Está en la página 1de 14

~

GARY P. OSWALD. ESQ. SB#52682

LAW OFFICES OF GARY P. OSWALD

100 Tamal Plaza. Suite 140

Corte Madera. California 94925

Telephone: (415)927-5700

4

5

6

7

Facsimile:

(415)927-5705

Attorney for Plaintiffs,

LEONID GONCHAROV

and, MOHAMMED EDDINE

Individually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated

BY:

§fP*§ED

^09201?

DeDuuTrvT-r--

8

9

10

11

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

12

13

14

15

16

17

LEONID GONCFIAROV, Individually

and on behalf of all others similarly

situated, MOHAMMED EDDINE,

Individually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and

18 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive

CaseNo

CGC-12-526Q17

CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES

ACT (Business and Professions Code

§17200, etseq.); INTERFERENCE WITH

BUSINESS RELATIONS; ACCOUNTING; DECLARATORY

RELIEF AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

19

20

Defendants.

21

22

23

Plaintiffs allege:

 

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

24

 

1.

Plaintiffs, Leonid Goncharov and Mohammed Eddine, individually and on

25

 

behalf of all others similarly situated, are duly licensed and permitted taxicab drivers,

26

27

who are bringing this action to stop Defendant, Uber Technologies, Inc. (hereinafter

28

''Uber"), from continuing to act illegally in the City and County of San Francisco, by "partnering" with unauthorized and unpermitted drivers to unlawfully compete with law

Class Action Complaint

~

abiding taxicab drivers. In fact, Uber is acting as a taxicab company while sometimes

denying this fact in order to avoid all regulations governing taxicab companies.

2. Uber unfairly competes with Plaintiff Class (hereinafter "Plaintiffs" or

3

 

"Plaintiff Class"), by openly rejecting any notion of compliance with the rules governing

4

 

taxicab services in the City and County of San Francisco (sometimes hereinafter "the

5

City"). Uber expressly violates the rules governing taxicab services by, among other

6

7

things, dispatching limousines or "Black Cars," which are not licensed to act as taxicabs, in the City, using illegal metering devices, encouraging its "partner" limousine drivers to

8

 

violate the law, and by charging unauthorized rates for its services.

9

 

3.

Uber's management has been openly critical of any regulation in general.

10

Uber s CEO Travis Kalanick has stated publicly that, "I don't understand regulators

11

12

They are incredibly sensitive to what is in the public view. But if you only follow the rules, they will never let you make the city a better place." Uber attempts to spin any

13

criticism as "anti-technology" and is willing to say whatever it needs to at any given

1-1

moment to achieve Uber's economic goals. For example, in New York, Uber has

15

represented to regulators that its system merely constitutes an advance reservation for
16 livery vehicles, but, when Uber wanted to expand to taxis, it took the inconsistent 17 position that Uber's system is a virtual hail. Ultimately, Uber was forced to shut down

IS

its yellow cab hailing service in New York.

19

20

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Leonid Goncharov is a licensed taxicab driver, and has so acted

21 continuously in the City and County of San Francisco for the last eight (8) years, and has

22 operated through a medallion issued to Luxor Cabs, Inc. for the last seven (7) years.

23

24

25

26

5. Plaintiff Mohammed Eddine is a licensed taxicab driver, and has so acted

continuously in the City and County of San Francisco for the last fifteen (15) years, and

operates through a medallion issued to Luxor Cabs, Inc.

6. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing

27 under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in the City

28 and County of San Francisco. State of California. Uber Technologies, Inc. has operated

Class Action Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

in the City under the trade name "UberCab," and currently operates in the City under the

trade name "Uber."

6 Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued

herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants by such

fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and

capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that

each of such fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the

occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs' injuries as herein alleged were

proximately caused by such Defendants' acts.

