminated its contract with the driver-partner involved.

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 85-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 56 of 56
A rider will be provided an account credit of $25 for each instance in which a driverpartner’s contractual relationship with Uber is terminated as the result of a report that the driver-partner refused to transport the rider because of a service animal.
Cleaning Fees
Riders cannot be charged cleaning fees for shedding by their service animals. Riders will be refunded any cleaning fees charged for shedding by their service animals.
A rider will not be charged for the first or second reported mess involving a service animal’s bodily fluids. A rider can be charged for the third reported mess involving a service animal’s bodily fluids. The rider may contest that such a mess occurred by responding to the fee notification email to notify customer support. If a rider contests the cleaning fee, Uber will make a reasonable good faith effort to determine whether a mess occurred.

 </s> Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 1 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., 14
Defendants. 15

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY CLASS, AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 84

16 In 2014, the National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Kelly, Michael
17 Hingson, and Michael Pedersen sued Uber Technologies on behalf of all blind individuals
18 in California who use a service animal and were denied rides or deterred from using
19 Uber’s transportation app. The parties reached a nationwide settlement of the injunctive
20 claims, resulting in extensive changes to Uber’s policy that requires drivers to transport
21 service animals. The settlement provides a process for continued monitoring and
22 enforcement of Uber’s policies.
23 The parties move for preliminary approval of their class action settlement, and
24 plaintiffs seek to amend the complaint to include nationwide claims. The Court finds that
25 the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion for
26 preliminary approval of the class action settlement and DIRECTS notice to be
27 disseminated.
28

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 2 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 I. BACKGROUND

2

A. Plaintiffs’ Allegations

3

UberX is a widely available transportation service that uses mobile software

4 applications to arrange rides between passengers and Uber’s fleet of UberX drivers. First

5 Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 17, at ¶ 2. To use UberX services, an individual

6 must either (1) create a user account, and provide Uber with the customer’s phone number,

7 credit card information, and email address, or (2) travel as the guest of an individual with

8 an Uber user account. FAC ¶ 29. The customer then submits a request through Uber’s

9 mobile software application. FAC ¶ 30. Once Uber identifies the vehicle that will provide

10 the customer with transportation, Uber notifies the customer via text message or through

11 its smart phone application. FAC ¶ 30. The notification includes vehicle and driver

12 identification information and an estimated time of arrival. FAC ¶ 30. When the vehicle

13 has arrived, Uber notifies the customer, and the customer and passengers may board the

14 vehicle. FAC ¶ 30. Uber provides several different transportation services in California,

15 and UberX is one of Uber’s most cost-effective transportation services. FAC ¶ 29. Those

16 individuals who download Uber’s mobile phone application agree to Uber’s terms of

17 service, including an agreement to submit all disputes to binding arbitration. Dkt. No. 25

18 at Exhibit A.

19

Plaintiff National Federation of the Blind of California (“NFBC”) is a nonprofit

20 association of blind Californians, which aims to achieve integration of the blind into

21 society on a basis of equality with the sighted. FAC ¶ 22. Members of NFBC use UberX

22 on Uber’s smart phone application using text-to-speech technology. FAC ¶ 40.

23 Additionally, members of NFBC use UberX as guests of UberX customers, without

24 creating their own Uber account. FAC ¶ 43.

25

Plaintiff Michael Kelly is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFBC. FAC

26 ¶ 66. Kelly travels with his girlfriend, Brooklyn Rodden, who is also blind and uses a

27 guide dog. FAC ¶ 66. Rodden has an Uber account that she uses to request UberX

28 vehicles for herself and Kelly. FAC ¶ 66. On September 13, 2014, an UberX driver

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

2

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 3 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 refused to transport Rodden and Kelly because of their guide dogs. FAC ¶ 66.

2

Plaintiff Michael Hingson is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFBC.

3 FAC ¶ 67. Hingson does not have an Uber account and has not used UberX. FAC ¶ 67.

4 On October 9-12, 2014, Hingson attended the annual state convention for NFBC in El

5 Segundo, California. FAC ¶ 67. There, Hingson met attendees with service animals who

6 were being denied transportation by UberX to and from the convention hotel. FAC ¶ 67.

7 Hingson was deterred from using UberX on December 5, 2013, because he could not

8 afford to be delayed by an UberX driver refusing to take his guide dog. FAC ¶ 67.

9 Hingson would like to use UberX in the future, but does not believe that UberX is a

10 reliable source of transportation. FAC ¶ 67.

11

Plaintiff Michael Pedersen is blind and uses a guide dog. FAC ¶ 73. On September

12 12, 2014, Pedersen’s wife used her Uber account to request an UberX for Pedersen. FAC

13 ¶ 73. Pedersen heard the UberX driver pulled up in front of his home, but the driver

14 refused to transport Pedersen’s guide dog. FAC ¶ 73. As a result, Pedersen missed his

15 connection to a commuter shuttle and was late for work. FAC ¶ 73. Pedersen would like

16 to keep using UberX without fear that he will be denied service and made late for work or

17 other appointments. FAC ¶ 73.

18

Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a for-profit transportation network company.

19 FAC ¶ 27. Defendants Rasier LLC and Rasier-CA LLC are wholly-owned subsidiaries of

20 Uber Technologies, Inc. that operate within the state of California. FAC ¶ 28. Defendants

21 (collectively, “Uber”) use smart phone software applications to arrange transportation

22 between passengers and its fleet of drivers. FAC ¶ 27.

23

B. Procedural History

24

In September 2014, Plaintiffs sued Uber alleging that it engages in discriminatory

25 practices by permitting UberX drivers to deny access to blind individuals and their guide

26 dogs. Plaintiffs bring claims under (1) Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act

27 (“ADA”); (2) California Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”); (3) California Disabled

28 Persons Act (“DPA”); and (4) for declaratory relief.

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

3

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 4 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

In December 2014, Uber moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that individual

2 plaintiffs and the NFBC did not have standing. Dkt. No. 25. In April 2015, the Court

3 denied Uber’s motion to dismiss and allowed the case to proceed. Dkt. No. 37.

4

Thereafter, the parties engaged in mediation in August 2015 with retired judge

5 Jamie Jacobs-May. In January 2016, the parties reached an agreement on key elements of

6 a settlement. The parties continued to negotiate the specific language of certain provisions

7 through early April 2016.

8

Plaintiffs now move to (1) amend the complaint to add plaintiff National Federation

9 of the Blind (the national branch of the organization); (2) conditionally certify the class;

10 (3) preliminary approve the class action settlement; (4) appoint class counsel and class

11 representatives; and (5) direct notice to the class. The Court held a preliminary approval

12 meeting on June 16, 2016. The Court ordered supplemental briefing on the scope of the

13 release, which the parties supplied. Dkt. Nos. 101, 107, 108.

14

C. Jurisdiction

15

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ federal ADA claim and

16 exercises supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. All

17 parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. Dkt. Nos. 6, 14.

18

D. Overview of the Class Settlement

19

Broadly, the settlement provides for nationwide injunctive relief to riders with

20 service animals by tightening and extending Uber’s accommodation policies. In addition,

21 the named plaintiffs, including NFB, will recover damages and attorneys’ fees, while the

22 class members will retain the right to pursue their own damages claims. The Court will

23 retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and NFB and Uber will work together to ensure

24 the terms of the settlement are enforced for three-and-a-half years. If the parties agree or

25 the monitor determines that Uber did not substantially comply with the Agreement, the

26 agreement’s term will extend by one-and-a-half years.

27 //

28

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

4

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 5 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

1. Class Definition

2

NFB’s proposed amended complaint seeks to certify the following class: “All blind

3 or visually disabled individuals nationwide who travel with the assistance of Service

4 Animals and who have used, attempted to use, or been deterred from attempting to use

5 transportation arranged through the Uber Rider App.”

6

While the number of class members is unknown, plaintiffs have identified seventy-

7 four blind individuals who use service animals and belong to the class. Approximately ten

8 thousand blind individuals use guide dogs in the United States. Over one hundred

9 thousand Uber drivers provide transportation arranged through the Uber App in over 150

10 metropolitan areas nationwide. Plaintiffs proffer that there are likely hundreds or

11 thousands of class members.

12

2. Monetary Payment to the Plaintiffs

13

The settlement provides for monetary compensation to the named plaintiffs and the

14 NBF National, but it does not provide for class-wide monetary relief. Instead, the class

15 will not waive their right to pursue damages claims. Plaintiffs Michael Pedersen, Michael

16 Kelly, and Michael Hingson will each receive $15,000 to resolve their state law damages

17 claims. Uber will also make three annual payments of $75,000 to NFB during the first

18 three years of the agreement’s terms. If the term of the agreement is extended, Uber will

19 make a fourth payment of $75,000 to NFB at the beginning of the extended term.

20

3. Injunctive Relief

21

The injunctive relief provided for in the settlement is extensive. In total, Uber will

22 be required to implement a variety of policies to inform drivers that they must provide

23 rides to individuals with service animals and to enforce the policies. The injunctive relief

24 falls into three main categories: (1) providing notice to drivers; (2) providing remedies for

25 and systematic support to riders with service animals to report incidents; and (3) enforcing

26 Uber’s policy that drivers may not discriminate against riders with service animals.

27 //

28

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

5

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 6 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

a. Notice to Drivers

2

Under the settlement agreement, Uber will require that new drivers expressly

3 confirm that they have reviewed, understand, and agree to comply with their legal

4 obligations as outlined in Uber’s Service Animal Policy. In addition, drivers will be

5 blocked from receiving trip requests from riders through the Uber platform until they

6 confirm an interactive pop-up notification in the Uber driver app that they are willing to

7 transport riders with service animals. Drivers that are unwilling will be permanently

8 blocked from receiving trip requests through Uber. Uber will also send quarterly email

9 reminders to all drivers of its policy requiring transportation of riders with service animals.

10

b. Support to Riders with Service Animals

11

Uber will reverse the cancellation or other fees that were charged in connection

12 with an incident that is the basis of a service animal complaint. Uber will not charge riders

13 with service animals cleaning fees for shedding by their service animals. Uber will also

14 not charge cleaning fees to riders with service animals for the first two reported messes

15 involving the bodily fluid of the rider’s service animal. Riders with service animals will be

16 able to contest cleaning fees. Uber will make a good faith effort, within one week of

17 receiving the complaint, to inform the complainant of the outcome of Uber’s review of the

18 complaint, including whether Uber has terminated its contractual relationship with the

19 driver.

20

c. Enforcement

21

Uber will adopt an enhanced enforcement policy, in which Uber will permanently

22 terminate its contractual relationship with a driver and permanently terminate that driver’s

23 ability to receive trip requests through the Uber platform if Uber determines that the driver

24 knowingly refused to transport a rider because that rider was accompanied by a service

25 animal. Uber will also terminate its contractual relationship with a driver if it receives

26 plausible complaints on more than one occasion asserting that a driver unlawfully refused

27 to transport riders with service animals because of the service animal anywhere in the

28 United States. A complaining rider with a service animal will receive $25 credit if Uber

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

6

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 7 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 terminates its relationship with the driver who is the subject of the complaint.

2

Finally, the parties have agreed to a third-party monitor who will have access to

3 Uber reports about complaints. NFB will administer compliance testing. Uber will

4 compensate the monitor, with fees capped at $50,000 for 3.5 years, and an additional

5 $35,000 if the parties agree to the year-and-a-half extension.

6

4. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and Administration Costs

7

Uber will pay reasonable fees for the cost of settlement administration. The parties

8 request that KCC LLC be appointed as the settlement administrator. Additionally, NFB

9 will request reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, which Uber may oppose as to the

10 amount. NFB will annually request attorneys’ fees associated with overseeing the

11 administration of the settlement.

12

5. Release of Claims

13

The settlement agreement releases the following claims:

14

Effective on the Effective Date of this Agreement, Plaintiffs

15

and the Settlement Class, and each of their executors,

successors, heirs, assigns, administrators, agents, and

16

representatives, in consideration of the relief set forth herein,

fully and finally release Uber Technologies, Inc., and all each

17

of its subsidiaries subsidiary and/or affiliate entities operating

anywhere in the United States, (including but not limited to

18

Rasier, LLC and Rasier-CA, LLC) and each of their present,

former or future officers, members, directors, shareholders,

19

agents, employees, representatives, consultants, attorneys,

parent companies, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and

20

assigns, to the fullest extent allowable by law, from any and all

equitable relief claims, rights, demands, charges, complaints,

21

actions, suits, and causes of action, currently known or

unknown, foreseeable or unforeseeable, whether based upon

22

Title III of the ADA, the Unruh Act or Disabled Persons Act,

or based upon any other federal, state or local law, rule or

23

regulation, order, or ordinance relating to or concerning equal

access for legally blind or visually disabled persons who travel

24

with Service Animals, which were alleged, or which could

have been alleged, in the Complaint or any other court or

25

administrative proceeding relating to the subject matter of the

Complaint, that arose on or before the Effective Date. This is

26

intended to include claims for injunctive relief, declaratory

relief, and attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses relating to the

27

current action. The named Plaintiffs also release all damage

claims that arose up through the Effective Date. This release

28

excludes damage claims by the Settlement Class.

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

7

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 8 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

Notably, the class retains their damages claims, but releases their injunctive claims.

2

6. Class Notice

3

Class notice will be administered primarily through KCC LLC, the settlement

4 administrator. KCC will maintain a website during the notice period with the agreed-to

5 notice containing all relevant information. Within sixty days of this order, KCC will

6 publish the notice in the newsletters and magazines of the National Federation of the Blind

7 and the American Council of the Blind, the largest associations of blind persons in the U.S.

8 Class counsel will distribute notice by email in a screen reader compatible format to

9 persons who contacted class counsel to complain. Class counsel will also post the notice

10 on the websites of Disability Rights Advocates, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, LLP, and

11 TRE Legal Practice. The notice will also be electronically mailed to the membership

12 email list serves for the NFB, American Council of the Blind, National Association of

13 Guide Dog Users, and Guide Dog Users, Inc. Uber will also post a link to the settlement

14 notice on its news blog.

15 II. DISCUSSION

16

The Court addresses (A) the amended complaint; (B) conditional class certification;

17 (C) preliminary approval of the settlement; (D) class notice; (E) the schedule.

18

A. Amended Complaint

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) permits a plaintiff to amend its pleading

20 with the opposing party’s written consent. Where the parties have agreed to file an

21 amended complaint as part of the class settlement, judges in this district have granted leave

22 to amend, subject to the terms of settlement. See Miller v. Ghirardeli Chocolate Co., 12-

23 cv-04936 LB, 2014 WL 4978433, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014) (granting leave to amend

24 for settlement purposes, but voiding the amendment if no final settlement occurs); Harris

25 v. Vector Mktg. Corp., 08-cv-5198 EMC, 2011 WL 1627973, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29,

26 2011) (approving stipulation and granting leave to amend complaint as part of order

27 granting preliminary approval); see also Ching v. Siemens Indus. Inc., 11-cv-4838 MEJ,

28 2013 WL 6200190, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2013)(same).

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

8

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 9 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

Here, the parties seek to amend the complaint to add National Federation of the

2 Blind to the complaint as a plaintiff and to broaden the class allegations to include a

3 nationwide class.

4

At the hearing, the Court expressed concern that broadening the scope of this case

5 from a California class action to a nationwide might overlap with other ongoing cases.

6 Counsel for both parties indicated that they knew of no other case nationwide with the

7 same set of claims, seeking the same relief. However, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that

8 there is one other case filed for injunctive relief and damages, which would become moot

9 as to the injunctive relief as a result of this settlement. See Jolliff v. Uber Technologies,

10 Inc., et. al., Case No. 16-cv-605 GBL, dkt. no. 1 at ¶¶ 84-85 (E.D. Va.).

11

Thus, the Court finds that amendment of the complaint is appropriate and in the

12 interest of judicial efficiency to resolve nationwide claims in this litigation. The Court

13 GRANTS the motion to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs must file the second amended

14 complaint on the docket in a separate docket entry.

15

B. Conditional Class Certification

16

Class certification requires that: (1) the class be so numerous that joinder of all

17 members individually is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to

18 the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the class representative must be typical of the

19 claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the person representing the class must be able fairly

20 and adequately to protect the interests of all members of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a);

21 Staton v. Boeing, 327 F.3d 938, 953 (9th Cir. 2003).

22

In addition to meeting the conditions imposed by Rule 23(a), the parties seeking

23 class certification must also show that the action is maintainable under Federal Rule of

24 Civil Procedure 23(b). Plaintiffs here are seeking certification under Rule 23(b)(2).

25 Plaintiffs assert that the action is maintainable under Rule 23(b)(2) which allows a class

26 action to be certified when “members of a putative class seek uniform injunctive or

27 declaratory relief from policies and practices that are generally applicable to the class as a

28 whole.” Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 668 (9th Cir. 2014).

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

9

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 10 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

1. Numerosity

2

Here, plaintiffs have identified at least seventy-four class members and estimate that

3 hundreds or thousands more individuals could be class members. The Court finds that the

4 class is so numerous that joinder of all individuals members is impracticable.

5

2. Commonality

6

Here, there are questions of fact and law common to all class members, the answers

7 to which will drive the resolution of the litigation. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131

8 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011). Although the facts of each individual’s alleged discrimination

9 are different, the essential facts and questions of law are common. Specifically, plaintiffs

10 all seek to ensure that drivers using the Uber platform will reliably transport riders with

11 service animals.

12

3. Typicality

13

For purposes of the typicality inquiry, the named plaintiffs’ injuries need not be

14 identical with those of the other class members, “only that the unnamed class members

15 have injuries similar to those of the named plaintiffs and that the injuries result from the

16 same, injurious course of conduct.” Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 869 (9th Cir.

17 2001).

18

Here, the Court acknowledges that the injuries of the organization, the individual

19 plaintiffs, and the putative class members are fairly distinct. Each individual suffered a

20 different type of offense, from deterrence to alleged abuse of a service animal. However,

21 in the context of this specific class action settlement, plaintiffs do not seek to resolve the

22 damages claims on behalf of the class members. Thus, the relevant injury is the denial of

23 transportation or deterrence from transportation that plaintiffs seek to remedy through

24 declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court finds that for the injunctive relief sought, the

25 typicality requirement is satisfied.

26

4. Conflicts of Interest

27

Proposed class representatives and their counsel cannot have conflicts of interest

28 with the class and must vigorously prosecute the action on behalf of the class. Hanlon,

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

10

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 11 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 150 F.3d at 1020. Here, class representatives and class counsel participated in contested

2 motion to dismiss briefing and a hearing, began discovery, and mediated the dispute with a

3 third-party neutral. Additionally, plaintiffs and their counsel have litigated other equal

4 access cases in the past for the purpose of seeking injunctive and declaratory relief on

5 behalf of blind individuals. There appears to be no conflict of interest with the class.

6

5. Rule 23(b)(2)

7

Rule 23(b)(2) provides that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act

8 on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding

9 declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” “[T]he primary role of

10 this provision has always been the certification of civil rights actions.” Parsons, 754 F.3d

11 at 686. In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 360 (2011), the Supreme Court

12 elaborated that Rule 23(b)(2) concerns the “individual nature of the injunctive or

13 declaratory remedy warranted—the notion that the conduct is such that it can be enjoined

14 or declared unlawful only as to all of the class members or as to none of them.” “These

15 requirements are unquestionably satisfied when members of a putative class seek uniform

16 injunctive or declaratory relief from policies or practices that are generally applicable to

17 the class as a whole.” Parsons, 754 F.3d at 687-88.

18

Here, the remedy of injunctive and declaratory relief sought is the same for all class

19 members and will remedy their alleged injuries. Plaintiffs seek to change Uber’s policies

20 to enforce consistency with the ADA and state law regulations requiring transportation

21 providers to accommodate riders with service animals. Thus, the relief sought is generally

22 applicable to the class as a whole. Additionally, the parties’ settlement reflects policy

23 changes that will allow all class members to benefit from the improved reliability of

24 transportation provided by drivers and the Uber platform.

25

C. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires judicial approval of any settlement

27 by a certified class. Although there is a “strong judicial policy that favors settlements,

28 particularly where complex class action litigation is concerned,” Linney v. Cellular Alaska

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

11

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 12 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1238 (9th Cir. 1998), “[t]he purpose of Rule 23(e) is to protect the

2 unnamed members of the class from unjust or unfair settlements affecting their rights.” In

3 re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, a settlement

4 should only be approved if it is “fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Torrisi v.

5 Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1993). In determining whether the

6 proposed settlement meets this standard, the Court does not have the ability “to delete,

7 modify, or substitute certain provisions. . . . The settlement must stand or fall in its

8 entirety.” Id. Due to the dangers of collusion between class counsel and the defendant, as

9 well as the need for additional protections when the settlement is not negotiated by a

10 Court-designated class representative, settlement approval that takes place prior to formal

11 class certification requires a higher standard of fairness. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026.

12

“The Court may grant preliminary approval of a settlement and direct notice to the

13 class if the settlement: (1) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive

14 negotiations; (2) has no obvious deficiencies; (3) does not improperly grant preferential

15 treatment to class representatives or segments of the class; and (4) falls within the range of

16 possible approval.” Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., No. 08-cv-05198 EMC, 2011 WL

17 1627973, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011); In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d

18 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007).

19

1. The Settlement Process

20

Here, the settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive

21 negotiations. The parties had an all-day mediation before Hon. Jamie Jacobs-May (ret.) at

22 JAMS in August 2015, after briefing and arguing a contentious motion to dismiss.

23 Although the named plaintiffs will receive monetary compensation, the class does not

24 waive its damages claims. Additionally, the parties have not agreed to the amount of

25 attorneys’ fees and costs counsel can recover. Instead, plaintiffs will move for attorneys’

26 fees and costs, and defendants may oppose the amount requested. Ultimately, the Court

27 will determine the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees. As a result, the Court finds that

28 the concerns of collusion are not warranted in this case.

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

12

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 13 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2. The Presence of Obvious Deficiencies

2

The Court expressed concern over two aspects of the settlement. First, the Court

3 asked defendants to clarify the identities of all entities released under the settlement

4 agreement. Defendants amended the release, dkt. no. 107, and clarified that “the only

5 Released Parties with whom Settlement Class Members may have a contractual

6 relationship are Uber Technologies, Inc. and a single subsidiary, Uber USA, LLC. From

7 Defendants’ perspective, it is unnecessary to identify any subsidiary entity specifically, as

8 Uber Technologies, Inc. directly or indirectly wholly-owns all subsidiaries operating in the

9 United States.”

10

Second, the Court was concerned that class members will waive their rights under

11 the ADA and all state and local laws. The Court requested that plaintiffs submit additional

12 briefing to confirm whether any state disability laws provide greater protection then the

13 ADA and California law. Plaintiffs confirmed for the Court that no state laws contain

14 stricter requirements for access to transportation services than those outlined in the ADA

15 and the Unruh Act (California law).

16

With these amendments and proffers, the Court is satisfied that there are no obvious

17 deficiencies in the settlement.

18

3. Preferential Treatment

19

Incentive awards for class representatives, should the Court finally approve them,

20 does not render the settlement unfair, as “the Ninth Circuit has recognized that service

21 awards to named plaintiffs in a class action are permissible and do not render a settlement

22 unfair or unreasonable.” Harris, 2011 WL 1627973, at *9 (citing Staton, 327 F.3d at 977).

23 Here, each named plaintiff will receive $15,000 and release their damages claims, while

24 NFB will receive $45,000. Class members will not receive any monetary benefits from the

25 settlement, but will also not waive their right to pursue damages claims. The Court agrees

26 with plaintiffs that this “preferential treatment” is properly categorized as a settlement of

27 the named plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety. Since plaintiffs’ monetary recovery does not

28 harm or take away value from the class claims as a whole, the Court finds that such

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

13

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 14 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 preferential treatment is permissible.

2

4. Whether the Settlement Falls Within the Range of Possible Approval

3

Finally, the Court must determine whether the proposed settlement falls within the

4 range of possible approval. “To evaluate the range of possible approval criterion, which

5 focuses on substantive fairness and adequacy, courts primarily consider plaintiff’s

6 expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement offer.” Harris, 2011 WL

7 1627973, at *9 (quoting Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 1114,

8 1125 (E.D. Cal. 2009)).

9

To determine whether an agreement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and

10 reasonable, the Court may preview the factors that ultimately inform final approval: “[1]

11 the strength of plaintiff’s case; [2] the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of

12 further litigation; [3] the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; [4] the

13 amount offered in settlement; [5] the extent of discovery completed, and the stage of the

14 proceedings; [6] the experience and views of counsel; [7] the presence of a governmental

15 participant; and [8] the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.” Id. at *9

16 (citing Churchill Village v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004)).

17

Here, the Court finds that the agreement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and

18 reasonable because plaintiffs received nearly all the injunctive relief they sought. The

19 Court notes that plaintiffs faced several additional hurdles to demonstrating a successful

20 case, including navigating Uber’s arbitration clause argument, maintaining standing, and

21 obtaining class certification.

22

This is a complex case, which touches on cutting-edge questions at the intersection

23 of the sharing economy, equal access, and constitutional law. The Court observes that if

24 this case had proceeded, both parties would assume significant risks with voluminous

25 discovery, burdensome motion practice, and novel legal issues.

26 ///

27

28

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

14

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 15 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

D. Class Notice

2

1. Notice Administration

3

The parties have agreed to appoint KCC LLC as the notice administrator, and the

4 parties will assist in disseminating the notice on their respective websites.

5

2. Method of Providing Notice

6

KCC will publish the notice in the newsletters and magazines of the National

7 Federation of the Blind and the American Council of the Blind, the largest associations of

8 blind persons in the U.S. Class counsel will distribute notice by email in a screen reader

9 compatible format to persons who contacted class counsel to complain. Class Counsel will

10 also post the notice on the websites of Disability Rights Advocates, Rosen Bien Galvan &

11 Grunfeld, LLP, and TRE Legal Practice. The notice will also be electronically mailed to

12 the membership email list serves for the NFB, American Counseil of the Blind, National

13 Association of Guide Dog Users, and Guide Dog Users, Inc. Uber will also post a link to

14 the settlement notice on its news blog.

15

3. Content of the Notice

16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires that “[t]he notice must clearly and

17 concisely state in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the

18 definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class

19 member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (v) that the

20 court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and

21 manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on

22 members under Rule 23(c)(3).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).

23

Class counsel have assured the Court that all notices will be disseminated in

24 accessible formats, either through screen reader compatible formats or in Braille print

25 magazines. Class counsel also assure the Court that within the blind community, those

26 individuals with service animals often subscribe to such magazines or remain in contact

27 with service animal providers and trainers. The Court is satisfied that the notice will

28 sufficiently reach class members.

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

15

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 16 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

E. Schedule

2

The Court approves the parties’ proposed schedule. Class members may object

3 until October 13, 2016. The final approval hearing will be held on November 10, 2016, at

4 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom D in the San Francisco Courthouse located at 450 Golden Gate

5 Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.

6 III. CONCLUSION

7

In the Court’s experience, a case involving injunctive relief that seeks a

8 comprehensive change to a company’s policies is often better resolved through the

9 collaborative process of settlement, rather than the adversarial process of litigation. As

10 plaintiffs note, the Uber app platform is a highly accessible and useful tool for riders with

11 service animals, perhaps even more so than traditional transportation methods. By

12 engaging in good faith negotiations, the parties have achieved an omnibus plan to

13 eliminate discrimination in this accessible transportation platform for blind riders with

14 service animals.

15

Thus, in conclusion, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion and directs as follows:

16

1. Plaintiffs’ request to amend the complaint is GRANTED. The second

17 amended complaint must be filed on the docket within 7 days;

18

2. NFB, NFBC, Michael Kelly, Michael Hingson, and Michael Pederson are

19 appointed as class representatives;

20

3. Disability Rights Advocates, TRE Legal Practice, and Rosen, Bien, Galvan

21 & Grunfeld LLP are appointed as class counsel;

22

4. The class is certified as: “All blind or visually disabled individuals

23 nationwide who travel with the assistance of Service Animals and who have used,

24 attempted to use, or been deterred from attempting to use transportation arranged through

25 the Uber Rider App.”

26

5. The settlement is preliminarily approved;

27

6. KCC LLC is appointed as the settlement administrator;

28

7. KCC and the parties are directed to disseminate notice to the class members

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

16

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 112 Filed 07/13/16 Page 17 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 within 60 days;

2

8. The parties should make this Court order, the second amended complaint,

3 and the settlement available on the appropriate websites in accessible formats. If this

4 Court order or any other Court order in this case is not in the appropriate format to be

5 accessible to a screen reader, the parties should notify the Court.

6

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

9 Dated: July 13, 2016 10

_____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

17

 </s> Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 LAURENCE PARADIS (CA BAR NO. 122336) (lparadis@dralegal.org)
JULIA MARKS (CA BAR No. 300544) (jmarks@dralegal.org) 2 Disability Rights Advocates
2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor 3 Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: (510) 665-8644 4 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

5 TIMOTHY ELDER (CA BAR NO. 277152) (telder@trelegal.com) TRE Legal Practice
6 4226 Castanos Street Fremont, CA 94536
7 Telephone: (410) 415-3493 Facsimile: (888) 718-0617
8
MICHAEL BIEN (CA BAR NO. 96891) (mbien@rbgg.com) 9 MICHAEL NUNEZ (CA BAR NO. 280535) (mnunez@rbgg.com)
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld 10 50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105 11 Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13

14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16

17

18
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND 19 OF CALIFORNIA, NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, MICHAEL 20 KELLY, MICHAEL HINGSON, and
MICHAEL PEDERSEN, 21
Plaintiffs, 22
v. 23
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 24
Defendant. 25

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086 NC
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., THE CALIFORNIA UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51 & 52, AND THE CALIFORNIA DISABLED PERSONS ACT, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 54-54.3

26

27

28

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. This class action seeks to put an end to violations of the ADA committed by Uber

3 Technologies, Inc., as well as its subsidiary and affiliate entities nationwide (collectively “Uber”

4 or “Defendant”) against blind individuals who use guide dogs. Plaintiffs National Federation of

5 the Blind (“NFB”) and National Federation of the Blind of California (“NFB-CA”) sue on behalf

6 of their members, including Plaintiff Kelly, who has been and will continue to be denied access

7 to transportation services arranged through the Uber mobile software application (“Uber

8 transportation services”) and Plaintiff Hingson, who has been and continues to be deterred from

9 using Uber transportation services, all because Uber has failed to ensure that blind riders with

10 service animals, including many other members of Plaintiffs NFB and NFB-CA, can access Uber

11 transportation services. Likewise, Michael Pedersen, a blind resident of San Francisco who uses

12 a guide dog, also sues alongside Plaintiffs NFB and NFB-CA because Pedersen has been and

13 will continue to be denied access to Uber transportation services on the basis of his using a

14 service animal.

15

2. Uber offers access to transportation services for sighted individuals throughout

16 the United States. Transportation arranged through the Uber mobile software application (“app”)

17 is highly cost-effective and widely available. Uber uses the app to arrange rides between

18 passengers and its fleet of drivers in much the same way that a taxi dispatch arranges rides for

19 customers.