7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

herein mentioned, Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, were the agents, servants,

employees, alter-egos, instrumentalities, predecessors-in-interest, representatives, co-

venturers, co-conspirators and partners of each of the other Defendants, and in doing the

things hereinafter alleged, were acting inthe scope of their authority as such agents,

servants, employees, alter-egos, instrumentalities, predecessors-in-interest,

representatives, co-venturers, co-conspirators, and partners andwiththe permission and

consent of their Co-Defendants and as such share liability with each other with respect

to said matters complained of herein. Plaintiffs shall hereinafter refer to Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. and Defendant DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, as "Uber" in the

singular.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalves and on behalf of all

persons similarly situated. The class that Plaintiffs represent is composed of taxicab

drivers duly licensed by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency

(hereinafter"SFMTA"), and who have been operating as such at any time during the

period from at least March 30, 2010, through the present. The persons in this class are

so numerous that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable and that the disposition

of their claims in a class action rather than in individual actions will benefit the parties

and the Court.

Furthermore, because the economic damages suffered by the individual

3

Class Action Complaint

1

2

/^Mf\

Plaintiff Class members may be relatively modest, albeit significant, compared to the

expense and burden of individual litigation, it would be impracticable for members of

said Plaintiff Class to seek redress individually for the wrongful conduct alleged herein.

3

9. As of September 29, 2011, there were approximately 1,494 medallions

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

issued to the various taxi-cab companies who operate in the City and County of San

Francisco. Each medallion authorizes the operation of one taxicab, and a taxicab may

not legally operate in the City and County of San Francisco without a validly issuedtaxi

medallion license.

of the class are ascertainable from the business records of the various taxicab companies

which operate in the City and County of San Francisco. There will be no undue

difficulty in the managementof this litigation as a class action. Indeed, Uber has access

to millions of dollars of seed money to defend itself and to financially overpower the

Plaintiffs if they are forced to bring individual actions against DefendantUber. It has

been reported that Uber raised close to $50 million in financing from such heavy hitters

The exact size of the Plaintiff Class, and the identity of the members

as Menlo Ventures, Jeff Bezos/Amazon, Goldman Sachs and Benchmark Capital, to

name a few. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2012/10/16/uber-closes-

yellow-taxi-cab-service-in-new-york-city, as well as

http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 l-12-07//tech/30484347_l_uber-works-mobile-

technology-techcrunch#ixzz29zYT3md.

10. The prosecution of individual remedies by members of the Plaintiff Class

20

could tend to establish inconsistent standards of conduct for Uber and to result in the

21

22

23

24

25

impairment of class members' rights and the disposition of their interests through

actions to which they were not parties. Moreover, questions of law and fact common to

the Plaintiff Class exist that predominate over questions affecting only individual

members, the claims asserted herein are typical of the claims of the members of the

Plaintiff Class as described in this Complaint, the claims arise from the same course of

26 unlawful conduct by Uber, and the relief sought is common.

27

28

Class Action Complaint

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1

 

11.

The California Public Utilities Commission (hereinafter "CPUC") licenses

2

 

and regulates charter-party carriers for-hire vehicles on a Statewide basis. A charter-

3

 

party carrier includes "limousines," which are sometimes referred to in the vernacular as

4

 

"Black Cars," See §5371.4(i) of the California Public Utilities Code. The

applicable

5

 

statutes and regulations preclude as a matter of law the use of a limousine bearing a

6

 

permit from the CPUC from performing taxicab functions in the City.

For example, a

7

8

Black Car must provide prearranged service, including the maintenance of a waybill, and

9

may not have meters or roof lights so as to distinguish these vehicles from those that can

10

respond to "on demand" street hail service. Thus, pursuant to Public Utilities Code

11

§5351, et seq., a CPUC authorized limousine or Black Car is not permitted to engage in

taxicab transportation service, which must be regulated by the City.

12

 

12.

Uber, which holds itself out to the public, and acts as a transportation

13

14

company using "partner" drivers of Black Cars and other types of vehicles, is not licensed as a charter party carrier by the CPUP for any type of service.

15

 

13.

In San Francisco, the SFMTA is responsible for the regulation of taxicabs

16

 

within the City.

In order to ensure that the public has access to a safe and uniform

17

 

means of vehicle-for-hire transportation with respect to both the licensing and regulation

18

 

of taxicabs, the SFMTA has developed a regulatory scheme to protect the riding public.

19

 

In order to drive or operate a taxicab in the City, one must obtain a permit.

See San

20

 

Francisco Transportation Code §1105(a)(1) ("SF Code").

21

 

14.

Pursuant to the SF Code, a taxi means a vehicle operated pursuant to a Taxi

22

 

Medallion or Ramp Taxi Medallion (permit issued by the SFMTA to operate a particular

23

24

taxi vehicle that is specially adapted with access for wheelchair users), that is legally authorized to pick up passengers within the City, with or without prearrangement, of a

25

distinctive color or colors and which is operated at rates per mile or upon a waiting-time

26

basis, or both, as measured by a Taximeter, and which is used for the transportation of

27

passengers for hire over and along the public streets, not over a defined route, but as to

28

Class Action Complaint

1

2

the route and destination, in accordance with and under the direction of the passenger or

person hiringsuch vehicle. SF Code §1102(jjj) and (111).

15. As described above, the SF Code also regulates taxi drivers in the conduct

3

4

5

of their operation of taxies within its jurisdiction. For example, requirements imposed

on drivers of taxicabs by the SF Code include, but are not limited to:

• Section 1108 (e)(1), provides in pertinentpart that a "Driver shall not

6

7

8

9

10

refuse, or direct or permit the refusal, of prospective passengers in any place within the

City for transportation to any other place in the City

if the prospective passengers

present themselves for transportation in a clean, coherent, safe and orderly manner and

for a lawful purpose, and the Driver has sufficient time before the end of his or her shift;'

• Section 1108 (e)(2), requires the driverto "transport a passenger's luggage,

11

12

13

wheelchair or other mobility device

vehicle's trunk and/or passenger areas;"

that canbe transported within the confines of the

• Section 1108(e)(3), provides that a driver may not refuse to transport a

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

person with a physical disability in the front seatif necessary to accommodate the

passenger's physical disability;

• Section 1108(e)(16), provides that a driver shall not add a tip to a fare

unless expressly and voluntarily offered bythe passenger, and is forbidden from

demanding, requesting, implying, assuming or otherwise suggesting that he should

receive any amount in excess of the authorized fare;

• Section 1108(e)(19), requires the driverto carry sufficient cash to make

change for $20.00;

• Section 1108(e)(35),(36), requires that the driver accept a paratransit debit

card associated with the paratransit program, which provides transit services for disabled

individuals.

• Section 1113(c)(l)(A)(B) and (c)(2), requires that all taxis have the vehicle

numberpositioned in particular places on the taxicab, and the words "San Francisco

Taxicab" must appear on the each taxicab at designatedplaces, and further identifying

. requirements are set forth at §1103(c)(3)-(8) and at (d)(l),(2);

Class Action Complaint

• Section 1113(00X2). requires that taximeters must have a current and

valid seal from the Department of Public Health Weights and Measures and all such

taximeters must meet the approval of the SFMTA.

3

 

Section 1113(j)(2)(A),(B), mandates that all taxis and ramp taxis must be

4

 

equipped with a working top light containing a light or lights permanently attached to

5

 

the roofof the cab containing the words "Taxicab" or "Taxi," and the top light must be

6

 

illuminated at all times except when the vehicle is engaged in transporting a passenger;

7

8

9

lu

• Section 1113(m)(l), provides that all taxis and ramp taxis must be

equipped with an operational security camera manufactured after December 31, 2006;

• Section 1119(a)-(e), sets forth the procedure for imposing administrative

enforcement by the SFMTA against those who are not permit holders; and,

11

 

Section 1124(a),(b), sets forth the fares that taxis and ramp taxis can charge

12

13

their passengers.