20

3. Drivers who use the Uber app (“drivers”) are refusing to transport many blind

21 individuals who use service animals, including members of NFB and NFB-CA. One driver

22 denied rides to one blind woman on twelve separate occasions, while other drivers have refused

23 service to a blind parent on her way to a pharmacy to get a prescription for her feverish toddler,

24 abandoned blind travelers in extreme weather, and cancelled rides for discriminatory purposes

25 and then charged the riders cancellation fees, all because these individuals were using guide

26 dogs. Drivers have refused to transport Jamey Gump, Manveen Chahal, Cody Austin Meyer,

27 Brooklyn Rodden, Michael Kelly, Jessie Lorenz, Jonathan Lyens, and Juanita Herrera (all blind

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 3 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 members of NFB-CA and NFB) because they use guide dogs. In total, Plaintiffs are aware of

2 more than 150 instances where drivers on the Uber platform refused to transport blind

3 individuals with service animals. Drivers who refused to transport these blind individuals did so

4 after they initially agreed to transport the riders. The Drivers denied the requested transportation

5 service after the drivers had arrived and discovered that the riders used service animals.

6

4. In addition, some drivers mishandle guide dogs, harass blind customers with

7 guide dogs, or give low feedback scores to passengers with service animals even when drivers do

8 not outright deny the provision of transportation service. Blind customers with guide dogs have

9 been yelled at by drivers who are hostile toward their guide dogs. In addition, upon information

10 and belief, passengers with service animals receive lower average ratings from drivers. A lower

11 rating reduces the probability that a driver will agree to provide transportation to a passenger in

12 the future.

13

5. Many of these blind individuals submitted written complaints to Uber concerning

14 the discriminatory treatment that they experienced. However, Uber has failed to notify most of

15 these individuals regarding whether Uber has thoroughly investigated their complaints,

16 disciplined the relevant drivers, or taken any other meaningful steps to ensure that these drivers

17 do not continue to unlawfully discriminate against them or other individuals with service

18 animals. Instead, Uber representatives often responded to these complaints by denying

19 responsibility for the discrimination. Meanwhile, many of these blind individuals experience

20 ongoing denials from multiple drivers.

21

6. Plaintiff Kelly is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB and NFB-CA.

22 Mr. Kelly travels in vehicles on the UberX platform with companions who use the Uber app. Mr.

23 Kelly and his companions have been denied access to UberX transportation services because of

24 the presence of Mr. Kelly’s service animal.

25

7. Plaintiff Hingson is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB and NFB-

26 CA. Mr. Hingson, a public speaker and best-selling author, travels extensively throughout

27 California and has traveled with a guide dog for decades. Mr. Hingson is aware of drivers’

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

2

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 4 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 widespread discrimination against blind individuals with service animals, and Mr. Hingson has

2 refrained and continues to refrain from creating an Uber user account or otherwise using Uber

3 transportation services because he fears experiencing similar discrimination. Mr. Hingson has

4 been deterred from using Uber on many specific occasions when it would have been convenient

5 for him to use Uber’s app to arrange transportation.

6

8. Plaintiff Pedersen is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a resident of San Francisco,

7 California. Mr. Pedersen has been denied access to Uber transportation services multiple times.

8 Mr. Pedersen would like to continue using Uber transportation services without fear that drivers

9 will refuse to drive him.

10

9. When drivers deny rides to blind riders with service animals, blind individuals

11 experience several harms. They face unexpected delays, they must arrange alternate

12 transportation that is sometimes more costly, and they face the degrading experience of being

13 denied a basic service that is available to all other paying customers.

14

10. In addition, Uber charges many blind riders with guide dogs cancellation fees

15 after drivers have unlawfully denied them service. These blind riders are also often placed in the

16 uncomfortable position of explaining to uninformed drivers that service animals are protected by

17 law and that blind people have the right to bring service animals into vehicles providing

18 transportation services to the public.

19

11. Uber is violating basic equal access requirements under the ADA by failing to

20 implement policies and procedures that would prevent or reduce discrimination against blind

21 riders committed by drivers. Uber can implement policies and procedures, including policies and

22 procedures that leverage its mobile smart phone software applications, that would prevent or

23 reduce discrimination committed by drivers against blind riders with service dogs.

24

12. Uber and other similar services are a critical transportation option for many blind

25 individuals. Due to distances between destinations and the limitations of public transportation

26 and paratransit, many blind persons must use transportation network company services to travel

27 from one place to another. The fact that vehicles on the Uber platform have frequently refused to

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

3

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 5 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 transport Plaintiffs Kelly and Pedersen and other blind riders with service animals, and that this

2 discrimination deters Plaintiff Hingson and other members of Plaintiffs NFB and NFB-CA with

3 service animals from using Uber, means that members of Plaintiff NFB and NFB-CA are denied

4 full and equal access to this critical mode of transportation.

5

13. Due to the public’s widespread adoption of smart phones, Uber and other

6 transportation network companies are quickly supplanting traditional taxi companies and

7 becoming the public’s primary option for on-demand transportation services. Uber offers its app

8 to the public in many cities throughout the United States and is quickly expanding its scope of

9 service to more communities.

10

14. Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of

11 discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the Americans with

12 Disabilities Act. Such prohibited discrimination includes discrimination in the provision of taxi

13 services and other transportation services.

14

15. Plaintiffs NFB-CA and Hingson proposed to Uber that the parties avoid litigation

15 and instead attempt to resolve this matter through structured negotiations, but Defendant Uber

16 refused. Plaintiffs were ultimately unable to obtain a commitment by Defendant Uber to remedy

17 these barriers to full and equal access, prior to filing a lawsuit.

18

JURISDICTION

19

16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

20 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 12188, for Plaintiffs’ claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities

21 Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.

22

17. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over the

23 Named Plaintiffs’ pendent claims under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil

24 Code §§ 51, et seq.), and the Disabled Persons Act (California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3).

25

VENUE

26

18. Venue is proper in the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c).

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

4

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 6 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

19. Defendant is headquartered in the Northern District of California and is registered

2 to do business in California. Defendant does business in the Northern District of California.

3 Defendant offers access to on-demand transportation services in cities throughout California,

4 including in the Northern District of California.

5

20. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California.

6 Defendant has been and is committing the acts alleged herein in the Northern District of

7 California, has been and is violating the rights of consumers with disabilities in the Northern

8 District of California, and has been and is causing injury to consumers with disabilities in the

9 Northern District of California.

10

21. Plaintiffs NFB and NFB-CA have many members who reside in the Northern

11 District of California. In addition, Plaintiffs Hingson and Pedersen have experienced injury in the

12 Northern District of California.

13

PARTIES

14

22. NFB-CA is a duly organized nonprofit association of blind Californians. It is the

15 California State affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind. NFB-CA’s mission is to

16 promote the vocational, cultural, and social advancement of the blind; to achieve the integration

17 of the blind into society on a basis of equality with the sighted; and to take any other action

18 which will improve the overall condition and standard of living of the blind. Reliable access to

19 modern, publicly available transportation services such as those available through the Uber app

20 is critical to NFB-CA and its members. Securing access to the Uber transportation services

21 advances NFB-CA’s goal to promote integration of the blind into society on a basis of equality

22 by enabling blind individuals to travel in the same way that many sighted individuals travel.

23 Drivers have refused to transport members of NFB-CA because they have service animals. NFB-

24 CA sues on behalf of its members who have been denied access to or deterred from using the

25 Uber app due to unlawful discrimination against blind individuals with service animals. NFB-CA

26 also sues in furtherance of its extensive efforts and expenditure of resources in advancing its

27 mission to improve independence of the blind. Securing access to the Uber service advances this

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

5

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 7 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 mission because access to the Uber service enables blind individuals to travel more

2 independently. Thus, discrimination against members of NFB-CA and other blind individuals

3 who use service animals frustrates this mission of NFB-CA and results in the diversion of its

4 resources to address Defendant’s and drivers’ discriminatory practices.

5

23. Plaintiff NFB, a national membership organization of blind persons, is a nonprofit

6 corporation duly organized under the laws of the District of Columbia, with its principal place of

7 business in Baltimore, Maryland. It has affiliates in all 50 states. The vast majority of its

8 approximately 50,000 members are individuals who are blind and disabled within the meaning of

9 the ADA. The purpose of the NFB is to promote the general welfare of blind Americans by

10 assisting blind individuals in their efforts to integrate themselves into society on terms of

11 equality and by removing barriers and changing social attitudes, stereotypes, and mistaken

12 beliefs about the limitations created by blindness. The NFB and many of its members have been

13 actively involved in promoting accessible technology and transportation for the blind, so that

14 blind persons can live and work independently in today’s world. NFB members have

15 encountered and will continue to encounter discriminatory treatment and denials of service by

16 drivers because of their use of service animals. NFB sues on behalf of its members who have

17 been denied access to or deterred from using the Uber app due to unlawful discrimination against

18 blind individuals with service animals. Additionally, NFB sues in furtherance of its mission to

19 improve independence of the blind, since securing access to Uber service for its members and all

20 blind Americans promotes NFB’s goal of enabling blind individuals to live independent lives

21 and integrate into society on an equal basis. Discrimination against NFB members and other

22 blind individuals who use service animals frustrates NFB’s mission and results in the diversion

23 of resources to address Defendant’s and drivers’ discriminatory practices.

24

24. Plaintiff Michael Kelly is blind, uses a guide dog, is a member of NFB and NFB-

25 CA, and currently resides in Sacramento, California. Mr. Kelly is a musician and virtuoso

26 electric bassist. Mr. Kelly often travels with his girlfriend, who has an Uber account. Mr. Kelly

27 and his girlfriend prefer to travel together when going out to eat or running errands in the

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

6

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 8 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Sacramento area. The Uber app potentially offers a convenient and affordable way for Mr. Kelly

2 and his girlfriend to travel, though this convenience is undermined by the discriminatory

3 practices of Uber. Mr. Kelly will continue to attempt to travel using the Uber app with his

4 girlfriend and other companions who use the Uber mobile application. Mr. Kelly and his

5 girlfriend have been and will continue to be denied access to Uber transportation services

6 because of the presence of Mr. Kelly’s service animal.

7

25. Plaintiff Michael Hingson is blind, uses a guide dog, is a member of NFB and

8 NFB-CA, and currently resides in Victorville, California. Mr. Hingson is a public speaker and a

9 best-selling author who has traveled with a guide dog for decades. Mr. Hingson regularly travels

10 and regularly uses taxis within California for work and leisure. Mr. Hingson often travels to Los

11 Angeles and Sacramento in connection with his advocacy work for NFB-CA. He also regularly

12 travels to San Francisco for personal and professional business. Though Mr. Hingson would like

13 to use the Uber transportation service, he is deterred from signing up for and attempting to use

14 the Uber app because of the discrimination that other blind guide dog users have experienced

15 when attempting to arrange Uber transportation services. Mr. Hingson owns and regularly uses

16 an iPhone capable of running the Uber iPhone application, and Mr. Hingson has a credit card that

17 he could use to pay for Uber transportation services.

18

26. Plaintiff Michael Pedersen is blind, uses a guide dog, and currently resides in San

19 Francisco, California. Mr. Pedersen is employed as a software developer and regularly commutes

20 from his home in San Francisco to his place of work. Mr. Pedersen’s wife has used her Uber

21 account to request rides for Mr. Pedersen as he is preparing to leave for work in the morning. Mr.

22 Pedersen has been denied access to Uber transportation services multiple times because of his

23 service animal. Mr. Pedersen will continue to attempt to travel using the Uber app. Mr. Pedersen

24 will continue to be denied access to Uber transportation services because of the presence of his

25 service animal.

26

27. The term “Named Plaintiffs” used in this complaint means NFB-CA and NFB, on

27 behalf of themselves and their members with service animals who have been denied access to or

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

7

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 9 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 deterred from using the Uber app because of discrimination against blind persons with service

2 animals, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Hingson, and Mr. Pedersen, unless otherwise indicated. The term

3 “Individual Plaintiffs” used in this complaint means Mr. Kelly, Mr. Hingson, and Mr. Pedersen,

4 unless otherwise indicated.

5

28. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., a for-profit technology company based in

6 California engineers a smart phone software application to arrange rides between passengers and

7 drivers in much the same way that a taxi dispatch arranges rides for customers. Uber’s customers

8 request rides through Uber; the Uber app identifies an available driver to transport each

9 customer; the Uber app bills customers for their rides in Uber vehicles; Uber provides customers

10 with receipts; and Uber handles inquiries and complaints from customers concerning drivers and

11 transportation services.

12

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

13

29. Plaintiffs seek certification of the following nationwide class pursuant to

14 Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): “all blind or visually disabled individuals nationwide who

15 travel with the assistance of service animals and who have used, attempted to use, or been

16 deterred from attempting to use transportation arranged through the Uber rider app.”

17

30. The persons in the Class are so numerous that joinder of all such persons is

18 impractical and the disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to

19 the Court.

20

31. The action involves common questions of law and fact affecting the parties to be

21 represented in that they all have been and/or are being denied their civil rights to full and equal

22 access to, and use and enjoyment of, the Uber app.

23

32. The case arises out of Defendant’s policies and practices of permitting ongoing

24 discrimination against guide dog users by individual drivers, of failing to implement protections

25 to ensure that drivers understand and comply with anti-discrimination law, and of failing to

26 provide adequate support and recourse to riders who are discriminated against.

27

33. The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the Class.

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

8

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 10 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

34. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the

2 members of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained and are represented by counsel competent and

3 experienced in complex class action litigation, including class actions brought under the

4 Americans with Disabilities Act.

5

35. Class certification of the claims is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P. 23(b)(2)

6 because Uber has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making

7 appropriate both declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Named Plaintiffs and the Class

8 as a whole.

9

36. References to “Plaintiffs” shall be deemed to include Named Plaintiffs, and each

10 member of the Class, unless otherwise indicated.

11

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12

37. Uber provides access to several different transportation products to members of

13 the general public in a rapidly expanding number of metropolitan areas across the United States.

14 Uber transportation products vary based on the type of vehicle providing the transportation. Uber

15 offers UberX, a cost-effective taxi-like option, UberPOOL, a carpooling product, UberXL and

16 UberSUV, a taxi-like option limited to large vehicles, UberBLACK, a black-car product,

17 UberTAXi, which connects riders to drivers who drive taxis, and UberSELECT, a luxury-car

18 product. All of these transportation options operate in a similar way: Uber uses mobile

19 applications to connect riders to available drivers and facilitate payments. To use the Uber app,

20 an individual must either (1) create a user account, and provide Uber with her phone number,

21 credit card information, and email address, or (2) travel as the guest of an individual with an

22 Uber customer account. Uber has developed mobile software applications for iPhones, Android

23 phones, and Windows phones that customers use to request transportation from Uber for

24 themselves and/or guests. A vehicle on the Uber platform is able to transport a single passenger

25 or group of passengers traveling together up to the safe capacity of the requested vehicle, which

26 is usually no more than four passengers.

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

9

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 11 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

38. To use one of the Uber transportation services, a customer submits a request on

2 behalf of himself or other passengers through one of Uber’s platforms available on the app. Once

3 Uber identifies the closest available vehicle, Uber notifies the requester either by text message or

4 through its smart phone application. The notification includes the driver’s name, customer rating,

5 phone number, vehicle license plate number, make and model of the vehicle, and the driver’s

6 estimated time of arrival. Uber’s mobile application allows the requesting customer to track the

7 vehicle’s location as the driver navigates to the requesting customer’s identified pick-up address.

8 Requesting customers may also submit the desired trip destination through Uber’s mobile

9 application.

10

39. The Uber app notifies the requesting customer once his or her vehicle has arrived.

11 The requester or any other associated passengers may then board the vehicle. If the requesting

12 customer submitted the destination address, the app will supply the driver with turn-by-turn

13 directions to the desired destination. If the requesting customer did not enter the destination into

14 Uber’s application, the passenger(s) provides the driver with the desired destination. The driver

15 then begins the trip in the Uber software application and proceeds to the desired destination.

16 When the vehicle arrives at the desired destination, the driver ends the trip in the Uber smart

17 phone application.

18

40. Uber decides who may access the app. Individuals who wish to use the driver app

19 must undergo a criminal background check, undergo a driving record check, present their

20 driver’s license, vehicle registration, and driver’s insurance, and complete various forms. Once

21 an individual becomes a driver, the app controls which trip requests are transmitted to each

22 driver. Uber also exercises control over termination of drivers’ relationships with Uber, and Uber

23 terminates drivers’ contracts for several reasons, including for poor ratings from customers.

24

41. Uber also controls who may use the rider application. Uber makes the Uber

25 application available only to passengers when at least one requesting customer has a credit card

26 and a smart phone that can run one of its mobile applications, creates an Uber account, and

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

10

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 12 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 requests a ride through Uber’s mobile application. Customers cannot access the Uber platform by

2 physically hailing an Uber vehicle on the street.

3

42. Uber has requirements for the type and age of the vehicle that drivers may use to

4 operate on the Uber app. In addition, in some jurisdictions, the vehicle a driver uses while on the

5 Uber platform must pass an inspection.

6

43. Uber records many details about the demand-responsive transportation services

7 that drivers provide, including for each trip: (1) the pickup location, (2) the time of pickup, (3)

8 the drop off location, (4) the time of drop off, (5) the distance traveled, (6) the trip duration, and

9 (7) the customer’s identity. Uber periodically reviews the driving records of drivers. Uber also

10 asks customers for written feedback after every ride that a driver provides, and Uber routinely

11 follows up with customers who express dissatisfaction. Customers who wish to lodge complaints

12 concerning drivers do so by contacting Uber.

13

44. In addition, in some circumstances, Uber provides drivers with the option to use

14 iPhones loaded with Uber’s smart phone application. When providing transportation services,

15 drivers use these phones to receive and respond to trip requests, receive GPS-based navigational

16 guidance, record the beginning and end of each trip, communicate with customers, and cancel

17 trips. In addition, Uber maintains general commercial liability insurance to cover claims

18 concerning incidents that occur while drivers are providing transportation services on the Uber

19 app.

20

45. Customers do not pay drivers of Uber vehicles in cash. Instead, Uber

21 automatically charges a customer’s credit card after the vehicle arrives at the desired destination.

22 Fares for Uber transportation services are based on the duration and distance of each trip and

23 other factors such as demand at the time and place of the ride, as determined by Uber’s

24 algorithms. Uber keeps a percentage of each fare. Thus, Uber remits fares to drivers based on the

25 duration and distance of the trips that they provide to passengers. Payments are not transferred

26 directly from customers to drivers; rather, Uber collects and holds customer payments, deducts

27 fees, and then later transfers money to drivers.

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

11

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 13 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

46. On September 19, 2013, the California Public Utilities Commission ruled that

2 Uber is a transportation network company with respect to the UberX service. The Commission

3 requires that Uber possess a Class P Charter Party Carrier permit issued by the Commission to

4 operate the UberX service in California. The Commission stated that Uber may not discriminate

5 against people with disabilities in the operation of the UberX transportation service and required

6 that Uber’s website and mobile applications comply with Level AA of version 2.0 of the Web

7 Content Accessibility Guidelines.

8

47. Members of Plaintiffs NFB and NFB-CA and many other blind individuals use

9 the Uber application. Many of these individuals operate Uber’s smart phone software

10 application using text-to-speech technology that is built into iPhones. Text-to-speech software,

11 commonly used by persons who are blind or visually impaired, enables blind persons to operate

12 smart phones by translating visual information and text displayed on a touchscreen device into

13 audible synthesized speech or into Braille on a portable electronic braille display.

14

48. Drivers have refused on the basis of disability to transport many blind individuals

15 with service animals, including members of Plaintiffs NFB and NFB-CA.

16

49. For example, Jamey Gump is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB

17 and NFB-CA. On or about March 23, 2014, a driver refused to transport Mr. Gump in San

18 Leandro, California from a work-related event to his home. On that occasion, Mr. Gump used the

19 Uber mobile app to summon a vehicle. The driver pulled the vehicle up to where Mr. Gump was

20 standing on the curb and, after noticing that Mr. Gump had a dog, said “no pets allowed.” Mr.

21 Gump tried to explain that his guide dog was a service animal and that the driver had a legal

22 obligation to allow the service animal into the vehicle. Mr. Gump attempted to show the driver

23 an official guide dog identification card issued by his guide dog’s training program. The driver

24 adamantly refused to let Mr. Gump into the vehicle and drove away.

25

50. On or about May 21, 2014, another driver refused to transport Mr. Gump and a

26 friend who also uses a service animal because of their service animals. On that occasion, Mr.

27 Gump and Manveen Chahal, a friend and fellow member of NFB-CA who also uses a service

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

12

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 14 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 animal, were enjoying an evening at the Dutch Goose, a local pub in downtown Menlo Park,

2 California. Mr. Gump had planned to leave on a trip early the next morning and requested an

3 UberX ride to get to his home in Menlo Park because of the late hour. After the requested vehicle

4 had pulled up to the curb, Mr. Gump and Mr. Chahal attempted to enter the vehicle and opened a

5 passenger door. The driver began shouting “no dogs!” Mr. Gump tried to explain that their dogs

6 were service animals for their disabilities and were legally allowed in the vehicle. The driver

7 began shouting and cursing at Mr. Gump and Mr. Chahal in a language that Mr. Gump did not

8 understand. Mr. Chahal speaks the language and was offended by the profanity and insults. As

9 Mr. Gump attempted to enter the vehicle, the driver quickly accelerated the vehicle forward,

10 nearly injuring Mr. Gump’s guide dog and causing an open passenger door to strike Mr. Chahal.

11 The driver then sped away and cancelled the ride request. Mr. Gump and Mr. Chahal

12 immediately called the police to file a report and used alternative transportation to travel home

13 approximately forty-five minutes later.

14

51. On August 20, 2014, Mr. Gump requested an UberX ride to pick him up at 214

15 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, California. Mr. Gump determined from the map in the Uber

16 iPhone application that his requested vehicle was about to turn onto his street. Mr. Gump then

17 went out to the curb with his guide dog in direct sight of the oncoming vehicle to intercept the

18 driver. Mr. Gump noticed a vehicle slow its speed to a near stop in front of him and then

19 accelerate again as it passed him on the curb. A few seconds later, Mr. Gump received a

20 notification on his phone that the driver had cancelled the ride. Mr. Gump then requested a

21 second UberX ride, but the exact same driver accepted the request to pick up Mr. Gump for a

22 second time. Again, a few seconds after Mr. Gump received confirmation that this same driver

23 was on the way, the driver cancelled on him for a second time.

24

52. Mr. Gump wants to use the Uber application because it is available near his home,

25 an area with limited public transportation, and it would be convenient if it was reliably accessible

26 and non-discriminatory. However, after these experiences, he has been hesitant to use Uber so

27 frequently because he concluded that it is not a reliable transportation option for him.

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

13

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 15 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Notwithstanding Mr. Gump’s repeated complaints to Uber about his negative experiences since

2 the initial discriminatory ride denial, his access to Uber services did not improve. Mr. Gump

3 hopes that Uber will change its policies and practices to better prevent discrimination against

4 passengers with service animals so that he can enjoy Uber with the same convenience and

5 reliability enjoyed by others.

6

53. Cody Austin Meyer is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB and NFB-

7 CA. A driver refused to transport Mr. Meyer on September 30, 2014. On that occasion, Mr.

8 Meyer was shopping at a grocery store in the Mission Valley Shopping Center in Fremont,

9 California and needed a way to transport his groceries back to his apartment. Mr. Meyer used the

10 Uber iPhone app to request a vehicle. A driver was assigned to pick Mr. Meyer up at the

11 shopping center. Mr. Meyer was standing on the curb in the shopping center waiting for the

12 driver when Mr. Meyer noticed a vehicle pull up near where he was standing and remain inactive

13 for an extended period of time. The driver then called Mr. Meyer’s cell phone. When the driver

14 observed Mr. Meyers answering his cell phone, the nearby vehicle rolled a window down and

15 told Mr. Meyer “no dogs!” Mr. Meyer explained that it was a certified service animal and it was

16 illegal for the driver to refuse to take him. The driver then began to drive away. Mr. Meyer

17 warned that he would report this incident to Uber. The driver said “go ahead” and left.

18

54. Mr. Meyer was then charged a cancellation fee. Because Mr. Meyer did not want

19 to risk being denied by yet another driver, Mr. Meyer went to the bus stop with his groceries to

20 catch the next bus. After a prolonged wait for the bus, Mr. Meyer called a friend to talk about the

21 incident and that friend eventually came to pick up Mr. Meyer using the friend’s personal

22 vehicle. Using a computer equipped with screen reader software, software that enables blind

23 individuals to read and interact with text and controls on properly coded websites, Mr. Meyer

24 visited Uber’s website the next day to submit a complaint. However, he had difficulty submitting

25 a complaint on Uber’s website because of its inaccessible design. Mr. Meyer called the telephone

26 number listed on Uber’s website and encountered a busy signal. Mr. Meyer was required to

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

14

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 16 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 spend an extended period of time composing and submitting a written complaint to Uber in order

2 to get the cancellation fee refunded.

3

55. Brooklyn Rodden is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB and NFB-

4 CA. A driver arranged using the Uber app refused to transport her and her boyfriend, Plaintiff

5 Michael Kelly, who also uses a service animal, on or about September 13, 2014. On that

6 occasion, Ms. Rodden used her Uber app to request a vehicle so that she and Plaintiff Kelly

7 could go out to dinner at Chicago Fire Pizza, a local pizza parlor in Sacramento, California.

8 When the requested driver arrived, Ms. Rodden and Plaintiff Kelly attempted to enter the vehicle

9 with their service animals and were refused access by the driver. Though Ms. Rodden and

10 Plaintiff Kelly explained that the driver’s conduct was illegal, the driver maintained his refusal to

11 transport them because of their service animals and then drove away.

12

56. Jessie Lorenz is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB and NFB-CA. A

13 driver refused to transport Ms. Lorenz on or about November 30, 2012. On that occasion, Ms.

14 Lorenz was leaving a fundraising event at Chevys Fresh Mex restaurant located at 201 3rd Street

15 in San Francisco. Ms. Lorenz and a friend both felt tired and decided to use Uber to request a

16 vehicle to BART. Ms. Lorenz’s blind friend uses a white cane instead of a service animal. When

17 the vehicle arrived, the driver said “I don’t take dogs.” Ms. Lorenz did not want to have an

18 argument with the driver, so she did not protest. The driver was willing to transport Ms. Lorenz’s

19 blind friend, so he took the vehicle arranged using Uber. Ms. Lorenz then walked to BART

20 alone. After that experience, Ms. Lorenz decided not to continue using Uber because she has

21 other transportation options and does not want to deal with the potential hassle and humiliation

22 that accompanies being denied a ride by a driver.

23

57. Jonathan Lyens is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB and NFB-CA.

24 A driver refused to transport him from his home to a job interview in San Francisco, California

25 on or about February 20, 2014. On or about 8:30 a.m. on that date, Mr. Lyens requested UberX

26 transportation from his home in San Francisco. Uber notified Mr. Lyens that it had identified a

27 vehicle to transport him, and the app notified Mr. Lyens when the vehicle arrived at his home.

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

15

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 17 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Mr. Lyens then went with his guide dog to the street in front of his home to find his vehicle. Mr.

2 Lyens observed that a vehicle arrived at his home briefly after the app notified him that his

3 transportation had arrived. The app then notified Mr. Lyens that the driver had cancelled his ride,

4 and Mr. Lyens observed the vehicle in front of his home leave. As a result of this cancellation,

5 Mr. Lyens had to pay a higher fare for transportation to his interview. He was also late to his

6 interview because of the delay.

7

58. Juanita Herrera is a blind college student, uses a guide dog, is a member of NFB

8 and NFB-CA, and resides in Southern California. Ms. Herrera is interested in using the UberX

9 service because it is more convenient and affordable than other taxi options. She attempted to use

10 the UberX service for the first time on August 7, 2014. She requested a ride from the Macy’s

11 store located at 6200 Slauson Avenue in Culver City, California. She was standing in front of the

12 store waiting for her requested ride when a driver approached her and asked if she was waiting

13 for an Uber. She answered yes, and the driver asked if her dog was coming with her. She told

14 him that her dog would accompany her and that her dog is not a pet. She explained that her dog

15 is a service animal and that he was legally required to take both her and her service animal. The

16 driver ignored her plea and refused to let her service animal enter the vehicle. The driver told her

17 that he was leaving for his next passenger. He then left Ms. Herrera standing dejected on the curb

18 with her service animal. As a result, Ms. Herrera waited thirty minutes for a bus and then rode

19 the bus for 25 minutes to get to her destination. The trip takes ten minutes in a vehicle arranged

20 using Uber.

21

59. Robert Schulenburg is blind, uses a guide dog, and resides in California. Drivers

22 have refused to transport Mr. Schulenburg on at least five separate occasions in several

23 California cities, including Santa Clara, San Jose, Campbell, and Sacramento, because of his

24 guide dog. When these drivers were willing to speak with him, Mr. Schulenburg explained to the

25 drivers that he had the legal right to bring his service animal with him, but the drivers ignored his

26 explanations, and many of the drivers informed him that they had not received training

27 concerning service animals. In addition, Uber has charged him cancellation fees after some

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

16

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 18 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 drivers refused to transport him, and Mr. Schulenburg has been forced to submit written

2 complaints to Uber to get these fees refunded. When drivers have refused to transport Mr.

3 Schulenburg, he has faced delays of up to thirty minutes as he awaits alternative transportation.

4 Mr. Schulenburg has submitted written complaints about these instances of discrimination to

5 Uber. However, Uber has failed to inform Mr. Schulenburg whether Uber took any steps to

6 ensure that these drivers would not unlawfully discriminate against him again or other

7 individuals with service animals. Instead, Uber responded to some of Mr. Schulenburg’s

8 complaints by stating that Uber cannot control its drivers’ conduct because the drivers are

9 independent contractors and by advising Mr. Schulenburg that he should inform drivers of their

10 legal obligation to allow his service animal to accompany him.

11

60. Richard Rueda is blind, uses a guide dog, and resides in California. Mr. Rueda

12 attended the annual convention for NFB-CA, which was held in Southern California on October

13 9-12, 2014. In connection with Mr. Rueda’s travels to and from that convention, at least two

14 different drivers refused to transport him because of his service animal. On October 10, 2014,

15 Mr. Rueda requested an UberX trip from his parents’ home in Whittier, California to the NFB-

16 CA convention at the Embassy Suites in El Segundo. When the driver arrived, he stepped out of

17 his vehicle and informed Mr. Rueda that he would not transport dogs because he has had issues

18 with dogs in the past. In response, Mr. Rueda explained to the driver that his dog was a service

19 animal, not a pet. The driver repeated his objection, reentered his vehicle, and left the scene.

20

61. Again, on October 12, 2014, Mr. Rueda requested a vehicle using Uber back to

21 his parents’ home in Whittier. A driver accepted the trip request. Mr. Rueda called the driver to

22 inform her of his location and to inform her that he had a service animal. In response, the driver

23 stated that she could not transport him because of the dog and then canceled his ride request. Mr.