16. As per its website, Uber markets itself to the public as an "elite" public

14 transportation company that provides through its "partner drivers" taxi-like on-demand

15 services to consumers through the use ofa GPS enabled smartphone application. In fact,

16 Uber is not licensed for any type of service either as a limousine service by the CPUC or

17 as a taxi company by the SFMTA. Uber admits it is operating as a taxi service in San

18 Francisco, even though Uber is not licensed by the SFMTA to do so. Uber utilizes

19 Black Car and gypsy vehicle drivers to perform as taxicab drivers, and thus requires its

20 Black Car drivers to follow procedures in violation of SF Code. Uber's Black Car

21 drivers pick up fares by street hail or e-hail in violation of SFMTA rules. Uber is not

22 licensed by the SFMTA to offer any taxi related service whatsoever.

23

24

25

26

17. Furthermore, by written contract between Uber and its "partnered" Black

Car drivers, such drivers are required to operate in violation of the SF Code, as set forth

in pertinent part, supra. On Uber's website (www.uber.com/cities/san-francisco), Uber

represents that, in San Francisco, it provides "UberX" vehicles, which are a cheaper

27 Black Car option and seat up to four (4) people; a classic black sedan, which is Uber's

28 default option and also seats up to four (4) people; and, SUV vehicles, which seat up to

7

Class Action Complaint

1

six (6) people.

Indeed, the website invites members of the public to: "Hop into the

sleek Black Car, tell the driver your destination, and you'll be on your way." The

2

 

website also represents that: "Uber is your on-demand private driver. Request a ride at

3

 

any time using our iphone and Android apps or from rn.uber.com." The website

4

 

additionally states that: "After the ride, Uber will automatically charge the credit card

5

 

you have on file. There's no need to hand your driver any payment, and the tip is

6

 

included.

Of course, drivers always appreciate a 'thank you.'" Thus, Uber is utilizing

7

 

Black Cars without meeting any of the basic requirements of any controlling regulatory

8

 

agency.

Further, on information and belief, Uber also utilizes "gypsy" vehicles, owned

9

10

by Uber's "partners," which do not and cannot qualify even as "limousines" or "Black Cars" pursuant to CPUC regulations. These gypsy vehicles are employed as functioning

11

12

taxicabs without submitting to regulatory oversight by any governmental regulatory agency whatsoever.

13

 

18.

The Uber website also sets forth its pricing information with respect to each

14

 

of these vehicles, that starts with a basic fare and then adds a per-mile rate within San

15

 

Francisco, a per-mile rate outside of San Francisco, a per-minute rate, a minimum fare,

16

 

as well as a cancellation fee.

Uber's website also sets forth flat rates for certain

17

 

destinations, such as a trip between San Francisco and the San Francisco International

18

 

Airport, and between San Francisco and the Oakland Airport.

The consumer can only

19

 

pay by credit card. The consumer is not permitted to pay in cash as required by the SF

20

 

Code.

Uber Black Cars acting as taxicabs promulgate fares which are measured

21

 

through a smartphone application, which utilizes GPS enabled iphones in Black Cars or

22

 

gypsy cars to determine distance and fares, in direct violation of the SF Code since the

23

GPS devices act as illegal meters for taxi services. Accordingly, the rates charged by

24

 

Uber do not correspond with the provisions of the SF Code, unfairly competes with the

25

governmentally regulated Plaintiff Class and are not measured pursuant to an approved

26

taximeter as required by the SF Code. The illegal meters also violate the CPUC

27

regulations.

28

8

Class Action Complaint

n

19. Even though Uber functions, in all respects, as a taxicab company, it

claims that it is not a transportation company for the purpose of avoiding compliance

with any regulatory agencies, including the SFMTA and the CPUC.

does not require that its drivers accept fares to underserved areas of San Francisco, that

For example, Uber

4

 

its drivers provide service to disabled individuals, and that its vehicles contain the

5

 

identifying information required (such as a top light and words identifying the vehicles

6

 

as taxicabs).