24 Rueda then requested a second Uber ride. Again, after Mr. Rueda spoke with this driver on the

25 phone, the driver canceled the trip. Mr. Rueda made a third attempt and requested a third Uber

26 ride. A driver named Jesus accepted his trip request and transported him without incident. When

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

17

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 19 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Mr. Rueda told Jesus about drivers denying him rides, Jesus stated that he knew of other drivers

2 who refused to transport dogs because the drivers did not want dog hair in their cars.

3

62. Thomas Foley is blind, uses a guide dog, and resides in California. A driver

4 refused to transport Mr. Foley on or about September 5, 2014. On that occasion, Mr. Foley used

5 the Uber app to request an UberX ride from his place of work in Berkeley, California on his way

6 to an appointment. He waited for his ride in front of the building. The Uber app notified Mr.

7 Foley that his vehicle, a Toyota Corolla, was arriving, and a few seconds later a car pulled up

8 about ten feet from him. Mr. Foley proceeded to the car, reached for the door, and shouted

9 “Uber?” The car then drove away. Approximately 30 seconds later, the Uber app informed Mr.

10 Foley that the driver had cancelled his ride. Mr. Foley then conferred with a sighted individual at

11 a nearby bus stop who confirmed that the car that just drove away was a Toyota Corolla and that

12 the driver looked at Mr. Foley and his guide dog shortly before leaving the scene. Mr. Foley was

13 late to his appointment because of this incident.

14

63. Sarah Outwater is blind and uses a guide dog. Drivers refused to transport her in

15 Boston on at least twelve separate occasions between 2013 and 2014. Uber charged her

16 cancellation fees in some instances where the drivers refused to transport her. In addition, the

17 same driver refused to transport her on three of these occasions, despite an Uber representative’s

18 prior assurances that Uber would address the driver’s discriminatory practices.

19

64. Mark Cadigan is blind and uses a guide dog. During the month of August 2014,

20 Mr. Cadigan was denied service by two drivers in the Boston area because of his service animal.

21 On both occasions, Uber charged Mr. Cadigan cancellation fees after the drivers cancelled the

22 trip. Mr. Cadigan was forced to submit written complaints to Uber and to wait one to three

23 business days to get these cancellation fees refunded. His written complaints also described the

24 discrimination that he experienced. Mr. Cadigan is unsatisfied with Uber’s responses to his

25 complaints. He received no formal response on one occasion and was verbally told on the other

26 occasion that the driver had merely been reprimanded. Mr. Cadigan believes Uber does not

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

18

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 20 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 adequately or consistently discipline drivers when complaints are made to Uber customer service

2 representatives.

3

65. Kristin Fleschner is blind and uses a guide dog. Drivers refused to transport her in

4 the Boston area because of her service animal on at least five separate occasions over the

5 previous year. On one of those occasions she was left stranded in the rain while trying to secure

6 replacement transportation. Ms. Fleschner was unable to submit a complaint on Uber’s website

7 because of accessibility barriers in the design of that website that prevent a blind person from

8 using it with standard screen access software.

9

66. Melissa Riccobono is blind and uses a guide dog. A driver refused to transport

10 Ms. Riccobono in the Baltimore, Maryland, area on October 8, 2014. On that occasion, Ms.

11 Riccobono needed to travel to a local pharmacy to pick up a prescription for her sick child, who

12 had a high fever. The driver that she had requested using Uber’s app refused to take her because

13 of her service animal. The driver maintained his refusal even after Ms. Riccobono had explained

14 her rights and tried to change the driver’s mind. Ms. Riccobono is a mother of three young

15 children and depends on reliable and timely transportation services to take care of her family.

16

67. Mariea Harris is blind and uses a guide dog. A driver refused to transport Ms.

17 Harris in the Charlotte, North Carolina, area on October 25, 2014 because she uses a service

18 animal. Ms. Harris planned to use Uber to travel from her home to a local grocery store with a

19 friend who also uses a service animal. When the requested vehicle arrived, Ms. Harris received a

20 notification in the Uber app. Ms. Harris’s friend who uses a service animal went outside to

21 intercept the vehicle. The driver refused to let Ms. Harris’s friend into the vehicle because of her

22 guide dog. Ms. Harris then came out of the house with her guide dog and approached the vehicle

23 to talk to the driver through the open driver-side window. The driver told Ms. Harris that he did

24 not have to take the dogs because the vehicle was his own personal car. Ms. Harris explained that

25 the ADA required the driver to transport the dogs and that the driver could lose his job if he did

26 not comply. The driver disagreed, drove away, and canceled the trip request. Ms. Harris

27 attempted to go to Uber’s website to file a complaint while she waited for alternative

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

19

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 21 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 transportation. Ms. Harris then experienced difficulty using Uber’s website because of

2 accessibility barriers in its design that inhibited her from using her screen reader technology to

3 access the content on Uber’s website.

4

68. Dimitrios Kouniaris is blind and uses a guide dog. During August 2014, drivers

5 refused to transport Mr. Kouniaris on two occasions in Austin, Texas because of his service

6 animal. On both occasions, Mr. Kouniaris was stranded in temperatures of over 100 °F as he

7 waited for alternative transportation. Uber also charged Mr. Kouniaris a cancellation fee and

8 only refunded it after he complained. Mr. Kouniaris has since stopped using the UberX service

9 because he does not want to face the risk that additional drivers will refuse to transport him or

10 mistreat him because of his service animal. However, Mr. Kouniaris wants safe reliable access to

11 the UberX service.

12

69. Plaintiffs are aware of other blind persons throughout the United States whom

13 drivers refused to transport because those individuals had service animals.

14

70. Uber also employs a rating system of its customers that, on information and

15 belief, tends to disparately affect blind passengers with service animals and reduce their access to

16 the service. After every completed ride, Uber allows its drivers to rate each passenger on a scale

17 from one to five similar to the scale passengers are given to rate every driver after a ride

18 concludes. Upon information and belief, Uber will not match a driver to the passenger a second

19 time if the driver gives that passenger a low rating. Drivers can also review an assigned

20 passenger’s average rating by other drivers before deciding whether to travel to pick up that

21 assigned passenger. When drivers do begrudgingly accept a passenger with a service animal who

22 has successfully persuaded a driver not to violate the law, the driver has an incentive to rate that

23 passenger lower on the rating scale, which will make it less likely that the app will assign that

24 same driver to that passenger again in the future. This creates a system in which blind passengers

25 with service animals have fewer options to connect with drivers.

26

71. Many of the preceding blind individuals submitted written complaints to Uber

27 concerning the discriminatory treatment that they had experienced. However, Uber has failed to

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

20

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 22 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 inform most of these individuals whether Uber has fully investigated their complaints,

2 disciplined the relevant drivers, or taken any other meaningful steps to ensure that these drivers

3 do not unlawfully discriminate against other individuals with service animals. Uber

4 representatives instead informed many blind guide dog users that “the drivers are independent

5 contractors” and Uber “cannot control their actions” and advised blind guide dog users to “let

6 your driver know when he or she is on the way to your pickup location that you have a guide

7 dog[.]”

8

72. Plaintiff Kelly is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB and NFB-CA.

9 Plaintiff Kelly lives in the Sacramento, California area and regularly depends on transportation

10 services to travel for work and leisure. Mr. Kelly regularly travels with his girlfriend, Brooklyn

11 Rodden, who also is blind and uses a guide dog. Mr. Kelly’s girlfriend has an Uber account that

12 she often uses to request UberX transportation services for her and Mr. Kelly to use. A driver

13 recently refused to transport Mr. Kelly and Ms. Rodden on September 13, 2014 because of their

14 guide dogs. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Rodden intend to keep using UberX transportation services. Mr.

15 Kelly wants Uber to change its policies and practices so that the denials of service that he and

16 Ms. Rodden experienced do not recur.

17

73. Plaintiff Hingson is blind, uses a guide dog, and is a member of NFB and NFB-

18 CA. Mr. Hingson previously downloaded the Uber app onto his iPhone but ultimately decided

19 against creating an account and trying to use the service. Mr. Hingson learned that drivers often

20 refuse to transport blind individuals with service animals. Because of Mr. Hingson’s position as

21 Vice President of the National Association of Guide Dog Users and his longstanding

22 involvement with membership activities within NFB-CA, he has specific and general knowledge

23 of the experiences of multiple Uber passengers with service animals who have been denied

24 access. Through his regular contact with members of NFB-CA and other members of the blind

25 community, Mr. Hingson has known of specific refusals by drivers to transport individuals with

26 guide dogs over the past year. Additionally, through his activities with NFB-CA, Mr. Hingson

27 regularly attends events where fellow blind attendees with service animals are having trouble

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

21

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 23 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 using the Uber service. For example, Mr. Hingson attended the annual state convention for NFB-

2 CA, which was held at the Embassy Suites South, El Segundo, CA, on October 9-12, 2014. Mr.

3 Hingson met convention attendees with service animals who were experiencing denials when

4 attempting to use UberX to travel to and from the convention hotel. Mr. Hingson has refrained

5 and continues to refrain from creating an Uber user account or otherwise using Uber

6 transportation services because he fears experiencing similar discrimination.

7

74. Mr. Hingson was deterred from using Uber on many specific occasions. For

8 example, on or about December 5, 2013, Mr. Hingson was planning to travel to a job interview

9 at an executive recruiting firm in San Francisco. At that time, Mr. Hingson was aware that Uber

10 was available in San Francisco. However, because of a tight schedule, Mr. Hingson decided not

11 to attempt to use the UberX service because he could not afford to be delayed by a driver

12 refusing to take his guide dog. Instead, Mr. Hingson arranged for a taxicab well in advance of his

13 transit and extended his trip so that he could use nondiscriminatory transportation services to

14 travel to his appointment on time.

15

75. Plaintiff Hingson was further deterred from using Uber on January 20, 2014. On

16 that occasion, Mr. Hingson needed to quickly travel from the Ferry Building in San Francisco to

17 a speaking engagement at Wells Fargo. Mr. Hingson could not risk arriving late for this

18 important professional engagement. Mr. Hingson wanted to use UberX because of its general

19 convenience and the quality of the vehicles. However, he was deterred from doing so because he

20 did not want to wait for the vehicle to arrive and then discover that the driver would refuse to

21 take his service animal.

22

76. Plaintiff Hingson was similarly deterred from using Uber on or about May 15,

23 2014. Mr. Hingson needed to travel within San Francisco to a meeting with a press contact. Mr.

24 Hingson wanted to use UberX to attend this meeting. However, Mr. Hingson wanted to be

25 focused for this meeting and believed the stress of encountering a driver that refused to transport

26 his service animal would cause him stress and negatively affect his performance at the meeting.

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

22

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 24 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

77. Likewise, on or about September 28, 2014, Mr. Hingson traveled from Los

2 Angeles to San Francisco to attend meetings with marketing consultants for the purpose of

3 filming video footage. Mr. Hingson needed to coordinate his travel schedule with airline flights

4 and maximize his time with these consultants during the trip. He wanted to use the UberX

5 service, but could not afford to waste unnecessary time in transit caused by a driver refusing to

6 take his service animal.

7

78. Plaintiff Hingson would like to use Uber for future travel. Mr. Hingson travels

8 extensively and would like to use Uber transportation services on upcoming trips. However,

9 Uber is currently not a reliable source of transportation for Mr. Hingson because of the risk that a

10 driver will refuse to transport him and his service animal. Mr. Hingson hopes that Uber will take

11 responsibility for the conduct of drivers and prevent and minimize discrimination. Mr. Hingson

12 would use Uber if Uber properly informed drivers of their legal obligations, adopted and

13 enforced effective antidiscrimination policies, and provided blind passengers a convenient way

14 to immediately report discrimination so that he has some assurance that Uber will be as reliable

15 and convenient for him and his guide dog as it is for others.

16

79. Plaintiff Pedersen is blind, uses a guide dog, and resides in San Francisco,

17 California. Mr. Pedersen regularly uses transportation services, such as UberX, to commute to

18 work. Over the previous year, drivers refused to transport Mr. Pedersen multiple times because

19 of his guide dog.

20

80. For example, on or about September 12, 2014, Mr. Pedersen’s wife used her Uber

21 account to request a vehicle for Mr. Pedersen as he was preparing to leave for work in the

22 morning. Mr. Pedersen heard that the driver had pulled up in front of his home and went outside

23 to enter the vehicle. Mr. Pedersen knocked on the window of the vehicle and asked, “Uber?” The

24 driver said, “yes, but I don’t take dogs.” Mr. Pedersen explained that his dog was a service

25 animal and the driver was legally required to transport him. The driver replied, “I don’t care. It’s

26 not my problem.” The driver then drove away and canceled the trip request. Mr. Pedersen’s wife

27 was charged a $5 cancellation fee. Mr. Pedersen then used Flywheel, a competing service, to

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

23

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 25 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 obtain alternative taxi service. Because of the delay caused by the driver, Mr. Pedersen missed

2 his connection to a commuter shuttle and was late for work. Mr. Pedersen would like to keep

3 using Uber without fear that he will be denied service and made late for work or other

4 appointments. Mr. Pedersen wants Uber to change its policies and practices so that he can enjoy

5 the same reliability and convenience that other riders without service animals enjoy.

6

81. Uber is violating basic equal access requirements under both the ADA and state

7 law by failing to implement policies and procedures that would prevent or reduce discrimination

8 against blind riders committed by drivers. Uber can adopt and enforce policies and procedures

9 that would prevent or reduce discrimination against blind individuals with service animals,

10 including Plaintiffs. These policies would include, but are not limited to, the following:

11

1. Provide an accessible method for blind individuals with service dogs to

12

immediately and efficiently report instances where drivers refuse to transport

13

them on the basis of disability;

14

2. Establish a procedure for quickly investigating complaints and informing

15

such blind persons of the outcome of their complaints;

16

3. Provide mandatory acknowledgment by drivers concerning legal access

17

requirements applicable to service animals and explain to drivers the

18

consequences for failing to comply with these legal obligations;

19

4. Meaningfully discipline drivers who deny access to blind riders with

20

service animals and permanently terminate drivers who violate service animal

21

policies; and

22

5. Randomly deploy blind testers who use guide dogs to proactively

23

identify–for retraining or termination–drivers who refuse to transport individuals

24

with disabilities because of the presence of their service animals.

25

82. On June 3, 2014, Plaintiff NFB-CA and Plaintiff Hingson wrote to Defendant

26 Uber Technologies, Inc. to notify it about the unlawful discrimination in the provision of UberX

27 services to blind individuals with service animals. On July 16, 2014, Plaintiff NFB-CA and

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

24

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 26 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 Plaintiff Hingson proposed to Defendant that the parties attempt structured negotiations to

2 resolve the issue without a lawsuit. On August 8, 2014, Defendant rejected Plaintiffs’ proposal

3 for structured negotiations. Defendant has since then failed to take adequate measures to remedy

4 the discrimination, and drivers continue to discriminate against blind customers with service

5 animals.

6

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

7

Violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act

8

(42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.)

9

(Injunctive Relief on Behalf of Plaintiffs)

10

83. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as though fully set

11 forth herein.

12

84. Members of Plaintiff NFB and NFB-CA including Plaintiffs Kelly and Hingson

13 are qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of Title III of the ADA. Plaintiff

14 Pedersen is also a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of Title III of the

15 ADA. Members of the proposed Class are qualified individuals with disabilities within the

16 meaning of Title III of the ADA.

17

85. Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the full

18 and equal enjoyment of specified public transportation services provided by a private entity that

19 is primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect

20 commerce. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a); 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(a), (f).

21

86. Defendant is primarily engaged in the business of transporting people within the

22 meaning of Title III of the ADA and its regulations. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a). Defendant operates

23 specified public transportation within the meaning of Title III of the ADA and its regulations. 49

24 C.F.R. §§ 37.3, 37.29, App. D § 37.29. The operations of Defendant affect commerce.

25

87. Title III prohibits private entities providing specified public transportation from

26 imposing eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities from

27 fully enjoying the specified transportation services provided by the entity, unless such criteria

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

25

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 27 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the services being offered. 42 U.S.C. §

2 12184(b)(1); 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(f); 28 C.F.R. § 36.301(a).

3

88. By operating a service that dispatches drivers who unlawfully discriminate and

4 refuse to transport blind individuals with service animals and by operating a customer rating

5 system that, on information and belief, reduces the number of drivers available to Plaintiffs and

6 other blind customers with service animals, Defendant violates Title III of the ADA because

7 Defendant screens out or tends to screen out Plaintiffs and other blind individuals with guide

8 dogs from fully enjoying the Uber platform. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(1); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(a).

9

89. It is a violation of Title III for private entities providing specified public

10 transportation to fail to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when

11 such modifications are necessary to afford the entity’s goods, services, facilities, privileges,

12 advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate

13 that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services,

14 facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12184(b)(2)(a),

15 12182(b)(2)(a)(ii); 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(f); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(a).

16

90. By failing to modify practices, policies, and procedures to ensure that drivers on

17 the Uber platform do not refuse to transport Plaintiffs and other blind individuals with service

18 animals, Defendant is denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to the specified public

19 transportation offered through Defendant’s app.

20

91. Title III regulations prohibit private entities providing taxi services and other

21 transportation services from discriminating by refusing to provide transportation services to

22 people with disabilities who can physically access vehicles. 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.5(a)-(b), (f),

23 37.29(c).

24

92. Title III regulations also specifically require that private entities providing

25 transportation services permit service animals to accompany people with disabilities in vehicles

26 and facilities. 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.5(f), 37.37(f), 37.167(a), (d); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(c)(1).

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

26

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 28 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

93. Defendant violates Title III of the ADA by refusing to provide transportation

2 services to blind individuals with service animals, including Plaintiffs, who can physically access

3 vehicles on the Uber platform. Defendant therefore violates Title III of the ADA by denying

4 Plaintiffs full and equal access to the services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and

5 accommodations of Defendant’s service.

6

94. In addition to operating specified public transportation within the meaning of

7 Section 304 of the ADA, Defendant’s service is also a demand responsive system within the

8 meaning of Section 302 of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(c). By operating a demand

9 responsive system that dispatches drivers who unlawfully discriminate and refuse to transport

10 Plaintiffs and other blind customers with service animals on the basis of disability, Defendant

11 violates Title III and regulations applicable to demand responsive systems within the meaning of

12 Section 302 of the ADA. 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.3, 37.21(a)(3), 37.167(a), (d); 28 C.F.R. §

13 36.302(c)(1).

14

95. The regulations implementing Title III of the ADA require that private entities

15 operating demand responsive transportation systems, including demand responsive systems that

16 are also specified public transportation, must train personnel to proficiency so that they operate

17 vehicles safely and properly assist and treat individuals with disabilities. 49 C.F.R. § 37.173.

18

96. On information and belief, Defendant also violates Title III of the ADA by failing

19 to train Defendant’s personnel to proficiency so that they properly assist and treat Plaintiffs and

20 other blind customers with service animals.

21

97. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act also prohibits discrimination on

22 the basis of disability by owners, operators, lessees, and lessors of places of public

23 accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).

24

98. Defendant Uber, either directly or through its subsidiary or affiliate entities and/or

25 through the Uber application, provides a transportation service and specified public

26 transportation within the meaning of Title III of the ADA and its regulations. 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.3,

27 37.29, App. D § 37.29. Uber and the vehicles providing transportation services owned, operated,

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

27

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 29 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 or leased by drivers are places of public accommodation within the meaning of Title III of the

2 ADA. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(10), 12184(a); 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. Except for modifications to

3 vehicles providing transportation services for the purpose of wheelchair accessibility, all of the

4 antidiscrimination provisions of Title III of the ADA apply to the goods, services, facilities,

5 privileges, advantages, and accommodations of vehicles providing transportation services.

6

99. Title III prohibits entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to places of public

7 accommodation from excluding, on the basis of disability, individuals with disabilities from

8 participating in or benefiting from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

9 accommodations of public accommodations or otherwise discriminating against a person on the

10 basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i); 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(a).

11

100. By failing to adopt policies and practices that will prevent or reduce

12 discrimination against blind individuals with service animals by drivers in the provision of the

13 Uber transportation services, Defendant violates Title III of the ADA by excluding Plaintiffs on

14 the basis of disability from enjoying the services, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of

15 vehicles on the Uber platform.

16

101. Under Title III, it is also unlawful for entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to

17 places of public accommodation to afford, on the basis of disability, an individual or class of

18 individuals with disabilities with an opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service,

19 facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded other

20 individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(b).

21

102. Defendant violates Title III of the ADA by providing Plaintiffs and other blind

22 individuals who use service animals an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the services,

23 privileges, advantages, or accommodations of vehicles on the Uber platform that are not equal to

24 that afforded other individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(b).

25

103. Title III further prohibits entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to places of

26 public accommodation from providing, on the basis of disability, an individual or class of

27 individuals with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

28

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 30 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 different or separate from that provided to other individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(iii); 28

2 C.F.R. § 36.202(c).

3

104. By operating a service that dispatches drivers who unlawfully discriminate against

4 and refuse to transport blind individuals with service animals, Defendant violates Title III of the

5 ADA because Uber provides Plaintiffs, on the basis of disability, with services, privileges,

6 advantages, and accommodations of vehicles that are different or separate from that provided to

7 other individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.202(c).

8

105. It is a violation of Title III for entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to places

9 of public accommodation to fail to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or

10 procedures when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities,

11 privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can

12 demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods,

13 services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(a)(ii);

14 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(a).

15

106. By failing to modify practices, policies, and procedures to ensure that drivers of

16 vehicles on the Uber platform are properly informed and do not refuse to transport blind

17 individuals with service animals, Defendant is denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to the

18 Uber platform.

19

107. In addition, it is a violation of Title III to utilize, directly or through contractual or

20 other arrangements, standards or criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of

21 discriminating on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(d); 28 C.F.R. § 36.204.

22

108. By administering Defendant’s Uber transportation services in a manner that

23 results in blind individuals who use service animals being denied access to the service on the

24 basis of disability, Defendant is denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to the services,

25 privileges, advantages, and accommodations of vehicles on the Uber platform because Defendant

26 is utilizing methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of

27 disability.

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

29

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 31 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

109. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the Americans with

2 Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder. Many

3 members of Plaintiffs NFB and NFB-CA, including Plaintiff Kelly, and other blind persons,

4 including Plaintiff Pedersen and members of the proposed Class, have been and continue to be

5 denied access to Defendant’s services on multiple occasions when they attempt to use Uber

6 transportation services. Defendant has failed to take any equitable steps to remedy Uber’s and

7 drivers’ discriminatory conduct, and Defendant’s violations of the ADA are ongoing.

8 Defendant’s unlawful actions also violate the ADA by deterring members of Plaintiffs NFB and

9 NFB-CA, including Plaintiff Michael Hingson, and members of the proposed Class from

10 attempting to access the Uber transportation services. Unless the Court enjoins Defendant from

11 continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable

12 harm.

13 110. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief. 42 U.S.C. § 12188.

14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

15

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

16

Violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act

17

(California Civil Code §§ 51 & 52)

18 (Injunctive Relief on Behalf of Named Plaintiffs and Damages on Behalf of Individual Plaintiffs)

19

111. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as though fully set

20 forth herein.

21

112. The Unruh Civil Rights Act guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities

22 are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all

23 business establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the state of

24 California. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b).

25

113. The network of vehicles providing transportation services on the Uber platform to

26 the general public in California is a business establishment within the jurisdiction of the state of

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

30

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 32 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1 California, and as such is obligated to comply with the provisions of the California Unruh Civil

2 Rights Act, California Civil Code §§ 51, et seq.

3

114. The Unruh Act provides, inter alia, that a violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§

4 12101, et seq., also constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f).

5

115. Defendant’s and drivers’ discriminatory conduct alleged herein includes, inter

6 alia, the violation of the rights of persons with disabilities set forth in Title III of the ADA and

7 therefore also violates the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f).

8

116. The actions of Defendant and drivers were and are in violation of the Unruh Civil

9 Rights Act, California Civil Code §§ 51, et seq. Members of Plaintiff NFB-CA, including

10 Plaintiff Hingson, are aware of Defendant’s unlawful actions, and their knowledge of this

11 discrimination has deterred members of Plaintiff NFB-CA, including Plaintiff Hingson, from

12 attempting to access the Uber application on several occasions. Moreover, many members of

13 NFB-CA and other blind persons, including Plaintiffs Kelly and Pedersen, have been and

14 continue to be denied access to transportation using Defendant’s app on multiple occasions when

15 they attempt to use the Uber application. Therefore Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief

16 remedying the discrimination pursuant to California Civil Code § 52. Unless the Court enjoins

17 Defendant from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiffs will continue to

18 suffer irreparable harm.

19

117. Individual Plaintiffs Kelly, Hingson, and Pedersen are also entitled to statutory

20 minimum damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 52 for each and every offense in violation

21 of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 52(b).

22 WHEREFORE, Named Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

23

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

24

Violation of the California Disabled Persons Act

25

(California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3)

26

(Declaratory Relief on Behalf of Named Plaintiffs and Damages on Behalf of Individual

27

Plaintiffs)

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

31

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 33 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

118. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as though fully set

2 forth herein.

3

119. California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3 guarantee, inter alia, that persons with

4 disabilities are entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public receive,

5 to accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of all “common carriers,” “motor

6 vehicles,” “places of public accommodation” and “other places to which the general public is

7 invited” within the jurisdiction of California. Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1(a)(1).

8

120. It is a violation of California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3 to prevent service dogs from

9 accompanying individuals with disabilities in any common carriers, motor vehicles, places of

10 public accommodation, or other places to which the general public is invited. Cal. Civ. Code §

11 54.2(a)-(b). Any violation of the ADA is also a violation of California Civil Code § 54.1. Cal.

12 Civ. Code § 54.1(d).

13

121. Vehicles on the Uber platform providing transportation services to the general

14 public are common carriers, motor vehicles, places of public accommodation or other places to

15 which the general public is invited under California Civil Code § 54.1(a)(1).

16

122. Defendant and drivers are violating the rights of Named Plaintiffs to full and

17 equal access to common carriers, motor vehicles, places of public accommodation, or other

18 places to which the general public is invited under California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3 by denying

19 blind riders with service dogs full and equal access to the accommodations, advantages,

20 facilities, and privileges of vehicles providing Uber transportation services. Defendant is also

21 violating California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3 in that their actions are a violation of the ADA.

22 Members of Plaintiff NFB-CA, including Plaintiff Hingson, are aware of Defendant’s unlawful

23 actions, and their knowledge of this discrimination has deterred members of Plaintiff NFB-CA,

24 including Plaintiff Hingson, from attempting to access Uber transportation services on several

25 occasions. Moreover, many members of NFB-CA and other blind persons, including Plaintiffs

26 Kelly and Pedersen, have been and continue to be denied access to transportation on multiple

27 occasions when they attempt to use the Uber app.

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

32

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 34 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

123. Plaintiffs thus seek declaratory relief based on Defendant’s violation of Named

2 Plaintiffs’ rights under California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3.

3

124. Individual Plaintiffs Kelly, Hingson, and Pedersen are also entitled to statutory

4 minimum damages for each violation of California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3(a).

5

125. Plaintiffs do not seek relief, injunctive or otherwise, under California Civil Code §

6 55.

7 WHEREFORE, Named Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

8

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

9

(Declaratory Relief on Behalf of Plaintiffs)

10

126. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as if set forth fully

11 herein.

12

127. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that

13 Plaintiffs contend, and are informed and believe that Defendant denies, that by failing to adopt

14 policies and procedures that would prevent drivers on the Uber platform that provide the Uber

15 transportation services from denying rides to Plaintiffs and other blind individuals with service

16 animals, Defendant fails to comply with applicable laws, including but not limited to Title III of

17 the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq.

18

128. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that each

19 of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.

20 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request relief as set forth below.

21

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

22 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

23

129. A permanent injunction pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

24 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., and the Unruh Act, California Civil Code §§ 51-52, requiring

25 Defendant to take the steps necessary to ensure that drivers on the Uber platform who provide

26 Uber transportation services do not unlawfully refuse to transport blind individuals with service

27 animals, including Plaintiffs;

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

33

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 113 Filed 07/14/16 Page 35 of 35

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 CENTER STREET, FOURTH FLOOR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704-1204
(510) 665-8644

1

130. A declaration that Defendant discriminates against blind persons by failing to

2 provide blind riders, including Plaintiffs, with full and equal access to the services, facilities,

3 privileges, advantages, and accommodations of vehicles on the Uber platform providing

4 demand-responsive transportation services, including transportation services, in violation of Title

5 III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq., California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3, and California’s

6 Unruh Act, California Civil Code §§ 51-52.;

7

131. For Plaintiffs Kelly, Hingson, and Pedersen, damages in an amount to be

8 determined by proof, including all applicable statutory damages pursuant to California Civil

9 Code § 52(a) or California Civil Code § 54.3.

10

132. An order awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as authorized

11 by 42 U.S.C. § 12188, California Civil Code § 52, and California Civil Code § 54.3; and

12

133. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

13

14 DATED: April 29, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

15

ROSEN BIEN

GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

16

17

____

18

By: Michael S. Nunez

19

TRE LEGAL PRACTICE

20

21

__

By: Timothy Elder

22

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

23

24

__

25

By: Laurence Paradis

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26

27

28

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

Case No. 3:14-cv-4086

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

34

 </s> Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 19

1 MARY-LEE SMITH – Cal. Bar No. 239086

JULIA MARKS – Cal. Bar No. 300544

2 DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor

3 Berkeley, California 94704-1204

Telephone: (510) 665-8644

4 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

Email:

msmith@dralegal.org

5

TIMOTHY ELDER – Cal. Bar No. 277152

6 TRE LEGAL PRACTICE

4226 Castanos Street

7 Fremont, California 94536

Telephone: (410) 415-3493

8 Facsimile: (888) 718-0617

Email:

telder@trelegal.com

9

MICHAEL W. BIEN – Cal. Bar No. 096891

10 ERNEST GALVAN – Cal. Bar No. 196065

MICHAEL S. NUNEZ – Cal. Bar No. 280535

11 ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor

12 San Francisco, California 94105-2235

Telephone: (415) 433-6830

13 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104

Email:

mbien@rbgg.com

14

mnunez@rbgg.com

15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
18

19 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE
20 BLIND, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA,
21 MICHAEL KELLY, MICHAEL HINGSON, and MICHAEL PEDERSEN,
22 Plaintiffs,
23 v.
24 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
25 Defendant.
26
27
28

Case No. 3:14-cv-04086-NC

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Judge: Hon. Magistrate Nathanael Cousins
Date: December 1, 2016 Time: 1:00pm Crtrm.: D, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
San Francisco, CA 94102

Trial Date:

None Set

3:14-cv-04086-NC

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 2 of 19

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2
Page 3

4

5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION............................................................................... 1

6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES....................................................... 2

7 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 2

8 STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 3

9

A. Procedural Background ........................................................................ 3

10

B. The Settlement...................................................................................... 6

11

C. Notice Has Been Provided to the Class................................................ 9

12

D. No Class Members Have Objected to the Settlement. ....................... 10

13 ARGUMENT....................................................................................................................... 11

14 I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION.................... 11

15 II. FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT IS PROPER .................................. 12

16

A. The Benefits to the Class are Significant in Light of the

Strength of the Plaintiffs’ Case and the Risk, Expense,

17

Complexity, and Likely Duration of Future Litigation. ..................... 12

18

B. The Settlement is Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable in Light of

the Discovery Completed and the Stage of the Proceedings.............. 13

19

C. Experienced Class Counsel Endorse the Settlement. ......................... 14

20

D. No Class Members Objected to the Settlement........ 15_Toc464743227

21

E. The Settlement Is the Product of Good Faith, Arms-Length

22

Negotiations........................................................................................ 15

23 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................... 16

24

25

26

27

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

i

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 3 of 19

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

Page

3

CASES

4

Chun-Hoon v. McKee Foods Corp.,

5

716 F. Supp. 2d 848 (N.D. Cal. 2010)................................................................ 13, 16

6 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,

7

150 F.3d 1011(9th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................. 11

8 In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation,

654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011). ............................................................................ 12, 15 9

10

In re Mego Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, 213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000)................................................................................ 13

11

In re Omnivision Technologies, Inc.,

12

559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008).............................................................. 11, 15

13 In re Pacific Enterprises Securities Litigation,

47 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................... 14

14

Lane v. Facebook, Inc.,

15

696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................... 11

16 Satchell v. Federal Express Corp., No. C 03 2878 SI, 2007 WL 1114010 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007) ........................... 16
17

18

STATUTES

19 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ..................................................................................... 3, 15
20

21

California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 .................................................................................................... 3

22

California Disabled Persons Act,

23

Cal. Civ. Code § 54 .................................................................................................... 3

24 Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,

25

28 U.S.C. § 1715. ..................................................................................................... 10

26

RULES

27

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) ................................................................................................ 11, 12, 16

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

ii

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 4 of 19

1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

3

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 1, 2016, at 1:00 p.m., or as soon

4 thereafter as the matter may be heard, Plaintiffs the National Federation of the Blind, the

5 National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Kelly, Michael Pedersen, and

6 Michael Hingson, on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated, move the

7 Court for final approval of the proposed class settlement agreement (“Settlement”)

8 submitted herewith and incorporated herein by reference in the above-captioned matter.

9 Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. does not oppose this Motion.

10

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter the attached proposed order

11 (1) finding the proposed Settlement’s terms and conditions are fair, adequate, and

12 reasonable; and (2) approving the Settlement.

13

This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and

14 Authorities filed herewith, the supporting Declaration of Julia Marks, the exhibits thereto,

15 the pleadings and orders on file in this matter, and any oral argument or evidence permitted

16 at any hearings on this Motion.

17

18 DATED: October 27, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

19

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

20

21

By:

22

Mary-Lee K. Smith

23

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

24

25

26

27

28

1

3:14-cv-04086-NC

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 5 of 19

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2

INTRODUCTION

3

The proposed class settlement agreement (“Settlement”) in this case will

4 dramatically improve access to Uber’s transportation services for blind and visually-

5 impaired people nationwide who travel with service animals. Uber provides efficient,

6 convenient, and affordable transportation to consumers around the country, but passengers

7 with guide dogs have faced denials of service and discrimination by drivers on the

8 platform. The changes embodied in this Settlement will ensure that drivers in this

9 important and growing sector of the transportation ecosystem will provide equal, non-

10 discriminatory service to people traveling with service animals.

11

Plaintiffs the National Federation of the Blind (“NFB”), the National Federation of

12 the Blind of California (“NFB-CA”), Michael Kelly, Michael Pedersen, and Michael

13 Hingson, on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated (collectively,

14 “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) (collectively, “Parties”)

15 came to this Settlement after protracted negotiations and exchange of information through

16 the General Order 56 process.

17

The Settlement requires a comprehensive set of changes to Uber’s policies and

18 practices. Uber will use multiple channels to inform drivers about their obligation to

19 transport disabled individuals with service animals, will require drivers to affirm their

20 understanding of this obligation and agree to comply, will implement a strict removal

21 policy for drivers who discriminate, will improve complaint response and customer

22 service, and will modify other policies that affect individuals with service animals, such as

23 cleaning fees. Uber agrees to collect data related to alleged discrimination against service

24 animal users, to provide the data to a third-party monitor, and to pay NFB to send blind

25 users out as testers to ensure that discrimination on the Uber platform is decreasing.

26

On July 13, 2016, this Court conditionally certified the proposed class and

27 preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement. Dkt. No. 112. The Parties distributed

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

2

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 6 of 19

1 notice to the class in accordance with the Court’s preliminary approval order. No persons

2 have objected to the Settlement.

3

In light of these facts and as discussed below, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the

4 Court find the Settlement to be fair, adequate, and reasonable, and grant final approval.

5 Uber does not oppose this motion.

6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

7

A. Procedural Background

8

Plaintiffs brought this case against Uber seeking relief for alleged repeated denials

9 of service in the Uber transportation network to blind passengers traveling with guide

10 dogs. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

11 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§

12 51 & 52, and the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54-54.3.

13

The lawsuit was filed September 9, 2014 by NFB-CA, on behalf of its members,

14 and Michael Hingson, who is blind and travels with a guide dog, and who alleges that he

15 was deterred from using the Uber network because of the frequent discriminatory denials

16 of service to which individuals like him are subject. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiffs amended their

17 complaint in November 2014 to add two additional Plaintiffs, Michael Kelly and Michael

18 Pedersen, both of whom alleged that they were denied service by transportation providers

19 on the Uber platform because they were blind and traveling with service animals. Dkt. No.

20 17. NFB, on behalf of its members participated in settlement negotiations and joined as an

21 additional Plaintiff in April 2016. Dkt. Nos. 84, 113. NFB, along with its California

22 affiliate NFB-CA, is an association of blind individuals that works to promote vocational,

23 cultural, and social advancement and to achieve the integration of blind people into society

24 on an equal basis with sighted people. Many NFB and NFB-CA members travel with

25 service animals and have either used Uber transportation and were allegedly denied service

26 or were deterred from using Uber transportation because of their knowledge of the alleged

27 recurrent discrimination.

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

3

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 7 of 19

1

Uber is a company that connects passengers who seek transportation (“Riders”) to

2 independent transportation providers (“Drivers”) via a smartphone application (“Uber

3 Rider App”). Uber connects Riders and Drivers in many metropolitan areas around the

4 United States, and provides an affordable and convenient way to procure transportation.

5

Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief that would require Uber to take the steps

6 necessary to ensure that Drivers do not refuse to transport blind individuals with service

7 animals, in violation of the ADA and California state law. Dkt. No. 17, ¶ 123. Plaintiffs

8 also sought damages for the alleged discrimination experienced by Mr. Hingson, Mr.

9 Pedersen, and Mr. Kelly. Dkt. No. 17, ¶ 125.

10

Uber moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, arguing that Plaintiffs lacked standing

11 and that Uber vehicles were not places of public accommodation under the ADA. Dkt. No.

12 9. Plaintiffs amended their complaint, and Uber again moved to dismiss. Dkt. Nos. 17, 25.

13 On April 17, 2015, the Court denied Uber’s motion to dismiss on all grounds. Dkt. No. 37.

14

Plaintiffs undertook significant factual investigation and received information from

15 the Defendant through the General Order 56 process. Following the motion to dismiss, the

16 Parties exchanged initial disclosures on May 1, 2015, and Plaintiffs supplemented their

17 disclosures on July 14, 2015. Declaration of Julia Marks in Support of Plaintiffs’

18 Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Settlement (“Marks Decl.”) ¶ 6. The Parties met

19 to review Uber’s App, website for Drivers, and system for bringing new Drivers onto the

20 platform on May 8, 2015, and Uber provided additional information on its policies and

21 practices during settlement negotiations. Marks Decl. ¶¶ 7, 8. Plaintiffs propounded

22 discovery requests and noticed depositions, but postponed depositions because of the

23 promising progress of settlement negotiations. Marks Decl. ¶ 9. Plaintiffs’ counsel

24 collected stories and documents from more than 80 blind individuals, throughout the

25 country, who reported denials of service by Drivers while traveling with their guide dogs.

26 Marks Decl. ¶ 4.

27

The Parties engaged in extensive thorough, informed, arm’s-length negotiations.

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

4

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 8 of 19

1 The Parties held settlement discussions on May 8, 2015 and on June 18, 2015. Marks Decl.

2 ¶ 7. On August 10, 2015, the Parties participated in mediation with Hon. Jamie Jacobs-

3 May (ret.) at JAMS. Marks Decl. ¶ 8. Plaintiffs provided Defendant with a written

4 settlement proposal based on progress at the mediation. The Parties exchanged redlines of

5 the settlement agreement and engaged in additional discussion of settlement terms during

6 the fall of 2015. Marks Decl. ¶ 10.

7

The Parties came to an agreement on the key terms of the Settlement in January

8 2016. Marks Decl. ¶ 12. The Parties agreed that the Settlement would be most effective as

9 a class settlement, to ensure that the policy improvements would be consistent across

10 Uber’s national markets and that individuals with service animals across the country would

11 gain relief from the alleged discrimination. The Parties agreed upon and sought conditional

12 certification for a settlement class (“Class”) of “all blind or visually disabled individuals

13 nationwide who travel with the assistance of Service Animals and who have used,

14 attempted to use, or been deterred from attempting to use transportation arranged through

15 the Uber Rider App.” Settlement, attached to Marks Decl. as Exh. A, at § 1.

16

The Parties filed their Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement

17 and Related Motions on April 29, 2016. Dkt. No. 84. In response to concerns the Court

18 raised regarding the scope of the release, the Parties modified the Settlement release

19 language in Section 14.A to clarify the released entities, and agreed to modified notice

20 requirements and deadlines. Dkt. No. 111. The parties also submitted supplemental

21 briefing about the scope of released claims. Dkt. No. 101. The Court granted leave to file a

22 second amended complaint to include class allegations, granted preliminary approval of

23 the Settlement, and conditionally certified the Class on July 13, 2016. Dkt. No. 112.

24

The Plaintiffs and the Class are represented by Disability Rights Advocates

25 (“DRA”), Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld (“Rosen Bien”), and TRE Legal Practice (“TRE

26 Legal”) (collectively, “Class Counsel”).

27

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

5

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 9 of 19

1

B. The Settlement

2

The Settlement will provide relief to Plaintiffs through implementation of the

3 following terms.1

4

1. Enhanced Dissemination of Information to Drivers

5

Under the Settlement, Uber will require that all Drivers confirm that they

6 understand their obligation to provide equal service to disabled Riders with service

7 animals. Uber will require all Drivers to navigate through an interactive pop-up

8 notification in the mobile application that Drivers use to receive ride requests (“Driver

9 App”). The pop-up will provide information about service animals and the obligation to

10 provide equal service. Drivers will have to accurately answer a series of questions

11 regarding Uber’s service animal policies and affirm their willingness to transport Riders

12 with service animals. If Drivers fail to complete these screens, Uber will block them from

13 the Driver App, so that they cannot provide service on the platform. Settlement § 4.B.

14 Uber will also send quarterly emails to Drivers reminding them of their obligation to

15 transport Riders with service animals, and will update the Driver licensing agreement to

16 explain the obligation. Id.

17

Uber will also add a statement confirming that new Drivers agree to transport

18 passengers with service animals and a link to the Service Animal Policy to its online

19 Driver sign-up process. Settlement § 4.A.

20

2. Changes to Enforcement Practices

21

To enhance Drivers’ compliance with their legal and contractual obligations, Uber

22 will improve its enforcement policies for violations of its service animal policy. Under the

23 Settlement, Uber will block a Driver from the platform if the Driver knowingly refuses to

24 transport a Rider because of a service animal. Uber will review every report of a ride

25
26 1 A detailed summary of the Settlement is included in the Parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Related Motions. Dkt. No. 84, pp. 9-14.
27

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

6

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 10 of 19

1 denial based on the presence of a service animal to determine whether the Driver involved

2 violated the policy. Settlement § 5.A. If Uber determines that a Driver knowingly denied

3 service to a Rider with a service animal because of that service animal, Uber will

4 permanently block that Driver from the platform. If Uber concludes that a Driver did not

5 knowingly deny service to a Rider with a service animal because of that service animal,

6 but Uber receives more than one complaint alleging denial because of a service animal,

7 Uber will permanently block that Driver from the platform, without further inquiry.

8 Settlement § 5.A.

9

3. Complaint Processing and Response

10

Uber will also make it easier for Riders to report denials of service and other service

11 animal issues through the Uber Rider App and from the home page of the Uber website.

12 Settlement § 5.B. Uber will respond to complaints about service animal discrimination in a

13 timely manner and will provide customers with information about Uber’s investigation and

14 whether the Driver involved in the incident was permanently blocked from the platform.

15 Settlement § 5.B. Uber will also reverse any charges related to the incident, and will

16 provide a Rider an account credit if a Driver is removed from the platform as a result of the

17 Rider’s complaint. Settlement § 5.B.

18

4. Revisions to Uber’s Service Animal Policy

19

Uber will revise its written service animal policy to reflect its enhanced

20 enforcement policy, improved complaint processing and response policies and procedures,

21 and updates to its cleaning fee policy. Settlement § 1. Uber will also adopt a guidance

22 document to assist Uber employees in assessing allegations of discrimination. Settlement §

23 5.A.

24

5. Compliance, Data Collection, and Testing

25

Uber will collect data regarding service animal denials to facilitate monitoring,

26 assessment of the policy, and practice improvements required by the Settlement. Uber

27 agrees to maintain a national database with information about all alleged incidents of

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

7

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 11 of 19

1 discrimination against Riders with service animals. This data includes Rider and Driver

2 name and contact information, location, date, and account information for alleged denials

3 of service, complaints, and numerical ratings. Settlement § 6.A. Class Counsel and a third-

4 party monitor will review the data for the term of the Settlement, which is three and a half

5 years with the possibility of extension. Settlement § 6.B. Additionally, NFB and NFB-CA

6 will send blind individuals with service animals to use the Uber service to test whether

7 Drivers are complying with their obligations to provide equal access. Settlement § 6.C.

8

6. Monitoring, Opportunity to Request Additional Policy Changes, and

Dispute Resolution

9

The Settlement includes a number of provisions to ensure that Uber is making the

10

changes required by the Settlement and that the updated policies and practices are

11

effectively reducing discrimination on the platform. First, a third-party monitor will review

12

data and complaints and will report to Class Counsel on a yearly basis. If the monitor

13

concludes that the policies and practices are not sufficiently ameliorating discrimination on

14

the platform, the monitor can recommend additional changes. Settlement § 8.A. Further,

15

Plaintiffs may request additional changes if there is good cause to believe further

16

modifications are necessary; such modifications cannot lessen the benefits or protections

17

for members of the Class. Settlement § 8.B. The Settlement establishes a dispute resolution

18

procedure in the event that the Parties disagree on the need for additional modifications or

19

other issues in implementing the Settlement. Settlement § 10.

20

7. Monetary Payments

21

NFB and the individual names Plaintiffs will receive monetary compensation under

22

the Settlement. NFB will receive a total of $225,000 over the term of the agreement. The

23

payments are intended to support the testing program. Settlement § 11. Mr. Hingson, Mr.

24

Pedersen, and Mr. Kelly will receive $45,000 in total, to apportion among themselves, as

25

compensation for the discrimination they experienced on the Uber platform.

26

The Parties did not settle the amount of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses to

27

which Plaintiffs were entitled. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

8

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 12 of 19

1 and Costs on September 19, 2016. Dkt. No. 119.

2

C. Notice Has Been Provided to the Class

3

The Parties have provided notice to the Class by complying with the notice

4 requirements specified in the Joint Amended Proposed Order Granting Approval to File

5 Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, Preliminary Approval to Class Settlement,

6 Certifying Settlement Class, Authorizing Distribution of Notice, and Setting Fairness

7 Hearing, Dkt. No. 109, as incorporated into the Court’s Order Granting Motions to Amend

8 the Complaint, Conditionally Certify Class, and Preliminary Approval of Class Action

9 Settlement , Dkt. No. 112. The Court approved the Parties’ proposed notice (“Notice”),

10 which is attached to the Declaration of Laurence Paradis in Support of the Joint Motion for

11 Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Related Motions as exhibit 3, Dkt. No. 85.3.

12

Class Counsel posted the Notice, in a screen-reader accessible format, on the

13 websites of DRA, Rosen Bien, and TRE Legal on or before August 3, 2016. Marks Decl.

14 ¶¶ 22-24. Class Counsel emailed the Notice to all individuals who had contacted Class

15 Counsel to report discrimination on July 23, 2016. Marks Decl. ¶ 21. The American

16 Council of the Blind (“ACB”) and NFB, the two largest organizations of blind persons in

17 the United States, distributed the Notice via email to its listservs before August 3, 2016.

18 Marks Decl. ¶¶ 25, 26. The guide-dog users groups of ACB and NFB, Guide Dog Users

19 International and National Association of Guide Dog Users, respectively, also distributed

20 the Notice via email to its listservs before August 3, 2016. Marks Decl. ¶¶ 25-28.

21 Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC (“KCC”), a settlement administrator, published the

22 notice in the September issue of The Forum, the Braille magazine of the American Council

23 of the Blind, and the August/September issue of The Monitor, the Braille magazine of the

24 National Federation of the Blind. Marks Decl. ¶¶ 29, 30. KCC maintained a settlement

25 website through the notice period, from August 3, 2016 through October 13, 2016,

26 containing the full Settlement, Notice, and the Court’s Order Granting Preliminary

27 Approval (Dkt. 112). Marks Decl. ¶¶ 14-16.

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

9

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 13 of 19

1

The Parties stipulated to a modified version of the Notice (“Modified Notice”),

2 which the Court approved on August 5, 2016, to change the contact person at DRA. Dkt.

3 No. 116. Class Counsel posted the Modified Notice on the DRA, RBGG, and TRE Legal 4 websites and the settlement website.2 Marks Decl. ¶¶ 22-24. Class Counsel also posted

5 their Notice of Motion and Motion, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of

6 Plaintiff’s Motion for Fees and Costs, and declarations in support, Dkt. Nos. 119, 119-1 –

7 119-9, 123, 123-1 – 123-4, on the settlement website on September 21, 2016. Marks Decl.

8 ¶ 19. In October, 2016, Class Counsel updated their respective websites and the settlement

9 website to reflect the new date for the hearing on final approval and the fee motion of

10 December 1, 2016. Marks Decl. ¶¶ 22-24. Class Counsel also emailed individuals who had

11 contacted Class Counsel to report discrimination to notify them of the new hearing date.

12 Marks Decl. ¶ 31.

13

Defendant published a blog posting with a link to the Notice on its Newsroom

14 webpage on August 22, 2016. Declaration of Emily O’Connor In Support of Plaintiffs’

15 Motion for Final Approval (“O’Connor Decl.”) ¶ 3. KCC served the Notice of Class

16 Action Settlement Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 in accordance with 28

17 U.S.C. § 1715. O’Connor Decl. ¶ 2.

18

D. No Class Members Have Objected to the Settlement

19

No class members have filed objections to the Settlement. Marks Decl. ¶ 32. The

20 final day for class members to file objections was October 13, 2016. Dkt. No. 112.

21

22

23 2 Plaintiffs did not send updated versions of the notice to the email listservs. However,
24 Class members could effectively reach Class Counsel by relying on either the original or the modified notice. The only modification to the notice was updating the contact person at
25 DRA from attorney Laurence Paradis to attorney Julia Marks. Marks Decl. ¶ 17. DRA’s
26 phone number and address did not change, and staff at DRA was instructed to forward any calls or correspondence regarding this case to Ms. Marks. Marks Decl. ¶ 17.
27

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

10

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 14 of 19

1

ARGUMENT

2 I. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION

3

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the claims of a certified class

4 may be settled only with a court’s approval. If a proposed settlement will bind class

5 members, “the court may approve it only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair,

6 reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). When settlement takes place prior to

7 formal class certification, the Court should engage in a more probing inquiry into the

8 fairness of the settlement. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998).

9

A district court’s role in reviewing the substance of the settlement is solely to

10 ensure that it is “fair, adequate, and free from collusion.” Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d

11 811, 819 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Hanlon). The district court should consider the settlement

12 as a whole, rather than looking at each separate part, to determine whether the settlement is

13 fair. Id. at 818-19. Further, “the question whether a settlement is fundamentally fair within

14 the meaning of Rule 23(e) is different from the question whether the settlement is perfect.”

15 Id. Courts should give deference to the private consensual decision of the parties. Hanlon,

16 150 F.3d at 1027. “[T]he court must also be mindful of the Ninth Circuit’s policy favoring

17 settlement, particularly in class action law suits.” In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F.

18 Supp. 2d 1036, 1041 (N.D. Cal. 2008).

19

In assessing whether a proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, courts

20 consider a collection of factors:

21

“the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and

likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action

22

status throughout the trial; the amount offered in settlement; the extent of

23

discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and

views of counsel; the presence of a governmental participant; and the

24

reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.” Hanlon, 150

25

F.3d at 1026.

26

Additionally, when the Settlement occurs prior to formal class certification, the

27 Court must determine whether the settlement was a product of collusion or other conflicts

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

11

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 15 of 19

1 of interest. In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 946-47 (9th Cir.

2 2011).

3 II. FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT IS PROPER

4

Plaintiffs assert, and the Defendant does not contest, that each of the Hanlon factors

5 supports final approval of the proposed Settlement pursuant to Rule 23(e).

6

A. The Benefits to the Class are Significant in Light of the Strength of the

Plaintiffs’ Case and the Risk, Expense, Complexity, and Likely Duration

7

of Future Litigation.

8

The first four Hanlon factors weigh in favor of a finding that the Settlement is fair,

9 reasonable, and adequate.

10

The Settlement provides significant benefits to the Class. As detailed above, the

11 Settlement requires comprehensive, nationwide changes to Uber’s policies, practices, and

12 procedures to ensure that blind persons traveling with service animals receive equal, non-

13 discriminatory treatment on the Uber platform. Uber will clarify its service animal policy

14 and make clear to Drivers that the company does not tolerate discrimination against guide

15 dog users on its platform. The Settlement requires thorough dissemination of information

16 to Drivers about the obligation to transport people traveling with service animals, and

17 implements strict Driver contract termination policies that will deter drivers from denying

18 rides to blind people with service animals. Under the Settlement, Class members will be

19 able to report discrimination more easily and will receive timely and thorough responses

20 upon submitting complaints. The Settlement includes additional protections that benefit the

21 Class, including limitations on the imposition of cleaning fees and policies for reimbursing

22 cancellation fees. The Settlement’s provisions regarding data reporting, testing, and

23 monitoring will ensure that Uber implements these changes and that the changes

24 sufficiently remedy discrimination in the Uber network.

25

Although Plaintiffs maintain that they have a strong case, pursuing litigation instead

26 of Settlement would carry significant risk, expense, and complexity. Had the Parties not

27 achieved settlement, the Parties would likely have been engaged in protracted and

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

12

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 16 of 19

1 contentious litigation. Discovery for the litigation would be lengthy and costly: Plaintiffs

2 had already retained an expert and noticed numerous depositions, and discovery disputes

3 were pending at the time of settlement. The Parties would also likely engage in complex

4 law and motion practice. For instance, since Plaintiffs had originally filed this case as an

5 action on behalf of individuals and an organization in California, to achieve the scope of

6 relief that Plaintiffs negotiated in the Settlement, Plaintiffs would have needed to seek

7 leave to file an amended complaint and to move for class certification of a nation-wide

8 class. The Settlement avoids the risk and delay of protracted litigation, while providing

9 significant benefit to the Class.

10

B. The Settlement is Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable in Light of the

Discovery Completed and the Stage of the Proceedings.

11

The Parties had a strong grasp of the merits of their case before reaching agreement

12

on the Settlement. When class counsel, as in this case, “possess a sufficient understanding

13

of the issues involved and the strengths and weaknesses of the case,” this factor weighs in

14

favor of settlement approval. See Chun-Hoon v. McKee Foods Corp., 716 F. Supp. 2d 848,

15

852 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

16

Although the Parties had not completed formal discovery or depositions, Class

17

Counsel conducted significant factual and legal research and the Parties exchanged

18

information prior to settlement through the General Order 56 process. “[I]n the context of

19

class action settlements, formal discovery is not a necessary ticket to the bargaining table

20

where the parties have sufficient information to make an informed decision about

21

settlement.” In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 2000), as

22

amended (June 19, 2000) (internal quotations omitted). Much of Plaintiffs’ case rested on

23

affirmative evidence of discriminatory treatment, which Class Counsel collected by

24

speaking with over 80 individuals while investigating and litigating the case. Marks. Decl.

25

¶ 4. Class Counsel reviewed correspondence between Uber and individuals who alleged

26

discrimination, Uber’s publicly posted policies, and driver message boards. Marks. Decl. ¶

27

4. During the General Order 56 process, Uber shared additional information about internal

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

13

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 17 of 19

1 policies and practices that assisted Plaintiffs in determining proper relief to end the alleged

2 discrimination. These investigations and exchanges provided the Parties with sufficient

3 facts to make an informed decision about settlement.

4

The Parties were further able to assess their relative positions prior to the Settlement

5 because they commenced settlement negotiations after the Court had ruled on Defendant’s

6 motion to dismiss.

7

C. Experienced Class Counsel Endorse the Settlement.

8

Class Counsel in this case brings extensive experience with class action litigation,

9 settlement, and disability rights law. Disability Rights Advocates’ practice focuses

10 exclusively on disability rights litigation, primarily consisting of class actions and

11 representative impact actions, and includes litigation, negotiations, and creating and

12 monitoring complex policy-based settlement agreements. Declaration of Laurence Paradis

13 in Support of Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Related

14 Motions (“Paradis Decl.”), Dkt. No. 85, ¶¶ 8, 9. Rosen Bien similarly brings significant

15 experience with complex litigation and settlement implementation and monitoring. Paradis

16 Decl. ¶¶ 11-13. TRE Legal specializes in disability rights litigation as well. Paradis Decl. ¶

17 14. Class Counsel brought this experience to bear on developing strategy, assessing the

18 viability of Plaintiffs’ claims and pursuit of a class action, and negotiating and drafting the

19 Settlement in this case.

20

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that parties that are represented by experienced

21 and competent counsel “are better positioned than courts to produce a settlement that fairly

22 reflects each party’s expected outcome in litigation.” In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d

23 373, 378 (9th Cir. 1995). The significant experience of Class Counsel led to an effective

24 and comprehensive Settlement, and Class Counsel are well positioned to assess the

25 adequacy and efficacy of the Settlement. Class Counsel’s endorsement of the Settlement

26 weighs in favor of a finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

27

Courts also consider whether government participants are involved in the

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

14

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 18 of 19

1 Settlement. The United States, which had submitted a Statement of Interest to clarify the

2 scope of Title III coverage during the motion to dismiss phase, Dkt. No. 29, did not object

3 to the settlement. Dkt. No. 97.

4

D. No Class Members Objected to the Settlement.

5

“[T]he absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action settlement

6 raises a strong presumption that the terms of a proposed class settlement action are

7 favorable to the class members.” In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036,

8 1043 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (quotation omitted). No class members submitted objections to the

9 Settlement. Marks Decl. ¶ 32. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of the settlements.

10

E. The Settlement Is the Product of Good Faith, Arms-Length

Negotiations.

11

The Parties engaged in protracted good faith, non-collusive, arms-length

12

negotiations to reach settlement. The Parties began negotiations in May 2015 and

13

continued negotiations through the end of April 2016. Marks Decl. ¶¶ 7, 8, 10, 12. The

14

Parties held multiple in-person negotiations, and exchanged numerous redlines of the

15

Settlement and the Settlement addenda, which include Uber’s formal written policy on

16

service animals, internal guidance documents, driver education materials, and detailed

17

plans for providing Riders with methods for reporting service animal issues. Marks Decl.

18

¶¶ 7, 8; Settlement Addenda 1-4. The Parties negotiated the policy, practice, and procedure

19

changes that make up the class relief prior to negotiating damages for the individual named

20

Plaintiffs and prior to unsuccessfully negotiating attorneys’ fees and costs. Marks Decl. ¶

21

11.

22

The indicia of collusion are not present in this case. Signs of collusion include

23

payment of excessive attorneys’ fees when compared with the scope of relief and reversion

24

of fees to defendants. See In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d at 947.

25

Since the Settlement does not provide damages to the class, and class members do not

26

release their claims, there are no concerns about improper distribution or reversion of

27

funds. Class Counsel has no guarantee of a significant fee recovery, as the Parties were

28

3:14-cv-04086-NC

15

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 128 Filed 10/27/16 Page 19 of 19

1 unable to reach agreement on attorneys’ fees. Marks Decl. ¶ 13. Rather, Defendant

2 indicated it would vigorously oppose Plaintiffs’ amount of requested fees and costs. Marks

3 Decl. ¶ 13.

4

Further, the Parties developed much of the framework for their Settlement with the

5 assistance of an experienced mediator, Hon. Jamie Jacobs-May (ret.). “The assistance of an

6 experienced mediator in the settlement process confirms that the settlement is non-

7 collusive.” Satchell v. Fed. Express Corp., No. C 03 2878 SI, 2007 WL 1114010, at *4

8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007); see also Chun-Hoon, 716 F.Supp.2d at 852. The arms-length,

9 non-collusive negotiations, facilitated by an experienced mediator, weigh in favor of the

10 Court’s finding that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

11

CONCLUSION

12

The proposed Settlement will dramatically improve the treatment of Riders with

13 service animals in the Uber transportation network. This Settlement is a fair, reasonable,

14 and adequate resolution of the claims at issue. The Parties have provided adequate notice

15 to class members, and no class members objected to the Settlement. For the foregoing

16 reasons, Class Counsel respectfully request that, following the fairness hearing, the Court

17 enter an order granting final approval of the Settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

18 Procedure 23(e).

19

20 DATED: October 27, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

21

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES

22

23

By:

24

Mary-Lee K. Smith

25

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26

27

28

16

3:14-cv-04086-NC

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

 </s> Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 139 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 4

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 14
Defendant. 15

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC
ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Re: Dkt. Nos. 119, 128

16

In September 2014, the National Federation of the Blind of California and three

17 individuals sued Uber and its California subsidiaries, alleging that Uber violates state and

18 federal law by discriminating against blind persons when Uber drivers refuse to transport

19 service dogs. In April 2015, this Court denied Uber’s motion to dismiss the complaint and

20 found that NFB-CA had associational standing and that Uber is subject to the ADA. The

21 parties then began preparing for trial, while also engaging in settlement discussions.