In fact, Uber is indeed a taxi company as:

7

 

• Uber receives requests for taxi services from a customer;

8

 

• Uber transmits (dispatches) this request for taxi service to an independent

9

 

"partner" driver in a Black Car with whom Uber has a written contract for service and

10

revenue sharing; and,

11

• The "partner" driver proceeds to service the requested transportation from

12

the customer.

13

 

Thus, Uber provides the same service as a taxicab company through its drivers,

14

 

while evading any responsibility for the requirements imposed on drivers of taxicabs and

15

 

ramp taxis as well as on taxicab companies.

16

 

20.

Uber's business model is built upon deceiving the public, ignoring public

17

safety regulations, circumventing legally established rates and pricing models, dodging

18

 

taxes and fees imposed on other public transportation providers, and shifting all risks and

19

 

liability to others.

In fact, Uber's widely stated mission is to "disrupt" the established

20

21

regulated taxi operations and substitute a mobile-application-based service free of any

regulations governing public transportation services.

22

 

21.

Uber has intentionally and knowingly encouraged Uber Black Car drivers

23

 

to unlawfully compete with properly licensed taxicab drivers for passengers, and to

24

 

provide taxicab services in direct violation of the SF Code.

25

22.

Uber has engaged, and continues to engage, in unlawful business practices

26 that are illegal per se and that directly impact the legitimate taxicab drivers.

27 Uber's conduct misleads the passenger public, it significantly interferes with the business

28 of the legally authorized taxicab drivers who make up the Plaintiff Class by unfairly

While

Class Action Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

competing with said drivers. Simply stated, Uber's "partner" drivers, who are operating

without restriction, are taking passengers, and thus income, away from legally sanctioned

taxicab drivers who are literally playing by the rules. Moreover, Plaintiffs have suffered,

and continueto suffer, unproductive taxi lease expenses, increasedtaxi fuel expenditures, and other related out-of-pocket costs, as a direct and proximateresult of Uber's illegal

conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, injuries in fact as

a direct and proximate result of Uber's illegal conduct.

7

23. Plaintiffs shall seek an award of damages as set forth, infra, as well as an

8

9

10

11

injunction pursuant to Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq., seeking to

prohibit Uber from conducting an unlawful business in violation of the Public Utilities

Code and of the SF Code.

24. Plaintiffs shall seek an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to a

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

private attorney general theory pursuantto Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, or through

the common fund or substantial benefit theories as established by the Courts of this

State.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES/UNFAIR COMPETITION

(Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq.)

25. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 24, inclusive of

19

this Complaint, and make them a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26. As set forth, supra, Uber has engaged, and continues to engage, in unlawful

business practices that are illegal per se. While Uber's conduct misleads the passenger

public, it significantly interfereswith the business of the legally authorizedtaxicab

drivers who make up the Plaintiff Class. That is, Uber has been, and is currently,

engaged in unfair competition within the meaning of Business and Professions Code

§17200, et seq, and Plaintiffs have suffered injuries in fact, including but not limited to a

loss of income and out-of-pocket expenditures as a direct and proximate result of Uber's

unpermitted taxi service in the City.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Uber will

continue to commit those acts unless the Court orders Uber to cease and desist.

10

Class Action Complaint

1

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2

 

INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS

3

 

27.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive of

4

 

this Complaint, and make them a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.

5

 

28.

Uber is intentionally interfering with the economic relationship between

6

 

Plaintiffs and the passenger public through its illegal acts as set forth, supra. Indeed,

7

 

Uber's widely stated mission is to "disrupt" the established regulated taxi operations and

8

 

substitute a mobile-application-based service without regard to any regulations governing

9

 

public transportation services. Rather, Uber operates outside of the law.

10

 

29.

As a proximate result of Uber's wrongful and illegal conduct, Plaintiffs

11

 

have suffered damages in an amount according to proof.

12

 

30.

The aforementioned acts of Uber were willful, oppressive and malicious.

13

 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages.