22

In January 2016, the parties notified the Court that they had a settlement in

23 principle, so the Court granted their request to vacate the deadlines in the case. In late

24 April 2016, the parties requested preliminary approval of their class action settlement. The

25 Court granted preliminary approval, and the parties now seek final approval of the

26 settlement. In addition, plaintiffs move for $1,589,574 in attorneys’ fees and $13,447.14

27 in costs, with a multiplier of 2.0. Uber agrees that plaintiffs can recover attorneys’ fees,

28 but disputes the reasonableness of the fees and costs. The Court held a hearing on the Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 139 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 4

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 motions on December 1, 2016, and granted both the motion for final approval and the

2 motion for attorneys’ fees.

3

As to the final approval of the settlement, the parties reported that no objections to

4 the settlement were received. In its order granting preliminary approval of the settlement,

5 the Court summarized the settlement’s key components and analyzed the fairness of

6 settlement in detail. Dkt. No. 112. The Court now concludes that the settlement is fair,

7 adequate, and reasonable and GRANTS the motion for final approval of the class action

8 settlement. The Court retains jurisdiction over the settlement for the duration of the

9 settlement agreement. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378

10 (1994).

11

As to the attorneys’ fees request, Uber does not dispute plaintiffs’ entitlement to

12 attorneys’ fees. Thus, the Court considers (1) the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees,

13 and (2) the appropriate multiplier.

14

Plaintiffs request $1,589,574 in attorneys’ fees. The “lodestar is the product of

15 reasonable hours times a reasonable rate.” City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 559

16 (1992). Uber objects to (1) the attorneys’ hourly rate; (2) duplicative work done by

17 multiple attorneys in attending hearings and conference calls, and (3) plaintiffs’ trial

18 preparation after settlement negotiations had begun.

19

First, the Court finds that plaintiffs have cited sufficient authority that the rates

20 requested have been awarded in this district and are considered reasonable in the San

21 Francisco Bay Area market.

22

Second, the Court finds that plaintiffs’ counsel have not unnecessarily duplicated

23 work by structuring their team to have multiple attorneys consulted at key times in the

24 case. See Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., No. 06-cv-01802 MHP, 2009 WL

25 2390261, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009) (“the court may not condition fees on plaintiffs’

26 counsel’s conformance to the typical commercial law firm’s pyramidal staffing

27 structure.”).

28

Third, the parties moved to vacate trial deadlines in January, and the Court made

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

2

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 139 Filed 12/06/16 Page 3 of 4

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 clear for the following four months that trial dates would be reinstated if a settlement was

2 not promptly entered. Under those circumstances, the Court finds it reasonable that

3 plaintiffs’ counsel continued to prepare for trial after January and even until April when a

4 final settlement was entered on the docket. Considering all arguments, the Court

5 concludes that plaintiffs’ request for fees and costs are reasonable and GRANTS the

6 motion.

7

In addition to reasonable attorneys’ fees, plaintiffs request a multiplier of 2.0 under

8 California law. A multiplier is permitted under California law to allow plaintiffs to be

9 compensated for the real market value of their work, which includes a certain amount of

10 risk absorbed by counsel when working on contingency. See Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.

11 4th 1122, 1136 (2001) (“The experience of the marketplace indicates that lawyers

12 generally will not provide legal representation on a contingent basis unless they receive a

13 premium for taking that risk.”).

14

The Court considers the most analogous case cited by the parties: Nat’l Fed’n of the

15 Blind v. Target Corp., No. 06-cv-01802 MHP, 2009 WL 2390261 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3,

16 2009). In Target, plaintiffs sought to make Target’s online platform accessible to blind

17 web users. Id. at *1. There, Judge Patel found that a 1.65 multiplier was appropriate in a

18 case with significant motion practice, including contested motions to dismiss, for

19 preliminary injunction, class certification, and summary judgment. Id. at *9.

20

In this case, the Court finds that plaintiffs’ sought to enhance Uber’s policies to

21 protect blind riders, which can provide a model for other businesses in the sharing

22 economy. Additionally, plaintiffs faced a significant hurdle in overcoming the motion to

23 dismiss, and took on the risk associated with raising novel legal issues in complex areas of

24 jurisdictional, employment, and discrimination law. Thus, the Court finds that here, a

25 multiplier of 1.5 is appropriate to fully award plaintiffs for the fair market value of their

26 work in taking on this case.

27

Plaintiffs must submit an updated proposed order as to the requested fees and costs

28 for the Court’s signature in accordance with this order by December 12, 2016.

Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

3

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 139 Filed 12/06/16 Page 4 of 4

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

4 Dated: December 6, 2016

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Case No. 14-cv-04086 NC

_____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge
4

 </s> Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 193 Filed 09/27/19 Page 1 of 15

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE
11 BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

15

Defendant.

16

Case No. 14-cv-04086-NC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS; DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 185, 189

17 In this class action, plaintiffs National Federation of the Blind (“NFIB”) and various

18 disabled individuals accused defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. of failing to accommodate

19 their disabled customers traveling with service animals. In 2016, the parties settled the

20 class action. Plaintiffs now bring their second motion for attorneys’ fees and costs seeking

21 reimbursement for their efforts monitoring Uber’s compliance with the settlement. See

22 Dkt. No. 185. The Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to fees, but certain fees are

23 unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

24 Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

25 I. Procedural History

26

In September 2014, Plaintiffs initiated this class action against Uber alleging

27 discrimination against the blind under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42

28

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 193 Filed 09/27/19 Page 2 of 15

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and various California-law analogues. See Dkt. No. 1. The parties

2 settled the case in January 2016 (see Dkt. No. 70; see also Dkt. No. 85-1 (“Settlement”))

3 and the Court granted final approval of the class settlement on December 6, 2016 (see Dkt.

4 No. 139). On December 15, 2016, the Court awarded Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs

5 pursuant to the Settlement. See Dkt. Nos. 139, 144.

6

Plaintiffs now seek additional attorneys’ fees and costs for resources expended in

7 monitoring Uber’s settlement compliance. See Dkt. No. 185. Plaintiffs voluntarily agree

8 to reduce their claimed amount by 5% across the board. See id. at 19.1 Uber opposes,

9 arguing that Plaintiffs are not entitled to additional fees and, even if they were, Plaintiffs’

10 request is unreasonable. See generally Dkt. No. 187.

11 II. Settlement Agreement

12

Certain sections of the Settlement are relevant to this motion. The Court

13 summarizes those portions below.

14

The Settlement requires Uber to “collect and report to Plaintiffs’ Counsel” rating

15 and complaint information for riders with service animals. See Settlement § 6.A. Uber is

16 required to report the raw data for that information to Plaintiffs’ Counsel. Id. § 6.B.1. In

17 addition, if Plaintiffs’ Counsel provides Uber with a documented complaint of

18 discrimination by a rider, Uber is required to verify corresponding data and assign a unique

19 number identifier to the allegedly offending driver. See id. § 6.B.2.

20

NFIB is required to create a “compliance testing program” that uses blind testers

21 with guide dogs using Uber’s UberX service to test compliance. Id. § 6.C. Uber agreed to

22 pay NFIB $225,000 “to support the testing program.” Id. § 11.A. If the Settlement is

23 extended, Uber is required to pay NFIB an additional $75,000 to support the program. See

24 id. §§ 7, 11.A.

25

The Settlement also requires an appointment of a third-party Monitor. See id. § 8.

26 Annually, the Monitor is obligated to “review and analyze” all data collected and reported

27

28

1 All page numbers reference the page numbers automatically generated by ECF unless otherwise indicated.

2

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 193 Filed 09/27/19 Page 3 of 15

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 by Uber pursuant to Section 6 of the Settlement, in addition to “any other information

2 provided to the Monitor by the Parties.” Id. The Monitor then reports to the Parties

3 whether Uber substantially complied with the Settlement during the preceding year. Id.

4 The Monitor is also required to “propose . . . further modifications to Uber’s policies,

5 practices, and procedures” if such policies, practices, or procedures were insufficient to

6 address discrimination. Id.

7

Lastly, the Settlement permits Plaintiffs to seek attorneys’ fees and costs incurred

8 up through the effective date of the Settlement. Id. § 11.C. Uber agreed “not to dispute

9 the entitlement to reasonable Attorneys’ Fees incurred up through the Effective Date of

10 [the] Agreement[,]” but reserved the right to dispute the amount of fees requested. Id. For

11 fees and costs related to “work performed after the time the Settlement Agreement is

12 signed by all Parties, including for work spent on compliance monitoring, enforcement,

13 and/or work spent securing their fees[,]” Plaintiffs reserved their rights to pursue such fees,

14 but the Settlement acknowledged that “all issues pertaining to any such attorneys’ fees,

15 costs, and expenses are unresolved . . . .” Id. § 11.C.1. The Parties are required to confer

16 and negotiate as to any fees and costs related to Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s monitoring efforts

17 before petitioning the Court. Id. § 11.C.2.

18

The Court retained jurisdiction. See id. § 12; see also Dkt. No. 145.

19 III. Discussion

20

A. Entitlement to Fees

21

The parties first dispute whether Plaintiffs are entitled to fees. See Dkt. No. 187 at

22 11. According to Uber, the Settlement did not authorize attorneys’ fees for monitoring

23 work and the ADA’s fee-shifting statute does not allow such fees. Id. The Court

24 disagrees.

25

In Prison Legal News v. Scharzenegger, 608 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth

26 Circuit reaffirmed that “a party that prevails by obtaining a consent decree may recover

27 attorneys’ fees under [42 U.S.C.] § 1988 for monitoring compliance with the decree, even

28 when such monitoring does not result in any judicially sanctioned relief.” Prison Legal

3

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 193 Filed 09/27/19 Page 4 of 15

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 News, 608 F.3d at 451 (citing Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850, 855–57 (9th Cir. 1987)).

2 Thus, plaintiffs may recover attorneys’ fees for monitoring compliance with a settlement

3 agreement under § 1988. Id. at 452; see also Balla v. Idaho, 677 F.3d 910, 916 (9th Cir.

4 2012) (“[M]onitoring fees not resulting in additional relief are allowable . . . .”).

5

Uber contends that Prison Legal News and its progeny are inapposite because those

6 cases concern a different fee shifting statute. But § 1988 and the ADA’s fee-shifting

7 statute, 42 U.S.C. § 12205, are virtually identical. Compare 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (“the

8 court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee as

9 part of the costs . . . .”) with 42 U.S.C. § 12205 (“the court or agency, in its discretion, may

10 allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee, including litigation expenses,

11 and costs . . . .”). Uber has not identified any principled reason why the Court should

12 interpret the two statutes differently.

13

Moreover, the Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in Pennsylvania v.

14 Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546 (1986). There, the court

15 noted that the fee-shifting provisions of the Clean Air Act and § 1988 served “the common

16 purpose of . . . promot[ing] citizen enforcement of important federal policies,” such that

17 there was “no reason not to interpret both provisions governing attorney’s fees in the same

18 manner.” Id. at 560. The same is true of the ADA’s fee-shifting statute and § 1988. See

19 Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W.V. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598,

20 629–30 (2001) (“the . . . ADA fee-shifting prescriptions [were] modeled on 42 U.S.C.

21 § 1988 unmodified . . . .”), superseded by statute on other grounds.

22

Nor does the language of the Settlement foreclose attorneys’ fees for monitoring

23 work. Rather, the Settlement explicitly acknowledges that “all issues pertaining to” fees,

24 costs, and expenses relating to “work performed after the time the Settlement Agreement is

25 signed . . . including for work spent on compliance monitoring [and] enforcement” was an

26 unresolved issue. See Settlement § 11.C.1.

27

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees

28 incurred in connection with monitoring Uber’s compliance with the Settlement. 4

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 193 Filed 09/27/19 Page 5 of 15

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

B. Reasonableness of Fees

2

Uber does not contest the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ claimed costs. See Dkt. No.

3 185 at 27 (requesting costs in the amount of $685.36). Plaintiffs adequately documented

4 those costs and they appear reasonable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’

5 requests for costs in the amount of $685.36.

6

Uber also does not challenge Plaintiffs’ counsels’ claimed rates and, indeed, the

7 Court previously approved Plaintiffs’ counsels’ rates. See Dkt. No. 144. As those rates

8 have not changed, the Court FINDS that Plaintiffs’ counsels’ rates are reasonable.

9

Instead, Uber challenges five categories of Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees as

10 unnecessary or unreasonable. See Dkt. No. 187 at 14–22. Uber also argues that Plaintiffs’

11 fees should be further reduced due to vague time entries and block billing. Id. at 22–24.

12 The Court will first address each category of contested fees, then turn to Uber’s objections.

13 See Dkt. No. 185-1, Ex. G (summary of claimed fees).

14

1. Work Related to Conferring with Monitor

15

In this category, Plaintiffs claim fees for hours spent (1) analyzing Uber’s data

16 reports and (2) for work related to conferring with the Monitor about those reports. See

17 Dkt. No. 185-1 (“Galvan Decl.”) ¶¶ 42–43. Uber concedes that the hours spent analyzing

18 Uber’s reports are compensable,2 but argues that the hours spent for work relating to

19 conferring with the Monitor was unnecessary. See Dkt. No. 187 at 15–16. According to

20 Uber, such work is not compensable because the Settlement limits Plaintiffs’ counsel’s

21 involvement with the Monitor’s review Uber’s data reports. Id. at 15. Specifically, Uber

22 contends that the Settlement only contemplates review of its reports by Plaintiffs’ counsel

23 and “formal analyses . . . or opining with or conferring with the Monitor about Uber’s data

24 reports” is outside the scope of the Settlement. Id.

25

The Court disagrees. While the Settlement explicitly requires Uber to provide

26 Plaintiffs’ counsel with data reports for analysis (see Settlement §§ 6.A, 6.B.1), the

27

28

2 Uber argues that these hours should be reduced as they were block billed. See Dkt. No. 187 at 16. The Court will address Plaintiffs’ block billing below.

5

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 193 Filed 09/27/19 Page 6 of 15

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Settlement does not limit Plaintiffs’ counsel’s involvement to that of a passive observer.

2 Rather, the Settlement requires the Monitor to consider “any other information provided,”

3 suggesting by implication that Plaintiffs’ counsel are permitted to submit their own

4 commentary on Uber’s data reports. Id. § 8. Accordingly, work conducted by Plaintiffs’

5 counsel relating to conferring with the Monitor is generally compensable.

6

However, the fact that the Settlement permits Plaintiffs to supply their own

7 commentary on Uber’s data reports to the Monitor is not a license to bill for wholly

8 unnecessary work that is duplicative of Uber’s reports. See Balla, 677 F.3d at 919 (“[T]he

9 court [must] exercise discretion [to] assure that the case is not being milked by a monitor

10 after the injunction has been obtained, for fees that are unreasonable in amount, for work

11 not reasonably performed to enforce the relief, or for work not directly related to enforcing

12 the relief.”). It is unclear, for example, why Plaintiffs need to draft, review, and submit

13 declarations from individual complaining class members, particularly when there is no

14 indication that Plaintiffs believe Uber’s internal data keeping was inaccurate. See, e.g.,

15 Galvan Decl., Ex. F, pt.1 at 101 (billing over 6 hours at $400 per hour to review or draft

16 class member declarations), 113 (reviewing and drafting various class member

17 declarations). Further, Plaintiffs’ billing records for this category of work contain several

18 vague time entries, some of which have questionable billing value. See, e.g., id. at 147

19 (billing 0.8 hours at $275 per hour for “[m]aking a declaration, cover letter, and report

20 accessible”). Most of the hours, however, appear reasonable.

21

Accordingly, the Court will reduce Plaintiffs’ counsel’s fee for work relating to

22 conferring with the Monitor by 10% in addition to Plaintiffs’ voluntary 5% reduction. The

23 Court will not reduce Plaintiffs’ counsel’s fee for analyzing Uber’s data beyond Plaintiffs’

24 voluntary 5% reduction. Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to $59,528.90 and $34,143.95 for

25 these two sub-categories of work, respectively.

26

2. Work Related to Communicating with Class Members

27

This category contains three sub-categories of work: (1) communicating with class

28 members to address and respond to discrimination complaints; (2) submitting information 6

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 193 Filed 09/27/19 Page 7 of 15

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 requests to Uber pursuant to the Settlement’s process (see Settlement § 6.B.2); and (3)

2 following up with class members who participated in NFIB’s compliance testing program

3 (see id. § 6.C). Uber concedes that the second sub-category of work is compensable but

4 argues that the first and third sub-categories are not. See Dkt. No. 187 at 16.

5

As to the first sub-category of work—communicating with class members to

6 address and respond to discrimination complaints—Uber is correct that Plaintiffs should

7 not be compensated to the extent they are merely creating a parallel complaint

8 investigations process. The Settlement itself already creates a procedure for class

9 members to raise discrimination complaints—a procedure hailed by Plaintiffs as a

10 significant boon for the class. See Dkt. No. 84.

11

This does not mean, however, that Plaintiffs’ counsel is required to sit on their

12 hands and rubber-stamp Uber’s efforts. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s obligations to the class

13 requires them to take an active role in ensuring that the Settlement is working as intended.

14 And communicating with class members regarding Uber’s behavior is the core of

15 monitoring efforts. In Prison Legal News, for example, the Ninth Circuit affirmed

16 attorneys’ fees for “reviewing and responding to letters from [class members] complaining

17 about” the defendants’ failure to comply with the settlement. Prison Legal News, 608 F.3d

18 at 453. The Ninth Circuit noted that “[w]ithout such correspondence [with class

19 members], it would be difficult for [plaintiffs] to discover or document violations of the

20 terms of the settlement.” Id.

21

Upon review of Plaintiffs’ records, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs’

22 communication with class members regarding their discrimination complaints is limited to

23 compiling information relating to their monitoring efforts and does not create a parallel

24 track for investigating complaints.

25

As to the third sub-category of work—communications with class members who

26 participated in NFIB’s compliance testing program—the Court agrees with Uber.

27 Plaintiffs have already been compensated for work related to NFIB’s compliance testing

28 program. Section 11.A of the Settlement requires Uber to pay NFIB $225,000 “to support 7

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 193 Filed 09/27/19 Page 8 of 15

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 the testing program.” Such payments naturally encompass fees and costs incurred in

2 reviewing program data or following up with program participants. Plaintiffs may not

3 double-dip for the compliance testing program. Disallowed amounts are listed in the chart

4 below.3 Although some of these entries were coded by Plaintiffs as “Settlement

5 Modifications” work, the Court compiles all disallowed NFIB-related hours here:

6

Page

Date of Claimed Claimed

7

Entry Description

Number of

Entry

Time Amount

8

Entry

9 Prepare final language for message

10 to intakes and NFB testing

2/2/2018 0.40 $216

5

11 participants who reported denials

12 Analysis of NFB testing ride data 2/23/2018 1.10

$385

17

13

Phone call with T Elder re NFB

14

4/2/2018 0.70 $329

26

testing and follow up re same

15

Reviewing Uber NFB testing data 4/2/2018

1.30

$611

26

16

17 Phone call with T Elder and M

18 Nunez regarding additional

9/14/2018 1.00 $470

75

19 information sharing, NFB testing,

20 and next steps

21 Discussing internal next steps with

22 S Seaborn regarding information

9/14/2018 1.00

$470

75

23 sharing and NFB testing

24 Case strategy re NFB testing

9/28/2018 0.10

$47

78

25 discussion with S Seaborn

26

27 3 Entries are drawn from Galvan Decl., Ex. F. Page numbers reference those included with

28

the exhibit. Certain entries are block billed. Because the Court is unable to discern how much time was spent on compliance testing issues, block billed entries are disallowed.

8

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 193 Filed 09/27/19 Page 9 of 15

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Preparing outline re NFB testing

9/28/2018 0.50

$235

78

2 Correspondence with co-counsel re

3 NFB testing

10/1/2018 0.10

$47

78

4 Planning NFB testing meeting with

5 T Elder

10/2/2018 0.10

$47

78

6 Strategy telecon with M Riess, T

7 Elder and M Nunez to discuss

8 parameters for random sample

10/5/2018 0.70 $549.50

79

9 compliance testing and consultant

10 support needed for same

11 Attending planning call with SS,

12 MR and MN to discuss compliance

13 data and position on pool policy

10/5/2018 0.70 $378

79

14 change

15 Attend strategy call re next steps re

16 settlement monitoring issues and

10/5/2018 0.70 $367.50

79

17 revising testing program

18 Preparing notes for call regarding

19 testing and UberPool

10/5/2018 0.20

$94

79

20 Phone call with M Nunez, T Elder

21 and S Seaborn regarding testing,

22 UberPool policy, and complaint

10/5/2018 0.70 $329

79

23 intakes

24 Call with consultant re possible

25 changes to testing program, and

10/9/2018 1.60 $840

80

26 call with legal team afterward . . .

27

28 9

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 193 Filed 09/27/19 Page 10 of 15

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Correspondence with team re

2 meeting re compliance data and

10/11/2018 0.30

$141

82

3 testing

4 Phone call re data and compliance

10/11/2018 1.50 $705

82

5 testing

6 Review class member service

7 issues in NFB tester reports; follow 11/15/2018 0.40

$100

86

8 up re same

9

Review and respond to questions

10

12/14/2018 0.10 $52.50

92

from SJE re NFB testers 11

12 Total Disallowed

$6,413.50

13 Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees for communicating with class
14 members and submitting information requests to Uber less Plaintiffs’ voluntary 5%
15

reduction in fees. This amounts to $66,357.50. 16

17

3. Work Relating to Unwarranted or Abandoned Modifications

In this category, Plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees relating to their efforts to modify the 18

Settlement in three ways: (1) policies relating to Uber’s UberPool service; (2) seeking 19

quarterly data extension; and (3) requesting further data sharing provisions. Uber 20

concedes that the second sub-category of fees relating to quarterly data extensions are 21

compensable. See Dkt. No. 187 at 18, 20. The first and third sub-category, according to 22
Uber, are not compensable because those proposals were unnecessary or not accepted. 23
First, the Court rejects Uber’s argument that those hours are not compensable 24
because the Settlement has been effective. Disallowing monitoring fees because Plaintiffs 25
were successful in negotiating and crafting a successful settlement would be counter26
productive. Monitoring fees are permissible so long as they are not unreasonable and are 27
related to enforcing the settlement. See Balla, 677 F.3d at 919. 28

10

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 193 Filed 09/27/19 Page 11 of 15

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

Second, Uber concedes that Plaintiffs’ proposed modifications to its UberPool

2 program and the data sharing provisions of the Settlement have been adopted “in a very

3 limited fashion voluntarily by Uber.” Dkt. No. 187 at 19. But Plaintiffs are not required to

4 achieve complete victory nor were they required to obtain a court order or official

5 modification to be entitled to fees. In Balla, Ninth Circuit affirmed modification fees even

6 though the plaintiffs’ motion to hold the defendant in contempt was denied because

7 plaintiffs’ motion practice “played a key role in resolving” the underlying issue. Balla,

8 677 F.3d at 920 (quotations omitted). The Ninth Circuit noted that “[i]f in a battle to take a

9 hill, the adversary flees instead of fighting to a bloody defeat, the taking of the hill makes

10 the battle a victory.” Id.

11

Here, Plaintiffs’ efforts were ultimately successful as to their UberPool and data

12 sharing proposals. Plaintiffs only seek fees connected to those proposals. After reviewing

13 Plaintiffs’ records, the billed amounts appear reasonable. Less Plaintiffs’ voluntary 5%

14 reduction, Plaintiffs are entitled to $55,862.37 for this category of work.4

15

4. Other Direct Monitoring Work

16

This category of work includes (1) responding to inquiries from the United States

17 Department of Justice regarding the Settlement; (2) investigating Uber’s filings with the

18 California Public Utilities Commission, arbitrations of service animal issues, and other

19 similar developments; (3) corresponding with Uber to verify compliance with Settlement

20 requirements; and (4) conferring with a consultant regarding evaluating the efficacy of the

21 Settlement at reducing discrimination against class members.

22

Here, Uber simply argues that this work is not compensable because these tasks

23 were “[too] attenuated” from the Settlement. Dkt. No. 185 at 21. The Court is not

24 convinced. Corresponding with and investigating actions taken by regulatory bodies

25 responsible for discrimination complaints is well within the scope of monitoring

26

27 4 As mentioned in footnote 3, supra, some entries block billed NFIB-testing-program-

28

related work and UberPool work. Because the Court already eliminated those fees—$801 in total—it does not do so again here.

11

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 193 Filed 09/27/19 Page 12 of 15

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 compliance with a discrimination-related settlement. Likewise, Uber is entitled to

2 reasonable consultant fees to evaluate whether the Settlement is working as intended.

3

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees for their direct monitoring

4 work less their voluntary 5% reduction in fees. This amounts to $13,130.90.

5

5. Fees Relating to Plaintiffs’ Unfiled Attorneys’ Fee Motion

6

The final category of fees relates to work expended by Plaintiffs’ counsel on an

7 unfiled fees motion. In March 2018, the parties began negotiating Plaintiffs’ counsel’s

8 attorneys’ fees for work conducted in 2017. See Gavlan Decl. ¶¶ 64–70; Dkt. No. 187-1

9 (“Spurchise Decl.”) ¶¶ 4–5. Under the Settlement, the parties are required to negotiate

10 such fees within 60 days before seeking Court intervention. See Settlement § 11.C.2. The

11 parties initially failed to come to an agreement within the 60-day limit, but ultimately

12 settled the dispute by July 2, 2018. See Gavlan Decl. ¶¶ 67–69; Spurchise Decl. ¶¶ 4–5.

13 The fees motion was thus never filed.

14

Given the Settlement’s requirement that the parties negotiate their fees dispute, it

15 was unreasonable for Plaintiffs to bill for hours preparing a fee motion prior to April 30,

16 2018—the end of the 60-day negotiation period. Once it became clear that no settlement

17 was forthcoming, however, Plaintiffs were entitled to begin preparing their fees motion

18 and are entitled to fees for time spent accordingly. Thus, the Court disallows all fees billed

19 prior to April 30, 2018, less Plaintiffs’ voluntary 5% reduction. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are

20 entitled to $4,393.75 in fees and costs for their unfiled fees motion. See Gavlan Decl., Ex.

21 F, pt. 2 at 7–12.

22

6. Specific Challenges to Hours

23

Uber challenges 13.2 hours as unduly vague and an additional 137.7 hours for

24 impermissible block billing.5 The Court first addresses Uber’s vagueness challenges

25 before turning to the alleged block-billed hours.

26

27

5 In accompanying exhibits, Uber appears to argue that certain of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s billed hours were duplicative or clerical work in disguise. See Spurchise Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex.

28

3. Uber’s opposition, however, does not challenge those hours. And, in any case, review of those entries does not suggest that they are duplicative or clerical.

12

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 193 Filed 09/27/19 Page 13 of 15

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

When submitting entries for attorneys’ fee awards, attorneys are “not required to

2 record in great detail how each minute of [their] time was expended.” Hensley v.

3 Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 n.12 (1983). Attorneys need only “keep records in sufficient

4 detail that a neutral judge can make a fair evaluation of the time expended, the nature and

5 need for the service, and the reasonable fees to be allowed.” Id. at 441 (Burger, C.J.,

6 concurring); United Steelworkers of Am. v. Ret. Income Plan For Hourly-Rated Employees

7 of ASARCO, Inc., 512 F.3d 555, 565 (9th Cir. 2008).

8

The Court reviewed the entries Uber identified as vague. See Dkt. No. 187-6. It

9 agrees as to the following entries:

10

Date of

Claimed

Claimed

Entry Description

11

Entry

Time

Amount

12 Team phone call

1/8/2018

1.60

13 Correspondence regarding

14 proposed changes to settlement

1/17/2018

0.10

15 Phone call with D. Kouniaris

1/19/2018

0.30

16 Correspondence re meeting and

17 conferring

1/25/2018

0.10

18

Prepare Declaration and Exhibit

2/25/2018

0.90

19

Team pre-meet and confer phone

20

4/23/2018

1.00

call

21

Drafting declaration and gathering

22

6/5/2018

1.60

exhibits

23

Discuss next steps with team

10/11/2018

0.30

24

25 Preparing for team call

10/18/2018

0.30

26 Make stipulation accessible at the

12/18/2018

0.20

27 request of M. Riess

$752 $47 $141 $47 $315 $470
$752 $105 $141 $55

28 Total

$2,825 13

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 193 Filed 09/27/19 Page 14 of 15

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

“Block billing” is “the time-keeping method by which each lawyer and legal

2 assistant enters the total daily time spent working on a case, rather than itemizing the time

3 expended on specific tasks.” Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.

4 2007). Block billing is not per se unreasonable and “has been accepted in this district.”

5 PQ Labs, Inc. v. Qi, No. 12-cv-00450 CW, 2015 WL 224970, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16,

6 2015) (citing Stonebrae, L.P. v. Toll Bros., Inc., No. 08-cv-00221 EMC, 2011 WL

7 1334444, at *8 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 7, 2011) (“Block-billing is a typical practice in this district,

8 and blocked-bills have been found to provide a sufficient basis for calculating a fee

9 award.”)). However, the block-billing party seeking fees must still meet the basic

10 requirements of “listing his hours and identifying the general subject matter of his time

11 expenditures.” Garcia v. Resurgent Capital Servs., L.P., No. 11-cv-01253 EMC, 2012 WL

12 3778852, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

13 Otherwise, the trial court may reduce or outright deny the award. Fischer v. SJN-P.D. Inc.,

14 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000).

15

Here, the Court finds that the alleged block-billed entries “contain enough

16 specificity as to individual tasks to ascertain whether the amount of time spent performing

17 them was reasonable.” Garcia, 2012 WL 3778852, at *8. Because the block-billed entries

18 are adequately detailed to permit the Court to assess the reasonableness of hours expended,

19 the Court finds that plaintiffs’ counsel have sufficiently documented their hours; no

20 reduction is necessary on this basis.

21

C. Motion to Seal

22

Plaintiffs move to seal two exhibits containing a chart and graph detailing the

23 number of service-animal-related complaints received by Uber on a month-to-month basis.

24 See Dkt. No. 189-5. Plaintiffs also seek to redact two portions of their reply referencing

25 that information. See Dkt. No. 189-4 at 13. Notably, the information sought to be sealed

26 are merely information derived from Uber’s data reports, not the reports themselves.

27

Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) requires the party designating a document as confidential to

28 “file a declaration as required by [Local Rule] 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the 14

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 193 Filed 09/27/19 Page 15 of 15

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 designated material is sealable” within four days of the filing of the motion to seal. Local

2 Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) further explains that merely “[r]eferenc[ing] a stipulation or protective

3 order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to

4 establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” See also Kamakana v. City &

5 Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (listing grounds establishing

6 “compelling reasons” to seal court files).

7

Plaintiffs filed their motion to seal and served their motion on Uber on August 30,

8 2019. See Dkt. Nos. 189, 191. Because more than four days have passed since Plaintiffs

9 filed their motion and Uber has not filed a declaration explaining why the derived

10 information contained in the exhibits or the reply is confidential, the Court DENIES the

11 administrative motion to seal without prejudice. Plaintiffs must file the documents in the

12 public record by October 11, 2019. See N.D. Cal. Local Rule 79-5(e)(2).

13 IV. Conclusion

14

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs are

15 entitled to $230,592.37 in attorneys’ fees and $685.36 in costs for a total award of

16 $231,277.73. Uber must pay the award within 14 days of this order.

17

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal. Plaintiffs must file the

18 documents in the public record by October 11, 2019.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

21 Dated: September 27, 2019 22

_____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge

23

24

25

26

27

28 15

 </s> Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 1 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE
11 BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

15

Defendant.

16

Case No. 14-cv-04086-NC
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 185, 189

17 In this class action, plaintiffs National Federation of the Blind (“NFIB”) and various

18 disabled individuals accused defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. of failing to accommodate

19 their disabled customers traveling with service animals. In 2016, the parties settled the

20 class action. Plaintiffs now bring their second motion for attorneys’ fees and costs seeking

21 reimbursement for their efforts monitoring Uber’s compliance with the settlement. See

22 Dkt. No. 185. The Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to fees, but certain fees are

23 unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

24 Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

25 I. Procedural History

26

In September 2014, Plaintiffs initiated this class action against Uber alleging

27 discrimination against the blind under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42

28

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 2 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and various California-law analogues. See Dkt. No. 1. The parties

2 settled the case in January 2016 (see Dkt. No. 70; see also Dkt. No. 85-1 (“Settlement”))

3 and the Court granted final approval of the class settlement on December 6, 2016 (see Dkt.

4 No. 139). On December 15, 2016, the Court awarded Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs

5 pursuant to the Settlement. See Dkt. Nos. 139, 144.

6

Plaintiffs now seek additional attorneys’ fees and costs for resources expended in

7 monitoring Uber’s settlement compliance. See Dkt. No. 185. Plaintiffs voluntarily agree

8 to reduce their claimed amount by 5% across the board. See id. at 19.1 Uber opposes,

9 arguing that Plaintiffs are not entitled to additional fees and, even if they were, Plaintiffs’

10 request is unreasonable. See generally Dkt. No. 187.

11 II. Settlement Agreement

12

Certain sections of the Settlement are relevant to this motion. The Court

13 summarizes those portions below.

14

The Settlement requires Uber to “collect and report to Plaintiffs’ Counsel” rating

15 and complaint information for riders with service animals. See Settlement § 6.A. Uber is

16 required to report the raw data for that information to Plaintiffs’ Counsel. Id. § 6.B.1. In

17 addition, if Plaintiffs’ Counsel provides Uber with a documented complaint of

18 discrimination by a rider, Uber is required to verify corresponding data and assign a unique

19 number identifier to the allegedly offending driver. See id. § 6.B.2.

20

NFIB is required to create a “compliance testing program” that uses blind testers

21 with guide dogs using Uber’s UberX service to test compliance. Id. § 6.C. Uber agreed to

22 pay NFIB $225,000 “to support the testing program.” Id. § 11.A. If the Settlement is

23 extended, Uber is required to pay NFIB an additional $75,000 to support the program. See

24 id. §§ 7, 11.A.

25

The Settlement also requires an appointment of a third-party Monitor. See id. § 8.

26 Annually, the Monitor is obligated to “review and analyze” all data collected and reported

27

28

1 All page numbers reference the page numbers automatically generated by ECF unless otherwise indicated.

2

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 3 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 by Uber pursuant to Section 6 of the Settlement, in addition to “any other information

2 provided to the Monitor by the Parties.” Id. The Monitor then reports to the Parties

3 whether Uber substantially complied with the Settlement during the preceding year. Id.

4 The Monitor is also required to “propose . . . further modifications to Uber’s policies,

5 practices, and procedures” if such policies, practices, or procedures were insufficient to

6 address discrimination. Id.

7

Lastly, the Settlement permits Plaintiffs to seek attorneys’ fees and costs incurred

8 up through the effective date of the Settlement. Id. § 11.C. Uber agreed “not to dispute

9 the entitlement to reasonable Attorneys’ Fees incurred up through the Effective Date of

10 [the] Agreement[,]” but reserved the right to dispute the amount of fees requested. Id. For

11 fees and costs related to “work performed after the time the Settlement Agreement is

12 signed by all Parties, including for work spent on compliance monitoring, enforcement,

13 and/or work spent securing their fees[,]” Plaintiffs reserved their rights to pursue such fees,

14 but the Settlement acknowledged that “all issues pertaining to any such attorneys’ fees,

15 costs, and expenses are unresolved . . . .” Id. § 11.C.1. The Parties are required to confer

16 and negotiate as to any fees and costs related to Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s monitoring efforts

17 before petitioning the Court. Id. § 11.C.2.

18

The Court retained jurisdiction. See id. § 12; see also Dkt. No. 145.

19 III. Discussion

20

A. Entitlement to Fees

21

The parties first dispute whether Plaintiffs are entitled to fees. See Dkt. No. 187 at

22 11. According to Uber, the Settlement did not authorize attorneys’ fees for monitoring

23 work and the ADA’s fee-shifting statute does not allow such fees. Id. The Court

24 disagrees.

25

In Prison Legal News v. Scharzenegger, 608 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth

26 Circuit reaffirmed that “a party that prevails by obtaining a consent decree may recover

27 attorneys’ fees under [42 U.S.C.] § 1988 for monitoring compliance with the decree, even

28 when such monitoring does not result in any judicially sanctioned relief.” Prison Legal

3

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 4 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 News, 608 F.3d at 451 (citing Keith v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850, 855–57 (9th Cir. 1987)).

2 Thus, plaintiffs may recover attorneys’ fees for monitoring compliance with a settlement

3 agreement under § 1988. Id. at 452; see also Balla v. Idaho, 677 F.3d 910, 916 (9th Cir.

4 2012) (“[M]onitoring fees not resulting in additional relief are allowable . . . .”).

5

Uber contends that Prison Legal News and its progeny are inapposite because those

6 cases concern a different fee shifting statute. But § 1988 and the ADA’s fee-shifting

7 statute, 42 U.S.C. § 12205, are virtually identical. Compare 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (“the

8 court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee as

9 part of the costs . . . .”) with 42 U.S.C. § 12205 (“the court or agency, in its discretion, may

10 allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee, including litigation expenses,

11 and costs . . . .”). Uber has not identified any principled reason why the Court should

12 interpret the two statutes differently.

13

Moreover, the Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in Pennsylvania v.

14 Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546 (1986). There, the court

15 noted that the fee-shifting provisions of the Clean Air Act and § 1988 served “the common

16 purpose of . . . promot[ing] citizen enforcement of important federal policies,” such that

17 there was “no reason not to interpret both provisions governing attorney’s fees in the same

18 manner.” Id. at 560. The same is true of the ADA’s fee-shifting statute and § 1988. See

19 Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W.V. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598,

20 629–30 (2001) (“the . . . ADA fee-shifting prescriptions [were] modeled on 42 U.S.C.

21 § 1988 unmodified . . . .”), superseded by statute on other grounds.

22

Nor does the language of the Settlement foreclose attorneys’ fees for monitoring

23 work. Rather, the Settlement explicitly acknowledges that “all issues pertaining to” fees,

24 costs, and expenses relating to “work performed after the time the Settlement Agreement is

25 signed . . . including for work spent on compliance monitoring [and] enforcement” was an

26 unresolved issue. See Settlement § 11.C.1.

27

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees

28 incurred in connection with monitoring Uber’s compliance with the Settlement. 4

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 5 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

B. Reasonableness of Fees

2

Uber does not contest the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ claimed costs. See Dkt. No.

3 185 at 27 (requesting costs in the amount of $685.36). Plaintiffs adequately documented

4 those costs and they appear reasonable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’

5 requests for costs in the amount of $685.36.

6

Uber also does not challenge Plaintiffs’ counsels’ claimed rates and the Court

7 previously approved Plaintiffs’ counsels’ rates. See Dkt. No. 144. Although Plaintiffs’

8 counsels rates have increased, the increase is modest and the Court FINDS that Plaintiffs’

9 counsels’ rates remain reasonable. Compare Dkt. No. 142 at 4 with Dkt. No. 185-1 at 21.

10

Instead, Uber challenges five categories of Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees as

11 unnecessary or unreasonable. See Dkt. No. 187 at 14–22. Uber also argues that Plaintiffs’

12 fees should be further reduced due to vague time entries and block billing. Id. at 22–24.

13 The Court will first address each category of contested fees, then turn to Uber’s objections.

14 See Dkt. No. 185-1, Ex. G (summary of claimed fees).

15

1. Work Related to Conferring with Monitor

16

In this category, Plaintiffs claim fees for hours spent (1) analyzing Uber’s data

17 reports and (2) for work related to conferring with the Monitor about those reports. See

18 Dkt. No. 185-1 (“Galvan Decl.”) ¶¶ 42–43. Uber concedes that the hours spent analyzing

19 Uber’s reports are compensable,2 but argues that the hours spent for work relating to

20 conferring with the Monitor was unnecessary. See Dkt. No. 187 at 15–16. According to

21 Uber, such work is not compensable because the Settlement limits Plaintiffs’ counsel’s

22 involvement with the Monitor’s review Uber’s data reports. Id. at 15. Specifically, Uber

23 contends that the Settlement only contemplates review of its reports by Plaintiffs’ counsel

24 and “formal analyses . . . or opining with or conferring with the Monitor about Uber’s data

25 reports” is outside the scope of the Settlement. Id.

26

The Court disagrees. While the Settlement explicitly requires Uber to provide

27

28

2 Uber argues that these hours should be reduced as they were block billed. See Dkt. No. 187 at 16. The Court will address Plaintiffs’ block billing below.

5

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 6 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Plaintiffs’ counsel with data reports for analysis (see Settlement §§ 6.A, 6.B.1), the

2 Settlement does not limit Plaintiffs’ counsel’s involvement to that of a passive observer.

3 Rather, the Settlement requires the Monitor to consider “any other information provided,”

4 suggesting by implication that Plaintiffs’ counsel are permitted to submit their own

5 commentary on Uber’s data reports. Id. § 8. Accordingly, work conducted by Plaintiffs’

6 counsel relating to conferring with the Monitor is generally compensable.

7

However, the fact that the Settlement permits Plaintiffs to supply their own

8 commentary on Uber’s data reports to the Monitor is not a license to bill for wholly

9 unnecessary work that is duplicative of Uber’s reports. See Balla, 677 F.3d at 919 (“[T]he

10 court [must] exercise discretion [to] assure that the case is not being milked by a monitor

11 after the injunction has been obtained, for fees that are unreasonable in amount, for work

12 not reasonably performed to enforce the relief, or for work not directly related to enforcing

13 the relief.”). It is unclear, for example, why Plaintiffs need to draft, review, and submit

14 declarations from individual complaining class members, particularly when there is no

15 indication that Plaintiffs believe Uber’s internal data keeping was inaccurate. See, e.g.,

16 Galvan Decl., Ex. F, pt.1 at 101 (billing over 6 hours at $400 per hour to review or draft

17 class member declarations), 113 (reviewing and drafting various class member

18 declarations). Further, Plaintiffs’ billing records for this category of work contain several

19 vague time entries, some of which have questionable billing value. See, e.g., id. at 147

20 (billing 0.8 hours at $275 per hour for “[m]aking a declaration, cover letter, and report

21 accessible”). Most of the hours, however, appear reasonable.

22

Accordingly, the Court will reduce Plaintiffs’ counsel’s fee for work relating to

23 conferring with the Monitor by 10% in addition to Plaintiffs’ voluntary 5% reduction. The

24 Court will not reduce Plaintiffs’ counsel’s fee for analyzing Uber’s data beyond Plaintiffs’

25 voluntary 5% reduction. Thus, Plaintiffs are entitled to $59,528.90 and $34,143.95 for

26 these two sub-categories of work, respectively.

27

2. Work Related to Communicating with Class Members

28

This category contains three sub-categories of work: (1) communicating with class

6

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 7 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 members to address and respond to discrimination complaints; (2) submitting information

2 requests to Uber pursuant to the Settlement’s process (see Settlement § 6.B.2); and (3)

3 following up with class members who participated in NFIB’s compliance testing program

4 (see id. § 6.C). Uber concedes that the second sub-category of work is compensable but

5 argues that the first and third sub-categories are not. See Dkt. No. 187 at 16.

6

As to the first sub-category of work—communicating with class members to

7 address and respond to discrimination complaints—Uber is correct that Plaintiffs should

8 not be compensated to the extent they are merely creating a parallel complaint

9 investigations process. The Settlement itself already creates a procedure for class

10 members to raise discrimination complaints—a procedure hailed by Plaintiffs as a

11 significant boon for the class. See Dkt. No. 84.

12

This does not mean, however, that Plaintiffs’ counsel is required to sit on their

13 hands and rubber-stamp Uber’s efforts. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s obligations to the class

14 requires them to take an active role in ensuring that the Settlement is working as intended.

15 And communicating with class members regarding Uber’s behavior is the core of

16 monitoring efforts. In Prison Legal News, for example, the Ninth Circuit affirmed

17 attorneys’ fees for “reviewing and responding to letters from [class members] complaining

18 about” the defendants’ failure to comply with the settlement. Prison Legal News, 608 F.3d

19 at 453. The Ninth Circuit noted that “[w]ithout such correspondence [with class

20 members], it would be difficult for [plaintiffs] to discover or document violations of the

21 terms of the settlement.” Id.

22

Upon review of Plaintiffs’ records, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs’

23 communication with class members regarding their discrimination complaints is limited to

24 compiling information relating to their monitoring efforts and does not create a parallel

25 track for investigating complaints.

26

As to the third sub-category of work—communications with class members who

27 participated in NFIB’s compliance testing program—the Court agrees with Uber.

28 Plaintiffs have already been compensated for work related to NFIB’s compliance testing 7

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 8 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 program. Section 11.A of the Settlement requires Uber to pay NFIB $225,000 “to support

2 the testing program.” Such payments naturally encompass fees and costs incurred in

3 reviewing program data or following up with program participants. Plaintiffs may not

4 double-dip for the compliance testing program. Disallowed amounts are listed in the chart

5 below.3 Although some of these entries were coded by Plaintiffs as “Settlement

6 Modifications” work, the Court compiles all disallowed NFIB-related hours here:

7

Page

Date of Claimed Claimed

8

Entry Description

Number of

Entry

Time Amount

9

Entry

10 Prepare final language for message

11 to intakes and NFB testing

2/2/2018 0.40 $216

5

12 participants who reported denials

13 Analysis of NFB testing ride data 2/23/2018 1.10

$385

17

14

Phone call with T Elder re NFB

15

4/2/2018 0.70 $329

26

testing and follow up re same 16

Reviewing Uber NFB testing data 4/2/2018

1.30

$611

26

17

18 Phone call with T Elder and M

19 Nunez regarding additional

9/14/2018 1.00 $470

75

20 information sharing, NFB testing,

21 and next steps

22 Discussing internal next steps with

23 S Seaborn regarding information

9/14/2018 1.00

$470

75

24 sharing and NFB testing

25 Case strategy re NFB testing

9/28/2018 0.10

$47

78

26

27 3 Entries are drawn from Galvan Decl., Ex. F. Page numbers reference those included with

28

the exhibit. Certain entries are block billed. Because the Court is unable to discern how much time was spent on compliance testing issues, block billed entries are disallowed.

8

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 9 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 discussion with S Seaborn

2

3 Preparing outline re NFB testing

9/28/2018 0.50

$235

78

4

Correspondence with co-counsel re 10/1/2018

0.10

$47

78

5 NFB testing

6

Planning NFB testing meeting with 10/2/2018

0.10

$47

78

7 T Elder

8 Strategy telecon with M Riess, T

9 Elder and M Nunez to discuss

10 parameters for random sample

10/5/2018 0.70 $549.50

79

11 compliance testing and consultant

12 support needed for same

13 Attending planning call with SS,

14 MR and MN to discuss compliance

10/5/2018 0.70 $378

79

15 data and position on pool policy

16 change

17 Attend strategy call re next steps re

18 settlement monitoring issues and

10/5/2018 0.70 $367.50

79

19 revising testing program

20 Preparing notes for call regarding

10/5/2018 0.20

$94

79

21 testing and UberPool

22 Phone call with M Nunez, T Elder

23 and S Seaborn regarding testing,

10/5/2018 0.70 $329

79

24 UberPool policy, and complaint

25 intakes

26 Call with consultant re possible

27 changes to testing program, and

10/9/2018 1.60 $840

80

28 call with legal team afterward . . . 9

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 10 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Correspondence with team re

2 meeting re compliance data and

10/11/2018 0.30

$141

82

3 testing

4 Phone call re data and compliance

10/11/2018 1.50 $705

82

5 testing

6 Review class member service

7 issues in NFB tester reports; follow 11/15/2018 0.40

$100

86

8 up re same

9

Review and respond to questions

10

12/14/2018 0.10 $52.50

92

from SJE re NFB testers 11

12 Total Disallowed

$6,413.50

13 Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees for communicating with class
14 members and submitting information requests to Uber less Plaintiffs’ voluntary 5%
15

reduction in fees. This amounts to $66,357.50. 16

17

3. Work Relating to Unwarranted or Abandoned Modifications

In this category, Plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees relating to their efforts to modify the 18

Settlement in three ways: (1) policies relating to Uber’s UberPool service; (2) seeking 19

quarterly data extension; and (3) requesting further data sharing provisions. Plaintiffs also 20

seek attorneys’ fees for work relating to their settlement modification efforts that were not 21

specifically allocated to a single sub-category. See Dkt. No. 185 at 13–14; Dkt. No. 195 at 22
4–5. Uber concedes that the second sub-category of fees relating to quarterly data 23
extensions are compensable. See Dkt. No. 187 at 18, 20. The first and third sub-category, 24
according to Uber, are not compensable because those proposals were unnecessary or not 25
accepted. Id. at 18–19. Uber also argues that Plaintiffs’ records documenting work 26
relating to unspecified settlement modification efforts is too vague and may hide double27
billing. See Dkt. No. 200 at 5–6. 28

10

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 11 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

First, the Court rejects Uber’s argument that those hours are not compensable

2 because the Settlement has been effective. Disallowing monitoring fees because Plaintiffs

3 were successful in negotiating and crafting a successful settlement would be counter-

4 productive. Monitoring fees are permissible so long as they are not unreasonable and are

5 related to enforcing the settlement. See Balla, 677 F.3d at 919.

6

Second, Uber concedes that Plaintiffs’ proposed modifications to its UberPool

7 program and the data sharing provisions of the Settlement have been adopted “in a very

8 limited fashion voluntarily by Uber.” Dkt. No. 187 at 19. But Plaintiffs are not required to

9 achieve complete victory nor were they required to obtain a court order or official

10 modification to be entitled to fees. In Balla, Ninth Circuit affirmed modification fees even

11 though the plaintiffs’ motion to hold the defendant in contempt was denied because

12 plaintiffs’ motion practice “played a key role in resolving” the underlying issue. Balla,

13 677 F.3d at 920 (quotations omitted). The Ninth Circuit noted that “[i]f in a battle to take a

14 hill, the adversary flees instead of fighting to a bloody defeat, the taking of the hill makes

15 the battle a victory.” Id.

16

Here, although they may not have achieved wholesale adoption of these proposals,

17 Plaintiffs achieved at least some success as to their UberPool, quarterly data extension, and

18 further data sharing proposals. Plaintiffs seek fees connected to those proposals. After

19 reviewing Plaintiffs’ records, the billed amounts appear reasonable. Less Plaintiffs’

20 voluntary 5% reduction, Plaintiffs are entitled to $29,324.61 for work related to these three

21 sub-categories.4

22

As to Plaintiffs’ requested fees for unspecified settlement modification work, the

23 Court shares Uber’s concern that counsels’ records are vague. While the Court is not

24 persuaded that Plaintiffs’ counsel double-billed for unspecified settlement modification

25 work related to the three sub-categories discussed in this order, the parties’ submissions

26

27 4 As mentioned in footnote 3, supra, some entries block billed NFIB-testing-program-

28

related work and UberPool work. Because the Court already eliminated those fees—$801 in total—it does not do so again here.

11

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 12 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 make clear that Plaintiffs’ counsel spent time working on settlement modification

2 proposals that ultimately went nowhere. See Galvan Decl. ¶¶ 45–47; Dkt. No. 187-1

3 (“Spurchise Decl.”), Ex. 2. In particular, Plaintiffs proposed modifications to the

4 Settlement’s education provisions in addition to the three sub-categories already discussed.

5 See Spurchise Decl., Ex. 2 at 4. Because it is not clear that the wholly abandoned

6 education proposal played any role in their overarching settlement modification efforts,

7 hours expended relating to that proposal is not compensable. Cf. Balla, 677 F.3d at 920

8 (fees expended on efforts that “play[] a key role” are compensable).

9

Accordingly, the Court will reduce Plaintiffs’ counsel’s fee for work relating to

10 unspecified settlement modification work by 20% in addition to Plaintiffs’ voluntary 5%

11 reduction. This amounts to $44,689.90 in fees for unspecified settlement modification

12 work. In total, Plaintiffs are entitled to $74,014.51 for work relating to their settlement

13 modification efforts.

14

4. Other Direct Monitoring Work

15

This category of work includes (1) responding to inquiries from the United States

16 Department of Justice regarding the Settlement; (2) investigating Uber’s filings with the

17 California Public Utilities Commission, arbitrations of service animal issues, and other

18 similar developments; (3) corresponding with Uber to verify compliance with Settlement

19 requirements; and (4) conferring with a consultant regarding evaluating the efficacy of the

20 Settlement at reducing discrimination against class members.

21

Here, Uber simply argues that this work is not compensable because these tasks

22 were “[too] attenuated” from the Settlement. Dkt. No. 185 at 21. The Court is not

23 convinced. Corresponding with and investigating actions taken by regulatory bodies

24 responsible for discrimination complaints is well within the scope of monitoring

25 compliance with a discrimination-related settlement. Likewise, Plaintiffs are entitled to

26 reasonable consultant fees to evaluate whether the Settlement is working as intended.

27

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees for their direct monitoring

28 work less their voluntary 5% reduction in fees. This amounts to $13,130.90. 12

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 13 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

5. Fees Relating to Plaintiffs’ Unfiled Attorneys’ Fee Motion

2

The next category of fees relates to work expended by Plaintiffs’ counsel on an

3 unfiled fees motion. In March 2018, the parties began negotiating Plaintiffs’ counsel’s

4 attorneys’ fees for work conducted in 2017. See Galvan Decl. ¶¶ 64–70; Spurchise Decl.

5 ¶¶ 4–5. Under the Settlement, the parties are required to negotiate such fees within 60

6 days before seeking Court intervention. See Settlement § 11.C.2. The parties initially

7 failed to come to an agreement within the 60-day limit, but ultimately settled the dispute

8 by July 2, 2018. See Galvan Decl. ¶¶ 67–69; Spurchise Decl. ¶¶ 4–5. The fees motion

9 was thus never filed.

10

Given the Settlement’s requirement that the parties negotiate their fees dispute, it

11 was unreasonable for Plaintiffs to bill for hours preparing a fee motion prior to April 30,

12 2018—the end of the 60-day negotiation period. Once it became clear that no settlement

13 was forthcoming, however, Plaintiffs were entitled to begin preparing their fees motion

14 and are entitled to fees for time spent accordingly. Thus, the Court disallows all fees billed

15 prior to April 30, 2018, less Plaintiffs’ voluntary 5% reduction. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are

16 entitled to $4,393.75 in fees and costs for their unfiled fees motion. See Galvan Decl., Ex.

17 F, pt. 2 at 7–12.

18

6. Fees Relating to This Fees Motion

19

Finally, Plaintiffs request fees for preparing the instant fees motion. Plaintiffs

20 request $64,019.25 for hours worked from May 14, 2019—the last day of the parties’

21 negotiation period—to August 25, 2019. See Dkt. No. 190 at 20. After being given an

22 opportunity to respond, Uber did not oppose Plaintiffs’ request for fees relating to the

23 instant fees motion. See Dkt. Nos. 199, 200.

24

Reviewing Plaintiffs’ records (see Dkt. No. 190-1 at 24–29), the requested hours are

25 well documented and appear reasonable. Accordingly, after accounting for Plaintiffs’

26 voluntary reductions, Plaintiffs are entitled to $64,019.25 in fees relating to this fees

27 motion.

28 / / / 13

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 14 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

7. Specific Challenges to Hours

2

Uber challenges 13.2 hours as unduly vague and an additional 137.7 hours for

3 impermissible block billing.5 The Court first addresses Uber’s vagueness challenges

4 before turning to the alleged block-billed hours.

5

When submitting entries for attorneys’ fee awards, attorneys are “not required to

6 record in great detail how each minute of [their] time was expended.” Hensley v.

7 Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 n.12 (1983). Attorneys need only “keep records in sufficient

8 detail that a neutral judge can make a fair evaluation of the time expended, the nature and

9 need for the service, and the reasonable fees to be allowed.” Id. at 441 (Burger, C.J.,

10 concurring); United Steelworkers of Am. v. Ret. Income Plan For Hourly-Rated Employees

11 of ASARCO, Inc., 512 F.3d 555, 565 (9th Cir. 2008).

12

The Court reviewed the entries Uber identified as vague. See Dkt. No. 187-6. It

13 agrees as to the following entries:

14

Date of

Claimed

Claimed

Entry Description

15

Entry

Time

Amount

16 Team phone call

1/8/2018

1.60

17 Correspondence regarding

18 proposed changes to settlement

1/17/2018

0.10

19 Phone call with D. Kouniaris

1/19/2018

0.30

20 Correspondence re meeting and

21 conferring

1/25/2018

0.10

22 Prepare Declaration and Exhibit

2/25/2018

0.90

23 Team pre-meet and confer phone

24 call

4/23/2018

1.00

25

$752 $47 $141 $47 $315 $470

26

27

5 In accompanying exhibits, Uber appears to argue that certain of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s billed hours were duplicative or clerical work in disguise. See Spurchise Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex.

28

3. Uber’s opposition, however, does not challenge those hours. And, in any case, review of those entries does not suggest that they are duplicative or clerical.

14

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 15 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Drafting declaration and gathering

6/5/2018

1.60

2 exhibits

$752

3 Discuss next steps with team

10/11/2018

0.30

$105

4 Preparing for team call

10/18/2018

0.30

$141

5 Make stipulation accessible at the

6 request of M. Riess

12/18/2018

0.20

7

Total 8

$55 $2,825

9

“Block billing” is “the time-keeping method by which each lawyer and legal

10 assistant enters the total daily time spent working on a case, rather than itemizing the time

11 expended on specific tasks.” Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.

12 2007). Block billing is not per se unreasonable and “has been accepted in this district.”

13 PQ Labs, Inc. v. Qi, No. 12-cv-00450 CW, 2015 WL 224970, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16,

14 2015) (citing Stonebrae, L.P. v. Toll Bros., Inc., No. 08-cv-00221 EMC, 2011 WL

15 1334444, at *8 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 7, 2011) (“Block-billing is a typical practice in this district,

16 and blocked-bills have been found to provide a sufficient basis for calculating a fee

17 award.”)). However, the block-billing party seeking fees must still meet the basic

18 requirements of “listing his hours and identifying the general subject matter of his time

19 expenditures.” Garcia v. Resurgent Capital Servs., L.P., No. 11-cv-01253 EMC, 2012 WL

20 3778852, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

21 Otherwise, the trial court may reduce or outright deny the award. Fischer v. SJN-P.D. Inc.,

22 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000).

23

Here, the Court finds that the alleged block-billed entries “contain enough

24 specificity as to individual tasks to ascertain whether the amount of time spent performing

25 them was reasonable.” Garcia, 2012 WL 3778852, at *8. Because the block-billed entries

26 are adequately detailed to permit the Court to assess the reasonableness of hours expended,

27 the Court finds that plaintiffs’ counsel have sufficiently documented their hours; no

28 reduction is necessary on this basis.

15

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 16 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

C. Motion to Seal

2

Plaintiffs move to seal two exhibits containing a chart and graph detailing the

3 number of service-animal-related complaints received by Uber on a month-to-month basis.

4 See Dkt. No. 189-5. Plaintiffs also seek to redact two portions of their reply referencing

5 that information. See Dkt. No. 189-4 at 13. Notably, the information sought to be sealed

6 are merely information derived from Uber’s data reports, not the reports themselves.

7

Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) requires the party designating a document as confidential to

8 “file a declaration as required by [Local Rule] 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the

9 designated material is sealable” within four days of the filing of the motion to seal. Local

10 Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) further explains that merely “[r]eferenc[ing] a stipulation or protective

11 order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to

12 establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” See also Kamakana v. City &

13 Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (listing grounds establishing

14 “compelling reasons” to seal court files).

15

Plaintiffs filed their motion to seal and served their motion on Uber on August 30,

16 2019. See Dkt. Nos. 189, 191. Because more than four days have passed since Plaintiffs

17 filed their motion and Uber has not filed a declaration explaining why the derived

18 information contained in the exhibits or the reply is confidential, the Court DENIES the

19 administrative motion to seal without prejudice. Plaintiffs must file the documents in the

20 public record by October 11, 2019. See N.D. Cal. Local Rule 79-5(e)(2).

21 IV. Conclusion

22

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs are

23 entitled to $312,763.76 in attorneys’ fees and $685.36 in costs for a total award of

24 $313,449.12. Uber must pay the award within 14 days of this order.

25

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal. Plaintiffs must file the

26 documents in the public record by October 11, 2019.

27 / / /

28 / / / 16

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 203 Filed 11/08/19 Page 17 of 17

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

3 Dated: November 8, 2019

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

_____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge
17

 </s> Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 213 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 5

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE
11 BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

15

Defendant.

16

Case No. 14-cv-04086-NC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE COURT’S JURISDICTION AND MODIFY SETTLEMENT; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 204, 205

17

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal and motion to modify

18 the parties’ settlement agreement. See Dkt. Nos. 204, 205. Plaintiffs request that the Court

19 extend its jurisdiction over the parties’ agreement and impose additional policies and

20 practices on Uber to curb its alleged discrimination against the visually impaired. Because

21 the parties’ agreement does not allow the modification Plaintiffs seek, the Court DENIES

22 Plaintiffs’ motion.

23 I. Background

24

In April 2016, plaintiffs National Federation of the Blind, its California affiliate,

25 and various individuals settled this lawsuit with defendant Uber Technologies. See Dkt.

26 Nos. 84, 85-1 (“Settlement”). The Settlement required Uber to adopt various policies and

27 practices designed to reduce or eliminate discrimination against visually impaired

28 customers who required the use of service animals. Id.

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 213 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 5

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

As relevant here, the Settlement provided for the Court’s continued jurisdiction over

2 the term of the agreement, but permitted the parties to extend that term and modify the

3 agreement under certain conditions. Specifically, the Settlement was set to last for three

4 and a half years. See id. §§ 1, 7. During that period, the Settlement provided that an

5 independent Monitor would review and analyze data reports provided by Uber to

6 determine whether the Settlement was effective. Id. § 8.A. The Monitor was required to

7 issue annual reports and, if the Settlement was ineffective, propose further policies or

8 practices that may improve access for the visually impaired to Uber’s services. Id. If the

9 Monitor proposed such additions, the parties were required to meet and confer to negotiate

10 whether to modify the Settlement. Id. § 8.B; see also § 10 (dispute resolution procedure).