14

 

31.

Further, unless restrained, Uber will continue to operate outside of the law,

15

 

and interfere with Plaintiffs' economic relationships with its passengers to Plaintiffs'

16

 

great and irreparable injury, for which damages would not afford adequate relief. Thus,

17

 

Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction to stop Uber's unlawful acts as set forth, supra.

18

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

19

 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

20

 

ACCOUNTING

21

 

32.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 30, inclusive of

22

 

this Complaint, and make them a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.

23

 

33.

The amount of Plaintiff s damages cannot be assessed or ascertained unless

24

 

and until there is an accounting of Uber's receipts and disbursements with respect to its

25

operations in the City and County of San Francisco.

26

34.

Plaintiffs did not demand an accounting considering Uber's highly public

27

statements about its views on regulations. As Uber believes that it is above the law, any

28

such demand would have been futile.

Class Action Complaint

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray forjudgmentas hereinafterset forth.

1

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

DECLARATORY RELIEF

3

35. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 33 inclusive of this

4

Complaint, and makethem a part hereofas if fully set forth herein.

5

36. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Uber concerning their respective rights and duties. On the one hand, Plaintiffs contend

that Uber is intentionally, unlawfully and unfairly competing with Plaintiffs by the use of

Black Cars as illegal taxicabs in derogation of the SF Code, and that Uber is operating as a taxicab company without anyof the restrictions that govern taxicab drivers (as well as

taxicab companies). On the other hand, Uber denies that it is a taxicab company subject

to the SF Code or any other regulations applicable to limousines or Black Cars.

37. A judicial determination is necessary and appropriate at this time under the

circumstances in that declaratory relief would have the practical effect of informing the

parties' future conduct and by removing the financial burden being caused bythe

unsettled state of affairs.

38. Plaintiffshave experienced damages as the result of the illegality of Uber's

17

actions as such actions impair and interfere with Plaintiffs' business.

18

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

1. For a permanent injunction enjoining Uber, its agents, servants, and

employees, and all persons acting under or in concert with them, to cease and desist from

the following acts:

a. Utilizing BlackCars as taxicabs in direct competition with Plaintiff

Class,

b. Utilizing any other unlicensed or nonpermitted vehicles in direct

Plaintiff Class.

12

Class Action Complaint

/SMfcH

2. For the payment of the plaintiffs attorney's fees under one of the theories

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

set forth above;

3. For costs of suit herein incurred; and

4. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

1. For damages according to proof;

2. For exemplary and punitive damages;

3. For an Order requiring Uberto show cause, if any it has, why it shouldnot

be enjoined as set forth below, during the pendency of this action;

9

4. For a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction, each enjoining

10

Uber from Utilizing Black Cars as taxicabs in direct competition with Plaintiff Class;

11

5. For the payment of the Plaintiffs attorney's fees under one of the theories

12

13

14

15

16

set forth above;

6. For their costs incurred; and

7. For any other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

1. For an accounting of all receipts and disbursements of Uber from

17

18

19

September 8, 2010 to the present;

2. For paymentoverto Plaintiffs of the amount due from Uber as a resultof

the accounting as damages for the unlawful competition;

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. For interest thereon;

4. For the paymentof Plaintiffs' attorneys fees under one of the theories set

forth above;

5. For their costs incurred; and

6. For any other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

1. For a declaration that Uber is in violation of the SF Code by utilizing Black

Cars as taxicabs in direct competition with duly licensed taxicab drivers;

2. For damages according to proof;

13

Class Action Complaint

3.

For a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction, each enjoining

Uber from Utilizing Black Cars as taxicabs in direct competition with Plaintiff Class;

4. For the payment of Plaintiffs' attorneys fees under one of the theories set

forth above;

5. For their costs incurred; and

6. For any other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

DATED: November 9, 2012

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICE OE^GARY P. OSWALD

GAF&lPrOSWALD, Attorney for

Plaintiff Class

14

Class Action Complaint