11 Likewise, if the Monitor determined that Uber had not substantially complied with the

12 terms of the Settlement, the term would be extended to five years. Id. § 7.

13

Plaintiffs now seek extension of the Court’s jurisdiction over and modification of

14 the Settlement. See Dkt. No. 205. Uber opposes any such modification. See Dkt. No.

15 210.

16 II. Discussion

17

Settlement agreements, including the one at issue, are contracts overseen and

18 enforced by the Court. Cf. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381

19 (1994) (describing settlement agreements as “settlement contracts”). Courts are generally

20 not permitted to rewrite or modify settlement terms unless permitted by the terms of the

21 settlement itself. See Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 758 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Holmes

22 v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144, 1160 (11th Cir. 1983)).

23

Here, one of the terms of the Settlement is the duration of the agreement—three and

24 a half years. See Settlement §§ 1, 7. Another is a specific provision that would allow for

25 extending the settlement term or modifying the settlement itself. Specifically, the

26 Settlement provides that “if the Parties agree or the Monitor determines that there has not

27 been substantial compliance by Uber with the terms of the Agreement for years two and/or

28 three, the term shall extend to five years . . . .” Id. § 7. Likewise, if the Monitor 2

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 213 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 5

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 determines “that Uber’s practices, policies, and procedures are insufficient to address

2 discrimination because of Service Animals, the Monitor shall propose to the Parties further

3 modifications to Uber’s policies, practices, and procedures.” Id. § 8.A. Then, the parties

4 may meet and confer, using the dispute resolution procedure outlined in the Settlement if

5 necessary, to determine whether modifications are necessary. Id. §§ 8.B, 10.

6

Here, Plaintiffs have not satisfied those terms and have not shown an equitable basis

7 to extend the settlement. First, the Monitor has not recommended extension or

8 modification. And second, even if the Monitor and Plaintiffs were prevented from

9 completing compliance reports in years two and three, Plaintiffs have not shown that Uber

10 is not in “substantial compliance” with the terms of the Settlement. Indeed, Plaintiffs do

11 not allege that Uber failed to comply with the terms of the Settlement, but simply complain

12 that service animal discrimination remains pervasive. But Plaintiffs’ data suggests that

13 Uber has in fact decreased the instances of discrimination, albeit only slightly. See, e.g.,

14 Dkt. No. 205 at 12. Plaintiffs, of course, could file a new lawsuit to address such

15 discrimination if there is a basis to do so.

16

Because none of the grounds for extending or modifying the Settlement have been

17 met, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the Court’s jurisdiction and to modify

18 the Settlement.

19 III. Administrative Motion to Seal

20

There is a presumption of public access to judicial records and documents. Nixon v.

21 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Access to motions and their

22 attachments motions and records that are only tangentially related to the merits of the case

23 may be sealed for “good cause.” Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092,

24 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). The “‘good cause’ standard presents a lower burden for the party

25 wishing to seal documents than the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Pintos v. Pac.

26 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). To satisfy good cause, the party

27 wishing to seal documents must make a “particularized showing” of harm. See Kamakana

28 v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Foltz v. State 3

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 213 Filed 07/15/20 Page 4 of 5

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003) (“good cause” requires the

2 party to show “that specific prejudice or harm will result”). “Broad allegations of harm,

3 unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c)

4 test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal

5 quotation marks and citation omitted).

6

Here, Plaintiffs seek to seal several exhibits to its motion to extend and modify the

7 Settlement because Uber has designated those documents as confidential. See Dkt. No.

8 204. According to Uber, portions of those exhibits contain nonpublic, precise data

9 regarding the number of service animal denial complaints received by Uber and its

10 investigation of those complaints. Uber also contends that, should that information be

11 made public, it could easily mislead the public based on improper comparisons to its

12 competitors, none of whom publicly release similar reports regarding service animal denial

13 complaints. See Dkt. No. 207 at 6.

14

Because the precise data contained within some of the exhibits are only tangentially

15 related to the merits of the case and could be used for an improper purpose, the Court

16 GRANTS Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal Exhibit A to the Declaration of Valerie

17 Yingling and Exhibits 7, 11, and 19 to the Declaration of Melissa Riess.

18

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal Exhibits 13, 15, and 17

19 to the Declaration of Melissa Riess because those exhibits do not contain any sensitive

20 non-public data.

21 IV. Conclusion

22

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the Court’s jurisdiction and to

23 modify the parties’ settlement agreement.

24

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal as to Exhibit A of the

25 Declaration of Valerie Yingling and Exhibits 7, 11, and 19 to the Declaration of Melissa

26 Riess. The Court otherwise DENIES the motion as to Exhibits 13, 15, and 17 to the

27 Declaration of Melissa Riess. Plaintiff must file unredacted versions of Exhibits 13, 15,

28 and 17 to the Declaration of Melissa Riess by July 29, 2020. 4

Case 3:14-cv-04086-NC Document 213 Filed 07/15/20 Page 5 of 5

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

3 Dated: July 15, 2020

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

_____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge
5

 </s> Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 1 of 25
CLOSED,CONSENT,PRVADR
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:14−cv−04086−NC

National Federation of the Blind of California et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins Case in other court: US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit,
17015032 Cause: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/09/2014 Date Terminated: 12/15/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 446 American with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

National Federation of the Blind of California

represented by Laurence Wayne Paradis Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, 3rd Floor Berkeley, CA 94704−1204 510−665−8644 Fax: 510−665−8511 Email: larryp@dralegal.org TERMINATED: 08/08/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary−Lee Kimber Smith Disability RIghts Advocates 2001 Center Street Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−665−8644 x 114 Fax: 510−665−8511 Email: mkimber@dralegal.org TERMINATED: 12/05/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aaron Bernell Zisser Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 United Sta (510)665−8644 Fax: (510)665−8511 Email: aaronzisser@gmail.com TERMINATED: 06/02/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cara Elizabeth Trapani Rosen Bien Galvan Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105−1738 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: ctrapani@rbgg.com TERMINATED: 03/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ernest James Galvan Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105−1738 (415) 433−6830 Email: egalvan@rbgg.com

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 2 of 25

Plaintiff Michael Hingson

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Zoog Marks Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 510−665−8644 Fax: 510−665−8511 Email: juliam@advanceinjustice−alc.org TERMINATED: 07/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Riess Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center St. Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704−1204 5106658644 Fax: 5106658511 Email: mriess@dralegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105−1738 415−433−6830 Fax: 415−433−7104 Email: mbien@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Nunez Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP 101 Mission Street Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 433−6830 Fax: (415) 433−7104 Email: mnunez@rbgg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart John Seaborn Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, 4th Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 665−8644 Fax: (510) 665−8511 Email: sseaborn@dralegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Ryan Elder TRE Legal Practice 1155 Market Street 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 873−9199 Fax: (415) 952−9898 Email: telder@trelegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Laurence Wayne Paradis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/08/2016

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 3 of 25

Plaintiff Michael Kelly

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron Bernell Zisser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cara Elizabeth Trapani (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Zoog Marks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Riess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Nunez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart John Seaborn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Ryan Elder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron Bernell Zisser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cara Elizabeth Trapani (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 4 of 25

Plaintiff Michael Pedersen

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Zoog Marks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Riess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Nunez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart John Seaborn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Ryan Elder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aaron Bernell Zisser (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cara Elizabeth Trapani (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Zoog Marks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Riess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Nunez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 5 of 25

Plaintiff National Federation of the Blind
V. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.

Stuart John Seaborn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Ryan Elder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/05/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cara Elizabeth Trapani (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ernest James Galvan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Riess (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael William Bien (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Nunez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart John Seaborn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy Ryan Elder (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Zoog Marks (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alice Hsiu−Wen Wang Littler Mendelson, P.C. 333 Bush Street 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415−433−1940 Email: awang@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Michael Spurchise

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 6 of 25

Defendant Rasier, LLC TERMINATED: 07/14/2016
Defendant Rasier−CA, LLC TERMINATED: 07/14/2016
Amicus United States of America

Littler Mendelson, P.C. 900 Third Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 212−583−2684 Fax: 212−832−2719 Email: aspurchise@littler.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Erin O'Connor Littler Mendelson, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415−433−1940 Fax: 415−399−8490 Email: eoconnor@littler.com TERMINATED: 03/18/2019
represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Erin O'Connor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Emily Erin O'Connor (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Sara Winslow United States Attorney's Office Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue 9th Floor, Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102 415/436−6925 Fax: 415/436−6748 Email: sara.winslow@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/09/2014
09/09/2014 09/09/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Uber Technologies, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971−8906166.). Filed byNational Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Hingson. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 9/9/2014) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
2 Proposed Summons. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 9/9/2014) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins.
Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E−Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 7 of 25

09/11/2014 09/11/2014 09/23/2014 09/25/2014 10/09/2014 10/22/2014
10/22/2014 10/23/2014 10/23/2014 10/24/2014 10/24/2014 11/03/2014
11/04/2014 11/12/2014

Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5−1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (ha, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2014) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
4 Summons Issued as to Uber Technologies, Inc.. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2014) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
5 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order for Cases Asserting Denial of Right of Access under Americans with Disabilities Act. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2014) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
6 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Michael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind of California.. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 9/23/2014) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Michael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind of California re 4 Summons Issued, 1 Complaint, 5 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order − ADA Case (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 9/25/2014) (Entered: 09/25/2014)
8 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 10/9/2014) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
9 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 12/3/2014 01:00 PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Responses due by 11/5/2014. Replies due by 11/12/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael Colman in Support of Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss)(Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 10/22/2014) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
10 Request for Judicial Notice re 9 MOTION to Dismiss filed byUber Technologies, Inc.. (Related document(s) 9 ) (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 10/22/2014) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
11 Certificate of Interested Entities by Uber Technologies, Inc. (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 10/23/2014) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
12 Statement Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.'s Corporate Disclosure Statement by Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 10/23/2014) (Entered: 10/23/2014)
13 CLERK'S NOTICE REGARDING Consent or Declination: Defendant must file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge by 10/30/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Consent/Declination) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2014) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
14 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Uber Technologies, Inc... (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 10/24/2014) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
15 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO SET SCHEDULE FOR FILING OF PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Michael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind of California. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael Nunez)(Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 11/3/2014) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
16 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION to set schedule for filing of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 15 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2014) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
17 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filed byNational Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Hingson, Michael S. Kelly, Michael M. Pedersen. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 11/12/2014) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 8 of 25

11/12/2014 11/13/2014 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 12/03/2014 12/03/2014 12/03/2014 12/03/2014
12/12/2014 12/12/2014 12/17/2014 12/23/2014 12/24/2014 01/20/2015
01/26/2015
01/26/2015

18 Proposed Summons. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 11/12/2014) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
19 Summons Issued as to Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2014) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen re 19 Summons Issued, 17 Amended Complaint for Rasier, LLC (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 11/18/2014) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen re 19 Summons Issued, 17 Amended Complaint for Rasier−CA, LLC (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 11/18/2014) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
22 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC.. (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 12/3/2014) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
23 Certificate of Interested Entities by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 12/3/2014) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
24 Statement of Corporate Disclosure by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC. (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 12/3/2014) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
25 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint and/or for a More Definite Statement filed by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 2/5/2015 01:00 PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Responses due by 12/17/2014. Replies due by 12/24/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael Colman, # 2 Request for Judicial Notice, # 3 Proposed Order)(Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 12/3/2014) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
26 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER CHANGING INITIAL DISCLOSURE AND JOINT INSPECTION DEADLINES filed by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 12/12/2014) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
27 Order by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins granting 26 Stipulation.(nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2014) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
28 RESPONSE (re 25 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint and/or for a More Definite Statement ) filed byMichael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 12/17/2014) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
29 Statement of Interest by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Winslow, Sara) (Filed on 12/23/2014) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
30 REPLY (re 25 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint and/or for a More Definite Statement ) to Plaintiffs' Opposition filed byRasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 12/24/2014) (Entered: 12/24/2014)
31 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint and/or for a More Definite Statement 25 . Hearing set for 2/11/2015 01:00 PM in Courtroom 7, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. This is a text−only entry generated by the Court. There is no document associated with this notice. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2015) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
32 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue the Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael Nunez)(Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 1/26/2015) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
33 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING 32 . Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint 25 set for 3/3/2015 01:00 PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 1/26/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2015)

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 9 of 25

01/28/2015 03/03/2015
03/18/2015 04/17/2015 04/17/2015 04/21/2015
04/27/2015 04/28/2015
04/29/2015 05/01/2015 05/04/2015 05/04/2015 05/24/2015
05/27/2015

(Entered: 01/26/2015)
34 Letter from Michael Nunez Letter of Supplemental Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 1/28/2015) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
35 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins: Hearing held on 3/3/2015 re Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint and/or for More Definite Statement 25 . Court takes motion under submission. Plaintiffs' Attorneys Timothy Elder, Laurence Paradis, Michael Nunez. Defendants' Attorneys Andrew Spurchise, Emily O'Connor. (Court Reporter Katherine Sullivan) This is a text only Minute Entry. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/3/2015) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
36 NOTICE of Appearance by Julia Zoog Marks (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 3/18/2015) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
37 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 25 . Defendants have 14 days to answer the complaint. Case Management Conference set for 6/3/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2015) (Entered: 04/17/2015)
Set Hearing re Order 37 : Case Management Conference set for 6/3/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Parties may participate by telephone by contacting the Courtroom Deputy in advance at 408.535.5343. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2015) (Entered: 04/17/2015)
38 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for attorney Aaron Zisser ( Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971−9458712.) filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Zisser, Aaron) (Filed on 4/21/2015) Modified text to add attorney's name on 4/22/2015 (srmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/2015)
39 ORDER DENYING PRO HAC VICE REQUEST OF AARON ZISSER, Re: Dkt. No. 38 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2015) (Entered: 04/27/2015)
40 Amended MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for attorney Aaron B. Zisser ( Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 0971−9458712.) Filing fee previously paid on 04/21/2015 filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration DECLARATION OF AARON B. ZISSER IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE)(Zisser, Aaron) (Filed on 4/28/2015) Modified text to add attorney's name on 4/29/2015 (srmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/28/2015)
41 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION for Admission of Attorney Aaron B. Zisser Pro Hac Vice 40 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2015) (Entered: 04/29/2015)
42 Defendants' ANSWER to Amended Complaint byRasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 5/1/2015) (Entered: 05/01/2015)
43 NOTICE of Change of Address by Michael S Nunez (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 5/4/2015) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
44 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael William Bien (Bien, Michael) (Filed on 5/4/2015) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
45 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING the Case Management Conference set for 6/3/2015 10:00 AM to be held in Courtroom 7, 4th Floor, San Jose, before Judge Nathanael Cousins. Counsel may participate by telephone and must provide contact numbers in their case management statement due 5/27/2015. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this notice). (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2015) (Entered: 05/24/2015)
46 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Marks, Julia) (Filed on 5/27/2015) (Entered: 05/27/2015)

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 10 of 25

05/27/2015
06/02/2015 07/14/2015 07/29/2015 07/30/2015 08/12/2015 08/13/2015
09/23/2015 09/24/2015 09/24/2015
10/28/2015
10/28/2015 10/28/2015

47 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO SUBSTITUTE PRIVATE MEDIATION AND CONTINUE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 46 . Case Management Conference set for 8/5/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 5/27/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2015) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
48 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Julia Zoog Marks (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 6/2/2015) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
49 Certificate of Interested Entities by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 7/14/2015) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
50 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 7/29/2015) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
51 SCHEDULING ORDER. The 8/5/2015 Case Management Conference is continued to 8/19/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Updated CMC Statements due 8/12/2105. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 7/30/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2015) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
52 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Updated Joint Statement filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 8/12/2015) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
53 SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Conference set for 8/19/2015 is continued to 9/30/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 4th Floor, San Jose. Parties may participate by telephone. Updated Case Management Statement due by 9/23/2015. Pretrial Conference set for 4/6/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Jury Trial set for 4/18/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 8/13/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2015) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
54 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 9/23/2015) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
55 NOTICE of Change of Address by Michael S Nunez (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 9/24/2015) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
56 SUPPLEMENTAL CASE SCHEDULING ORDER; RESETTING CMC FROM SEPTEMBER 30 TO NOVEMBER 4, re 53 . Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 9/24/2015. **Further Case Management Conference set for 11/4/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Updated CMC statement due 10/28/2015.** (sms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2015) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
57 Docketed in Error; Please see document number 58 for correction. STIPULATION Updated Joint Case Management Statement filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 10/28/2015) Modified on 10/28/2015 (srnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/28/2015)
58 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Updated − CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 5 7 filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 10/28/2015) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
59 CLERK'S NOTICE: The Court thanks the parties for their updated CMC statement. Seeing no disputed issues, the Court is inclined to vacate the Nov. 4 CMC and also to set a further CMC for Jan. 13, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., in San Jose Courtroom 7. Updated CMC statements due Jan. 6, 2016. Telephonic participation permitted upon request. If any party wishes to keep the Nov. 4 CMC on calendar, please notify opposing counsel and the Courtroom Deputy at 408.535.5343 by noon on Oct. 30. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this notice.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2015) (Entered: 10/28/2015)

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 11 of 25

11/02/2015 11/12/2015 11/19/2015 11/19/2015 12/15/2015 12/16/2015 01/06/2016 01/12/2016 01/12/2016 01/13/2016
01/22/2016 01/22/2016
01/22/2016

60 CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING the Case Management Conference set for 11/4/2015 10:00 AM. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this notice.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2015) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
61 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING Case Management Conference for 1/13/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 4th Floor, San Jose. Case Management Statement due by 1/6/2016. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this notice.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2015) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
62 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER AND FRE 502(D) AND (E) CLAWBACK ORDER filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 11/19/2015) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
63 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FRE 502(d) AND (e) CLAWBACK ORDER re: 62 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 11/19/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2015) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
64 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Marks, Julia) (Filed on 12/15/2015) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
65 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINES 64 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2015) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
66 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT UPDATED filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 1/6/2016) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
67 MOTION to Appear by Telephone filed by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 1/12/2016) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
68 ORDER GRANTING Motion to Appear by Telephone filed by defendants 67 . Counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at 408.535.5343 to provide a direct dial number for this appearance. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2016) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
69 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins: Further Case Management Conference held on 1/13/2016; case schedule remains in place. Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Timothy Elder, Michael Nunez. Defendant's Attorney: Andrew Spurchise. (FTR Time 10:08am − 10:13am.) This is a text only Minute Entry. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/13/2016) Modified on 2/13/2017: Matter transcribed by Kelly Polvi. (rjdS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/2016)
70 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Vacate Deadlines and Dates filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 1/22/2016) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
71 Order granting in part and denying in part 70 Stipulation entered by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. In light of the anticipated motion for preliminary approval of settlement, the Court VACATES the remaining case deadlines and RESETS the pretrial conference to June 1, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., in San Francisco, and the trial to June 13, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. in San Francisco. The motion for settlement approval must be filed by March 25, 2016. In addition, by February 29, 2016, the parties must file a joint status update. If a motion for settlement approval has not been filed by the deadline, then the Court will hold a case management conference on March 30, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. in San Jose. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report due by 2/29/2016. Motion for settlement approval due by 3/25/2016. Pretrial Conference reset to 6/1/2016 02:00 PM. Jury Trial set for 6/13/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2016)

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 12 of 25

02/26/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 03/24/2016 04/04/2016 04/04/2016 04/04/2016 04/05/2016 04/06/2016
04/20/2016
04/29/2016

(Entered: 01/25/2016)
72 STATUS REPORT by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 2/26/2016) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
73 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend the Deadline for Filing Motion for Approval of Settlement filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration J. Marks Declaration in Supp. of Stipulation to Extend Time)(Marks, Julia) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
74 Order granting 73 Stipulation entered by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
Reset Hearing re Order on Stipulation 74 : Further Case Management Conference set for 4/6/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom 7, 4th Floor, San Jose. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2016) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
75 CLERK'S NOTICE: Parties to file a joint case management statement by 4/5/2016. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2016) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
76 MOTION to Appear by Telephone filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 4/4/2016) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
77 ORDER GRANTING Motion to Appear by Telephone filed by Uber Technologies, Inc. 76 . Counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at 408.535.5343 to provide a direct dial number for this appearance and be available beginning at 10:00 a.m. until called by the Court. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2016) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
78 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 4/5/2016) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
79 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Further Case Management Conference held on 4/6/2016: Parties to file motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by 4/13/2016; If no motion is filed, a telephonic case management conference will be held on 4/20/2016 10:00 AM. Plaintiffs' Attorney: Timothy Elder. Defendants' Attorney: Andrew Spurchise. (FTR Time 10:24am − 10:31am.) This is a text only Minute Entry. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/6/2016) Modified on 2/13/2017: Matter transcribed by Kelly Polvi. (rjdS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/06/2016)
80 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Further Case Management Conference held on 4/20/2016: Parties to file motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by 4/27/2016; If no motion is filed, parties are to submit by 4/29, a joint filing of their proposal for discovery, pretrial deadlines and trial, and include any disputed discovery issues. Further Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 5/4/2016 10:00 AM. Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Michael Nunez, Tim Elder. Defendant's Attorney Emily O'Connor. (FTR Time 10:07am − 10:21am.) This is a text only Minute Entry. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/20/2016). Modified on 2/13/2017: Matter transcribed by Kelly Polvi. (rjdS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2016)
81 Joint ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION, Stipulation, and Propoosed Order to Exceed Page Limitations for the Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. Responses due by 5/3/2016. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 13 of 25

04/29/2016 04/29/2016 04/29/2016
04/29/2016
04/29/2016 04/29/2016 04/29/2016 04/29/2016 04/29/2016 04/29/2016 05/03/2016
05/09/2016 05/11/2016

on 4/29/2016) Modified on 5/2/2016 (srnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/29/2016)
82 Order granting 81 Administrative Motion to Exceed page limit entered by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
83 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO VACATE DEADLINES filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 4/29/2016) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
84 Joint MOTION for Settlement filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. Motion Hearing set for 6/8/2016 01:00 PM in Courtroom 7, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Responses due by 5/13/2016. Replies due by 5/20/2016. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 4/29/2016) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
85 Declaration of Laurence Paradis in Support of 84 Joint MOTION for Settlement filed byMichael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Related document(s) 84 ) (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 4/29/2016) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
86 Declaration of Mark Riccobono in Support of 84 Joint MOTION for Settlement filed byMichael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Related document(s) 84 ) (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 4/29/2016) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
87 Declaration of Mary Willows in Support of 84 Joint MOTION for Settlement filed byMichael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Related document(s) 84 ) (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 4/29/2016) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
88 Declaration of Michael Hingson in Support of 84 Joint MOTION for Settlement filed byMichael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Related document(s) 84 ) (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 4/29/2016) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
89 Declaration of Michael Pedersen in Support of 84 Joint MOTION for Settlement filed byMichael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Related document(s) 84 ) (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 4/29/2016) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
90 Declaration of Michael Kelly in Support of 84 Joint MOTION for Settlement filed byMichael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Related document(s) 84 ) (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 4/29/2016) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
91 Order granting 83 Stipulation entered by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
92 CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING the Case Management Conference set for 5/4/2016. Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval for Class Settlement 84 is rescheduled to 6/15/2016 01:00 PM in Courtroom 7, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2016) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
93 ORDER REQUESTING AMICUS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO RESPOND TO SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 5/9/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2016) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
94 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING MOTION HEARING. Joint Motion for Settlement 84 set for 6/16/2016 01:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2016) (Entered: 05/11/2016)

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 14 of 25

05/23/2016 06/02/2016 06/07/2016 06/07/2016 06/15/2016 06/16/2016
06/23/2016 06/23/2016 06/23/2016 06/23/2016 06/27/2016 06/28/2016 06/28/2016

95 Declaration of Laurence Paradis filed byMichael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Marks, Julia) (Filed on 5/23/2016) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
96 NOTICE by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE AT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL HEARING (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 6/2/2016) (Entered: 06/02/2016)
97 COMMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Winslow, Sara) (Filed on 6/7/2016) Modified on 6/8/2016 (bwS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/07/2016)
98 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST for Telephonic Appearance at Preliminary Approval Hearing set for 6/16/2016 96 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 6/7/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2016) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
99 CLERK'S NOTICE: Hearing re Joint Motion for Settlement scheduled for 6/16/2016 01:00 PM will be held in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Judge Cousins. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2016) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
100 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Hearing held on 6/16/2016 re Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement 84 : Court takes motion under submission; By 6/23, parties to submit further briefing on topics outlined by court; Final approval hearing set for 11/10/2016 10:00 AM in San Francisco; Parties should submit updated schedule of future dates. Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Laurence Paradis, Michael Nunez, Timothy Elder. Defendant's Attorneys: John C. Fish, Jr., Emily O'Connor. Court Reporter Katherine Sullivan. (Total Time in Court: 51 minutes.) This is a text only Minute Entry. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/16/2016) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
101 Supplemental Brief re 84 Joint MOTION for Settlement filed byMichael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Related document(s) 84 ) (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 6/23/2016) (Entered: 06/23/2016)
102 Declaration of Julia Marks in Support of 84 Joint MOTION for Settlement Supplemental Briefing filed byMichael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Related document(s) 84 ) (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 6/23/2016) (Entered: 06/23/2016)
103 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE FURTHER BRIEFING RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL MOTION (JOINT) filed by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 6/23/2016) (Entered: 06/23/2016)
104 Order granting 103 Stipulation entered by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/23/2016)
105 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Time filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 6/27/2016) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
106 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION to Extend Time to File Further Briefing re Preliminary Approval Motion 105 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2016) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
107 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REGARDING SCOPE OF RELEASE IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND RELATED MOTIONS filed by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc. (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 6/28/2016) Modified on

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 15 of 25

06/28/2016 06/28/2016
07/08/2016 07/12/2016 07/13/2016 07/14/2016 08/05/2016 08/05/2016 08/05/2016 08/29/2016 09/19/2016
09/19/2016

6/29/2016 (bwS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/28/2016)
108 Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the (Proposed) Final Approval Schedule for Class Settlement, and Proposed Procedures for Distributing Notice filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 6/28/2016) Modified on 6/29/2016 (bwS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/28/2016)
109 Joint Amended (Proposed) Order Granting Approval to File Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, Preliminary Approval to Class Settlement, Certifying Settlement Class, Authorizing Distribution of Notice, and Setting Fairness Hearing by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 6/28/2016) Modified on 6/29/2016 (bwS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/28/2016)
110 CLERK'S NOTICE: Parties to confirm by July 12 that there are no objections to the modifications to the settlement agreement or proffers made to the Court that the parties submitted in the supplemental briefing. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2016) (Entered: 07/08/2016)
111 STIPULATION Confirming Modification of Proposed Settlement filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 7/12/2016) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
112 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY CLASS, AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Re: Dkt. No. 84 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2016) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
113 AMENDED COMPLAINT (Second) against Uber Technologies, Inc.. Filed byMichael Pedersen, Michael Kelly, Michael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind of California, National Federation of the Blind. (Marks, Julia) (Filed on 7/14/2016) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
114 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 8/5/2016) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
115 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Marks, Julia) (Filed on 8/5/2016) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
116 Order granting 115 Stipulation entered by Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/05/2016)
117 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 03/03/2015 before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen, for Court Reporter Katherine Sullivan. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 8/29/2016) (Entered: 08/29/2016)
118 Transcript of Proceedings held on 3/3/15, before Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Powell Sullivan, telephone number 415−794−6659. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 117 Transcript Order, ) Redaction Request due 10/11/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/20/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/19/2016. (Related documents(s) 117 ) (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 9/19/2016) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
119 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. Motion Hearing set for 11/10/2016 10:00 AM

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 16 of 25

09/20/2016 09/20/2016 09/20/2016
09/20/2016
09/22/2016 10/13/2016
10/17/2016 10/18/2016 10/27/2016

in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Responses due by 10/3/2016. Replies due by 10/11/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Michael W. Bien in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs, # 2 Declaration Timothy R. Elder in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs, # 3 Declaration Mary−Lee K. Smith in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs, # 4 Declaration Richard M. Pearl in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs, # 5 Declaration Daniel S. Mason in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs, # 6 Declaration Daniel Goldstein in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs, # 7 Declaration Kirk Adams in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs, # 8 Declaration Curtis L. Decker in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs, # 9 Proposed Order)(Bien, Michael) (Filed on 9/19/2016) (Entered: 09/19/2016)
120 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING HEARING LOCATION. Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs 119 will be heard in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Cousins on 11/10/2016 01:00 PM. Responses due 10/13/2016. Replies due 10/27/2016. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2016) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
121 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE BY ADDITIONAL COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS by Ernest James Galvan (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 9/20/2016) Text modified on 9/21/2016 conforming to posted document caption (bwS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/20/2016)
122 NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS; DECLARATION OF ERNEST GALVAN; REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER re 119 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ernest Galvan, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 (Proposed) Order (Revised))(Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 9/20/2016) Modified on 9/21/2016 (bwS, COURT STAFF). See Document Number 123 for Correction. Modified on 9/22/2016 (srnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/20/2016)
123 NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS; DECLARATION OF ERNEST GALVAN; REVISED [PROPOSED] ORDER re 119 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ernest Galvan, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 (Proposed) Order [Revised])(Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 9/20/2016) Modified on 9/21/2016 (bwS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/20/2016)
124 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 03/03/2015 before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., for Court Reporter Katherine Sullivan. (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 9/22/2016) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
125 RESPONSE (re 119 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs ) filed byRasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration DALENE BRAMER, # 2 Declaration GERALD G. KNAPTON, # 3 Exhibit 1−5 (KNAPTON DECL), # 4 Exhibit 6−11 (KNAPTON DECL), # 5 Declaration ANDREW M. SPURCHISE, # 6 Exhibit 1 (SPURCHISE DECL), # 7 Exhibit 2−12 (SPURCHISE DECL))(Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 10/13/2016) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
126 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING HEARING. Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs 119 will be heard on 12/1/2016 01:00 PM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2016) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
127 ORDER CONTINUING HEARINGS ON FINAL SETTLEMENT APROVAL AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. Motion Hearing will be held on 12/1/2016 01:00 PM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 10/18/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2016) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
128 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California,

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 17 of 25

10/27/2016 11/02/2016 11/02/2016 11/02/2016 11/09/2016
11/11/2016 11/14/2016 11/14/2016

Michael Pedersen. Motion Hearing set for 12/1/2016 01:00 PM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Responses due by 11/10/2016. Replies due by 11/17/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of J. Marks, with Exhibits A−M, # 3 Declaration of E. O'Connor)(Marks, Julia) (Filed on 10/27/2016) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
129 REPLY (re 119 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs ) filed byMichael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of E. Galvan, with Exhibits A−F, # 2 Declaration of T. Elder, with Exhibit K, # 3 Declaration of J. Marks, with Exhibits A−D, # 4 Declaration of R. Pearl, with Exhibits A−B)(Marks, Julia) (Filed on 10/27/2016) (Entered: 10/27/2016)
130 MOTION for Leave to File SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS filed by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 11/2/2016) (Entered: 11/02/2016)
131 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS filed by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC. Responses due by 11/7/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 11/2/2016) (Entered: 11/02/2016)
132 ORDER by Judge Nathanael Cousins granting 130 131 Motion for Leave to File Surreply of no more than 5 pages by 11/9/16. (nclc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2016) (Entered: 11/02/2016)
133 DEFENDANT'S SURREPLY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 119 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs ) filed byUber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. SPURCHISE ISO DEF'S SURREPLY ISO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS, # 2 Exhibit EXHIBIT A TO SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. SPURCHISE ISO DEFS SURREPLY, # 3 Exhibit EXHIBIT B TO SUPP DECL OF ANDREW M. SPURCHISE ISO DEFS SURREPLY, # 4 Exhibit EXHIBIT C TO SUPP DECL OF ANDREW M. SPURCHISE ISO DEFS SURREPLY, # 5 Declaration SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF GERALD G. KNAPTON ISO DEFS SURREPLY ISO OPP TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, # 6 Exhibit EXHIBIT 1 TO SUPPLEMENTAL DECL OF GERALD G. KNAPTON ISO DEFS SURREPLY ISO OPP TO PLTFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, # 7 Declaration SUPPLEMENTAL DECL OF DALENE BRAMER ISO DEFS SURREPLY ISO OPPOSITION TO PLTFS MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS)(O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 11/9/2016) Modified on 11/10/2016 (srnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/09/2016)
134 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MICHAEL S. NUNEZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 11/11/2016) Modified on 11/14/2016 (bwS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/11/2016)
135 AMENDED SURREPLY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS (re 119 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 EXHIBIT A TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. SPURCHISE ISO DEFENDANT'S SURREPLY, # 3 EXHIBIT B TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. SPURCHISE ISO DEF'S SURREPLY, # 4 EXHIBIT C TO DECLARATION OF ANDREW M. SPURCHISE ISO DEF'S SURREPLY) (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 11/14/2016) Modified on 11/15/2016 (bwS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2016)
136 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL RE DEFENDANT'S SURREPLY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS by Uber Technologies, Inc. (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 11/14/2016) Modified on 11/15/2016 (bwS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/14/2016)

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 18 of 25

12/01/2016
12/02/2016 12/06/2016 12/07/2016 12/09/2016
12/09/2016 12/12/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016
01/05/2017

137 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Hearing re Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs 119 and Motion for Final Approval of Settlement 128 held on 12/1/2016: Court to issue written order granting motions. Plaintiffs' Attorneys: Michael Nunez, Ernest Galvan, Timothy Elder, Michael Bien, Julia Marks. Defendant's Attorney: Andrew Spurchise. Court Reporter: Rhonda Aquilina. (Total Time in Court 1 hour, 3 min.) This is a text only Minute Entry. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/1/2016) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
138 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 12/01/2016 before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen, for Court Reporter Rhonda Aquilina. (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 12/2/2016) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
139 ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. Re: Dkt. Nos. 119 128 . Plaintiffs must submit an updated proposed order as to the requested fees and costs for the Court's signature in accordance with this order by December 12, 2016. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2016) (Entered: 12/06/2016)
140 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 12/01/2016 before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins by Rasier, LLC, Rasier−CA, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., for Court Reporter Rhonda Aquilina. (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 12/7/2016) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
141 Transcript of Proceedings held on 12/01/2016 before Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins. Court Reporter Rhonda Aquilina, rhondaaquilina@aol.com. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 138 Transcript Order, ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/9/2017. (Related documents(s) 138 ) (Aquilina, Rhonda) (Filed on 12/9/2016) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
142 Proposed Order re 139 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees,, Order on Motion for Settlement, by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 12/9/2016) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
143 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS re 142 (Proposed) Order, by Uber Technologies, Inc. (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 12/12/2016) Modified on 12/13/2016 (bwS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/12/2016)
144 ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 12/15/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2016) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
145 JUDGMENT: In accordance with the Court's orders granting final approval of the class action settlement and awarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs, judgment is entered in this case with respect to all injunctive claims asserted in the complaint. Judgment is entered as to all named plaintiffs with respect to all claims asserted in the complaint. Plaintiffs are awarded $2,485,071.14 in attorneys' fees and costs. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 12/15/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2016) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
146 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re 139 ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL AND ATTORNEYS' FEES and 144 ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS filed by Uber Technologies, Inc..(Appeal fee of $505 receipt number 0971−11050450 paid.) (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 1/5/2017) Modified on 1/6/2017 (bwS, COURT STAFF). (Entered:

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 19 of 25

01/06/2017 01/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/06/2017 02/08/2017 02/10/2017
03/01/2017
03/07/2017 03/10/2017 05/31/2017 05/31/2017 07/25/2017 09/15/2017

01/05/2017)
147 USCA Scheduling Order as to 146 Notice of Appeal, filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. (srnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2017) (Entered: 01/10/2017)
USCA Case Number 17015032 US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit for 146 Notice of Appeal, filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. (srnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2017) (Entered: 01/10/2017)
148 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 06/16/2016; 01/13/2016; 04/06/2016; 04/20/2016 before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins by Uber Technologies, Inc., for Court Reporter Katherine Sullivan. (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 2/6/2017) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
149 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 03/03/2015; 01/13/2016; 04/06/2016; 04/20/2016; 06/16/2016; 12/01/2016 before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins by Uber Technologies, Inc., for Court Reporter Katherine Sullivan. (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 2/6/2017) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
150 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 01/13/2016; 04/06/2016; 04/20/2016 before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins by Uber Technologies, Inc., for Court Reporter FTR − San Francisco. (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 2/8/2017) (TRANSCRIBER: JOAN COLUMBINI) Modified on 2/8/2017 (lmh, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/08/2017)
151 Transcript of Proceedings held on 6/16/16, before Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Powell Sullivan, telephone number 415−794−6659. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 148 Transcript Order, 149 Transcript Order, ) Redaction Request due 3/3/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/13/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/11/2017. (Related documents(s) 148 , 149 ) (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 2/10/2017) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
152 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT re 145 Judgment,,, Terminated Case,, entered In favor of Michael Kelly Against Uber Technologies, Inc., In favor of Michael Hingson Against Uber Technologies, Inc., In favor of National Federation of the Blind Against Uber Technologies, Inc., In favor of Michael Pedersen Against Uber Technologies, Inc., In favor of National Federation of the Blind of California Against Uber Technologies, Inc. by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 3/1/2017) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
153 MANDATE of USCA as to 146 Notice of Appeal, filed by Uber Technologies, Inc. (srnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2017) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
154 CLERK'S Letter Spreading Mandate to Counsel (srnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2017) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
155 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Appointing the Neutral Monitor filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen and Uber Technologies, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Marks, Julia) (Filed on 5/31/2017) Modified on 6/1/2017 (sfbS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/31/2017)
156 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION Appointing the Neutral Monitor 155 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2017) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
157 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (Smith, Mary−Lee) (Filed on 7/25/2017) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
158 NOTICE of Appearance by Melissa Riess (Riess, Melissa) (Filed on 9/15/2017) (Entered: 09/15/2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 20 of 25

09/29/2017 12/05/2017 01/31/2018
04/04/2018 04/27/2018 04/27/2018 04/30/2018
05/11/2018 05/11/2018 05/25/2018 05/26/2018 07/13/2018
07/16/2018 10/15/2018 03/13/2019 03/18/2019 04/23/2019

159 NOTICE of Appearance by Cara Elizabeth Trapani (Trapani, Cara) (Filed on 9/29/2017) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
160 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Melissa Riess (Riess, Melissa) (Filed on 12/5/2017) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
161 Certificate of Interested Entities by Uber Technologies, Inc. identifying Other Affiliate SoftBank Group Corp., Other Affiliate SB Cayman 2 Ltd. for Uber Technologies, Inc.. Supplemental Certificate of Interested Entities and Corporate Disclosure Statement (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 1/31/2018) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
162 NOTICE of Appearance by Stuart John Seaborn (Seaborn, Stuart) (Filed on 4/4/2018) (Entered: 04/04/2018)
163 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re Fees and Costs Negotiation Period filed by National Federation of the Blind. (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 4/27/2018) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
164 Order granting 163 Stipulation entered by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 04/27/2018)
165 CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR PLEASE DISREGARD ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Executive Committee on 4/30/18. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2018) Modified on 4/30/2018 (as, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/30/2018)
166 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND NEGOTIATION PERIOD RE FEES AND COSTS filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. (O'Connor, Emily) (Filed on 5/11/2018) (Entered: 05/11/2018)
167 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO EXTEND NEGOTIATION PERIOD RE FEES AND COSTS 166 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2018) (Entered: 05/11/2018)
168 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule for Fees and Costs Motion filed by National Federation of the Blind. (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 5/25/2018) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
169 Order granting 168 Stipulation entered by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/26/2018)
170 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time to File Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Galvan, Ernest) (Filed on 7/13/2018) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
171 Order granting 170 Stipulation entered by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
172 NOTICE of Change of Address by Michael S. Nunez (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 10/15/2018) (Entered: 10/15/2018)
173 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Michael S. Nunez (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 3/13/2019) (Entered: 03/13/2019)
174 NOTICE by Uber Technologies, Inc. Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance of Emily E. OConnor as Attorney of Record (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 3/18/2019) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
175 SUGGESTION OF DEATH Upon the Record as to Michael Kelly by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Elder, Timothy) (Filed on 4/23/2019) (Entered: 04/23/2019)

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 21 of 25

05/14/2019 05/15/2019 05/16/2019 05/27/2019 06/13/2019 06/13/2019 06/14/2019 07/05/2019 07/05/2019 07/12/2019
08/06/2019 08/09/2019

176 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Establish Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. Responses due by 5/20/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Michael Nunez in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 5/14/2019) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
177 CLERK'S NOTICE: Uber to respond to the Administrative Motion to Establish Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses 176 by 5/17/2019, as ordered by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2019) (Entered: 05/15/2019)
178 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 176 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Establish Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses ) filed byUber Technologies, Inc.. (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 5/16/2019) (Entered: 05/16/2019)
179 Order granting 176 Administrative Motion Setting Briefing Schedule entered by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Court approves schedule proposed by plaintiffs. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 05/27/2019)
180 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion re Fees and Costs filed by Michael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 6/13/2019) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
181 Order granting 180 Stipulation entered by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
182 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Uber Technologies, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent SoftBank Group Corp., Corporate Parent SB Cayman 2 Ltd. for Uber Technologies, Inc.. Second Supplemental Certificate of Interested Entities (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 6/14/2019) (Entered: 06/14/2019)
183 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFFS MOTION RE FEES AND COSTS filed by Michael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 7/5/2019) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
184 Order granting 183 Stipulation (extending deadline to July 12) entered by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
185 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Michael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. Motion Hearing set for 9/18/2019 01:00 PM in San Jose, Courtroom 5, 4th Floor before Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Responses due by 7/26/2019. Replies due by 8/2/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration DECLARATION OF ERNEST GALVAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS, # 2 Declaration DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY ELDER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS, # 3 Declaration DECLARATION OF RICHARD M. PEARL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS, # 4 Declaration DECLARATION OF DANIEL S. MASON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS, # 5 Declaration DECLARATION OF STUART SEABORN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS, # 6 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES)(Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 7/12/2019) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
186 NOTICE of Appearance by Alice Hsiu−Wen Wang (Wang, Alice) (Filed on 8/6/2019) (Entered: 08/06/2019)
187 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 185 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs ) filed byUber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Andrew Spurchise, # 2 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) to Spurchise Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 1 to

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 22 of 25

08/21/2019 08/30/2019
08/30/2019
09/03/2019 09/17/2019 09/27/2019 10/02/2019 10/08/2019
10/09/2019

Spurchise Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7)(Wang, Alice) (Filed on 8/9/2019) (Entered: 08/09/2019)
188 CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING HEARING set for 9/18/2019 at 01:00 PM before Judge Nathanael Cousins re: Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Plaintiffs 185 . The Court finds the motion suitable for decision without oral argument. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2019) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
189 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Michael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Michael S. Nunez, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Redacted Version of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs, # 4 Unredacted Version of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs, # 5 Exhibits 1 & 2 to Declaration of Kristopher A. Nelson in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs)(Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 8/30/2019) (Entered: 08/30/2019)
190 REPLY (re 185 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs ) filed byMichael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Ernest Galvan in Support of Reply, # 2 Declaration Timothy Elder in Support of Reply, # 3 Declaration Melissa Riess in Support of Reply, # 4 Declaration Andrew D. Schwarz in Support of Reply, # 5 Declaration Valerie Yingling in Support of Reply, # 6 Declaration Kristopher A. Nelson in Support of Reply)(Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 8/30/2019) (Entered: 08/30/2019)
191 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 189 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Proof of Service filed byMichael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Related document(s) 189 ) (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 9/3/2019) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
192 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7−3.d filed byMichael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 9/17/2019) (Entered: 09/17/2019)
193 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS; DENYING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. Re: Dkt. Nos. 185 , 189 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2019) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
194 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION For Leave to File Documents Under Seal (Defendant's Renewed Motion for Administrative Relief for Leave to File Documents Under Seal) filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. Responses due by 10/7/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Andrew M. Spurchise in Support of Defendant's Renewed Motion for Administrative Relief for Leave to File Documents Under Seal, # 2 Declaration of Tom Maguire, # 3 Signature Page (Declarations/Stipulations) to Maguire Declaration, # 4 Proposed Order)(Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 10/2/2019) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
195 MOTION re 193 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Michael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. Motion Hearing set for 11/13/2019 01:00 PM in San Jose, Courtroom 5, 4th Floor before Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Responses due by 10/22/2019. Replies due by 10/29/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration DECLARATION OF ERNEST GALVAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS RULE 60(a) MOTION FOR CORRECTIONS OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS, # 2 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60(a))(Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 10/8/2019) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
196 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. Re: Dkt. No. 194 . Plaintiffs must file the exhibits and their reply brief in the public record by 10/11/2019. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2019) (Entered: 10/09/2019)

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 23 of 25

10/10/2019
10/10/2019 10/24/2019
10/24/2019 10/31/2019 11/07/2019 11/08/2019 11/08/2019 06/10/2020 06/10/2020

197 *Disregard. Filed in Error* MOTION to Unseal Document 196 Order on Administrative Motion per Civil Local Rule 7−11, filed by Michael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EXHIBITS 1 AND 2 TO THE DECLARATION OF KRISTOPHER A. NELSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS)(Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 10/10/2019) Modified on 10/11/2019 (sfbS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/10/2019)
198 RESPONSE re 196 Order on Administrative Motion per Civil Local Rule 7−11, by Michael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 EXHIBITS 1 AND 2 TO THE DECLARATION OF KRISTOPHER A. NELSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS)(Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 10/10/2019) (Entered: 10/10/2019)
199 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(A) MOTION FOR RELIEF. Re: Dkt. No. 195 . If Uber wishes to oppose Plaintiffs' motion, it must file its response by 10/31/2019. Plaintiffs may reply, if necessary, by 11/7/2019. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' motion is suitable for decision without oral argument. The hearing set for 11/13/2019 is VACATED. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 10/24/2019. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2019) (Entered: 10/24/2019)
Reset Deadlines as to Motion for Attorneys' Fees 195 : Opposition due by 10/31/2019. Reply due by 11/7/2019. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2019) (Entered: 10/24/2019)
200 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 195 MOTION re 193 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ) (Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For Relief Pursuant To Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a)) filed byUber Technologies, Inc.. (Wang, Alice) (Filed on 10/31/2019) (Entered: 10/31/2019)
201 REPLY (re 195 MOTION re 193 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ) PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(a) filed byMichael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Nunez, Michael) (Filed on 11/7/2019) (Entered: 11/07/2019)
202 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60(A). Re: Dkt. No. 195 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2019) (Entered: 11/08/2019)
203 AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. Re: Dkt. Nos. 185 , 189 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 11/8/2019. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2019) (Entered: 11/08/2019)
204 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa Riess In Support Of Motion to File Under Seal, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Proposed Order Granting Motion to File Under Seal)(Riess, Melissa) (Filed on 6/10/2020) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
205 MOTION For Extension of the Court's Jurisdiction and Modification of Policies, Practices, and Procedures Pursuant to Section 8 filed by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. Motion Hearing set for 7/15/2020 01:00 PM in San Jose, Courtroom 5, 4th Floor before Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Responses due by 6/24/2020. Replies due by 7/1/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa Riess, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2−19, # 4 Exhibit 20, # 5 Declaration of John Albarran, # 6 Declaration of Jessica Beecham, # 7 Declaration of Bonnie Bomer, # 8 Declaration of Tracy Carcione, # 9 Declaration of Melissa Carney, # 10 Declaration of Kristina Constant, # 11 Declaration of Marianne Denning, # 12 Declaration of James Gump, # 13 Declaration of Leslie Hamric, # 14 Declaration of McClain Hermes, # 15

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 24 of 25

06/11/2020 06/15/2020 06/17/2020 06/18/2020 07/01/2020
07/08/2020 07/13/2020

Declaration of Amanda Hillebran, # 16 Declaration of Jodi Jainchill, # 17 Declaration of Dimitrios Kouniaris, # 18 Declaration of Ronnie Leeth, # 19 Declaration of Briley O'Connor, # 20 Declaration of Erica Rodman, # 21 Declaration of Dishon Spears, # 22 Declaration of Georgie Sydnor, # 23 Declaration of Tina Thomas, # 24 Declaration of Lupin Thurrott, # 25 Declaration of Stephanie Valdez, # 26 Declaration of James Walton, # 27 Declaration of Jodi Witthaus, # 28 Declaration of Valerie Yingling, # 29 Declaration of Kristopher Nelson, # 30 Declaration of Jack Gleiberman, # 31 Proposed Order)(Riess, Melissa) (Filed on 6/10/2020) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
206 NOTICE by Michael Hingson, Michael Kelly, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen re 205 MOTION For Extension of the Court's Jurisdiction and Modification of Policies, Practices, and Procedures Pursuant to Section 8 (Elder, Timothy) (Filed on 6/11/2020) (Entered: 06/11/2020)
207 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 204 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ) filed byUber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter Sauerwein in Support of Defendant's Response in Support of Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, # 2 Declaration of Andrew Spurchise in Support of Defendant's Response in Support of Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, # 3 Exhibit A and B to Declaration of Andrew Spurchise (Exhibit B to be filed Under Seal), # 4 Proposed Order)(Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 6/15/2020) (Entered: 06/15/2020)
208 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 205 MOTION For Extension of the Court's Jurisdiction and Modification of Policies, Practices, and Procedures Pursuant to Section 8 for a One−Week Extension of Time for Defendant to File Its Opposition filed by Uber Technologies, Inc.. (Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 6/17/2020) (Entered: 06/17/2020)
209 ORDER GRANTING 208 JOINT STIPULATION for a One−Week Extension of Time for Defendant to File Its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of the Court's Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2020) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
210 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 205 MOTION For Extension of the Court's Jurisdiction and Modification of Policies, Practices, and Procedures Pursuant to Section 8 ) filed byUber Technologies, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Andrew M. Spurchise in Support of Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of the Court's Jurisdiction and Modification of Policies, Practices and Procedures Pursuant to Section 8, # 2 Declaration of Morgan T. Jackson in Support of Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of the Court's Jurisdiction and Modification of Policies, Practices and Procedures Pursuant to Section 8, # 3 Declaration of April F. Ruiz in Support of Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of the Court's Jurisdiction and Modification of Policies, Practices and Procedures Pursuant to Section 8)(Spurchise, Andrew) (Filed on 7/1/2020) (Entered: 07/01/2020)
211 REPLY (re 205 MOTION For Extension of the Court's Jurisdiction and Modification of Policies, Practices, and Procedures Pursuant to Section 8 ) filed byMichael Hingson, National Federation of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Michael Pedersen. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa Riess, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Melissa Riess, # 3 Declaration of Kristopher Nelson, # 4 Exhibit A to Declaration of Kristopher Nelson)(Riess, Melissa) (Filed on 7/8/2020) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
212 CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING HEARING.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of the Court's Jurisdiction and Modification of Policies, Practices, and Procedures Pursuant to Section 8 205 set for 7/15/2020 at 01:00 PM is VACATED. The Court finds the motion suitable for decision without oral argument.

(This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2020) (Entered: 07/13/2020)

Case: 3:14-cv-4086 As of: 07/20/2020 05:26 PM PDT 25 of 25

07/15/2020

213 ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Court's Jurisdiction and Modify Settlement; GRANTING in part and denying in part Motion to Seal. Re. Dkt Nos. 204 , 205 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2020) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

 </s> 5123f2016

A A A I c ( g I National FederatiCI1 at'the Blind ofCalifornia, et Bl. v. Uber Tectmlogla~, Inc., etal. - Disability RigiD .Advocatss

TEXT SIZE:

CONTRAST:

DISABILITY RIGHTS
ADVOCATES
A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION

--

National Federation of the Blind of California, et al. v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., et al.
Click here for case documents
Guide-Dog Users Combat Discrimination by Uber
Last UpdatedApril21st, 2015
Date Settled: 04/30/2016 Status: Settled DRA has reached an unprecedented settlement with Uber in its case fighting discrimination against blind people who use guide dogs in Uber's transportation services.
ORA, with co-counsel TRE Legal and Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, represents the National Federal of the Blind (NFB), its California affiliate, and several blind individuals who use guide dogs, who filed this lawsuit to ensure that the blind community has reliable access to Uber's transportation services. After over a year of litigation and settlement negotiations, the parties agreed on a nationwide classaction settlement under which Uber will take important steps to end discrimination against blind individuals who use guide dogs in its transportation network.
Uber provides convenient, on-demand rides to consumers throughout the United States, dispatching cars to drive passengers where they need to go. However, Uber •,.-- -- _.._ -----:- -' __.- __. ...._-,e services to blind customers who use guide dogs on an equal
f W in II <$>
1}6

51231'2016

Natiooal Federalioo ofthe Blind of Califa'nia, at al. v. Uber Technologes, Inc., et al.- Disability Rights Advocates

basis-drivers have repeatedly refused to transport blind individuals who travel

with guide dogs. The transportation services industry is experiencing significant

growth and change, and blind individuals who use guide dogs cannot be excluded

from the benefits of the new transportation landscape.

Thanks to this lawsuit and the resulting settlement, blind individuals who use guide dogs will be able to use Uber services without the threat of discrimination. Under the terms of the agreement, Uber will take proactive steps to fight discrimination against blind individuals with guide dogs in its system. Uber will improve driver education about service animal laws and will remove discriminatory drivers from the Uber platform. Uber will track and respond to reports of discrimination more effectively. The NFB and its affiliate will deploy blind riders with guide dogs to test for compliance, and an independent monitor will review Uber's compliance with the agreement. These improvements will enhance the reliability and usability of Uber's extensive transportation network for blind and visually-disabled people across the country.

Disability: Blind/Low Vision Case Area: Private Business, Transportation
Case Files
Read the NFB.Uber Settlement Agreement

Read the NFB.Uber Settlement Addenda

Read the NFB.Uber Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement

Read the NFB.Uber Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval

Read the Decision on Uber's Motion to Dismiss

http://dralegal.orglcaselnaliooal-federation-of-th&-bl ind-of-califa'ria-et-al-v-uber-technologies-inc-et-al/

2/6

51231'2016

Natiooal Federalioo ofthe Blind of Califa'nia, at al. v. Uber Technologes, Inc., et al.- Disability Rights Advocates

Read the First Amended Complaint

Read the Complaint

Press Releases
Groundbreaking Settlement to End Discrimination Against Blind Uber Riders Who Use Guide Dogs
VICTORY FOR BLIND RIDERS IN LANDMARK CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT AGAINST UBER; CASE ADVANCES
Lawsuit Challenges Uber's Discrimination Against Blind Customers with Service Animals

Donate Today
DRA does not charge its clients fees for representation. Please help us continue to improve the lives of people with all types of disabilities.
1 Details 2 Personal Info
3 Payment
Donation
1 $100
http://dralegal.orglcaselnaliooal-federation-of-th&-bl ind-of-califa'ria-et-al-v-uber-technologies-inc-et-al/

51231'2016
Frequency

Natiooal Federalioo ofthe Blind of Califa'nia, at al. v. Uber Technologes, Inc., et al.- Disability Rights Advocates

I One-time

NEXT
Recent Settlements
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Jantz v. Social Security Administration, has granted final approval of a class-wide settlement on behalf a class of over 570 current and former SSA employees with disabilities. The Settlement Agreement provides for sweeping improvements to SSA's policies and processes impacting the careers of employees with disabilities, including substantial monetary relief in the amount of $9.98 million and significant programmatic changes at SSA that are approximately valued at an additional $20 million. For more information, please read the Notice of Settlement and Press Release.
Get Our Newsletter
First Name
I First Name
Last Name
Last Name

http://dralegal.orglcaselnaliooal-federation-of-th&-bl ind-of-califa'ria-et-al-v-uber-technologies-inc-et-al/

51231'2016

Natiooal Federalioo ofthe Blind of Califa'nia, at al. v. Uber Technologes, Inc., et al.- Disability Rights Advocates

Company/Affiliation

I Company/Affiliation

Email

I Email

SIGN UP

Follow Us

f

•1n

Our Tweets
@dralegal May 23
Sponsorship opportunities now available for ORA's
2016 Eagle Awards: pledge your support of disability rights today! https://t.co/zex09AEn4G

Privacy Policy Sitemap Accessibility Features Legal Contact Us
http://dralegal.orglcaselnaliooal-federation-of-th&-bl ind-of-califa'ria-et-al-v-uber-technologies-inc-et-al/

51231'2016
Login

Natiooal Federalioo ofthe Blind of Califa'nia, at al. v. Uber Technologes, Inc., et al.- Disability Rights Advocates
© 2016 Disability Rights Advocates. All rights reserved. Website by Computer Courage.

http://dralegal.orglcaselnaliooal-federation-of-th&-bl ind-of-califa'ria-et-al-v-uber-technologies-inc-et-al/


[CONTENT] September 9, 2014 | the National Federation of the Blind | NFB | Uber | the U.S District Court | the Northern District | California ||| Uber | Americans | 42 | U.S.C. | § | 12811 | the California Unruh Civil Rights Act | California Civil Code | the California Disabled Persons Act | California Civil Code | § | § | 54 |||  |||  ||| Uber ||| October 22, 2014 | Uber | NFB ||| Uber | ADA ||| The United States Department of Justice | December 23, 2014 ||| the Department of Transportation’s ||| DOT | ADA ||| DOT | ADA ||| 49 ||| C.F.R. § 37.3 | 49 | C.F.R. | 37 ||| 37.23 ||| DOT ||| 49 ||| C.F.R. | 42 | 12184(b)(1 | 49 |||  ||| 42 | U.S.C. | § | 49 | C.F.R. § | 37.173 ||| April 17, 2015 | Uber |||  ||| NFB | Uber ||| Uber | ADA | California ||| 103 ||| 3d 1073 ||| December 6, 2016 ||| third | 75,000 | three years | 45,000 |||  ||| 3½ years ||| Margaret A. Nagle ||| 1½ years | Uber | the second or third year |||  ||| Two weeks | December 15, 2016 | 2,485,000 ||| the Ninth Circuit | March 7, 2017 ||| November 8, 2019 | Uber | 313,000 ||| July 15, 2020 ||| July 20, 2020 [SUMMARY] On September 9, 2014, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), along with several of its members who had been discriminated against by Uber drivers because of their service animals, filed this lawsuit in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California. They sued Uber under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12811 et seq.), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code §§ 51 & 52), and the California Disabled Persons Act (California Civil Code §§ 54-54.3). Represented by Disability Rights Advocates and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages for the named plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs accused Uber drivers of, among other things, refusing to provide service to people with service dogs, mistreating the dogs and their owners, unfairly giving them negative feedback scores, and charging inappropriate cancellation fees. They alleged that Uber’s response to complaints about driver behavior was opaque and insufficient: Uber generally failed to notify service dog owners of whether the company had investigated complaints, and denied responsibility for drivers’ behavior.

On October 22, 2014, Uber filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the NFB and the named plaintiffs all lacked standing to sue under both state and federal law. Uber also argued that even if the plaintiffs had standing, Uber wasn’t a public accommodation and thus wasn’t covered by Title III of the ADA. 

The United States Department of Justice issued a statement of interest on December 23, 2014. It asked the court to consider the Department of Transportation’s Title III regulations, which are granted considerable weight since the DOT is responsible for implementing the ADA. DOT regulations state that Title III applies to any “demand-responsive” service that doesn’t operate on a fixed route, and that private entities cannot “contract away” any responsibilities under the ADA. 49 C.F.R. § 37.3; 49 C.F.R. pt. 37, app. D § 37.23. The DOT regulations further require entities covered by Title III to permit service animals to accompany their owners into vehicles, and requires entities to apply eligibility criteria that don’t screen disabled people out, unless doing so would make it impossible to provide the service. 49 C.F.R. § 37.167(d); 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(1); 49 C.F.R. § 37.5(f). The regulations also require positive action on the part of private entities to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to avoid discrimination (except when those modifications would fundamentally alter the service), and to ensure that their personnel are trained to properly assist disabled individuals in a respectful and courteous way, with appropriate attention to the difference among individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(2)(A); 49 C.F.R. § 37.173. 

On April 17, 2015, the court denied Uber’s motion to dismiss. It found that even if not all Uber drivers discriminated against blind people with service animals, discrimination by some drivers was sufficient injury for the plaintiffs to bring suit. The court also found that the NFB could sue even if some of its members had signed binding arbitration agreements with Uber, because many of its members had not. The court didn’t directly respond to the DOJ’s statement of interest, finding instead that since there was a possibility that Uber was covered by the ADA and the California statutes, the parties should have the opportunity to litigate the question. 103 F. Supp. 3d 1073.

On December 6, 2016, the court approved a settlement agreement. Uber agreed to: <ul><li>Require its drivers to provide service to blind people with service animals<li>Modify its cleaning fee policy for messes caused by service animals<li>Make it easier for service animal owners to file complaints<li>Implement enhanced procedures for investigating complaints<li>Dismiss drivers receiving multiple plausible complaints<li>Submit to third-party monitoring<li>Pay the NFB $75,000 per year for three years<li>Pay a lump sum of $45,000 for distribution among the named plaintiffs<li>Pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs</ul>Uber also agreed to a class certification for purposes of the settlement, extending to all blind people with service animals who had used, attempted to use, or been deterred from attempting to use transportation through the Uber app.

The settlement was to last for a default period of 3½ years. Retired Judge Margaret A. Nagle was appointed as a neutral monitor to oversee compliance. The monitor had authority to extend the agreement by 1½ years if Uber failed to substantially comply with the terms of the agreement in the second or third year. Any disputes related to the monitor would first be referred to an arbitrator, and if that failed, the court would exercise jurisdiction.

Two weeks following the approval of the settlement agreement, on December 15, 2016, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2,485,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Uber appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit, which dismissed the appeal with prejudice on March 7, 2017. 

On November 8, 2019, the court ordered Uber to pay the plaintiffs a total of $313,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in monitoring and enforcing the agreement. 

On July 15, 2020, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to modify the settlement. As of July 20, 2020, the court’s jurisdiction over the settlement agreement is ongoing.