Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 61 Filed 05/21/20 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR., SBN 132099
`tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
`THEANE EVANGELIS, SBN 243570
`tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
`BLAINE H. EVANSON, SBN 254338
`bevanson@gibsondunn.com
`HEATHER RICHARDSON, SBN 246517
`hrichardson@gibsondunn.com
`333 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
`Telephone: 213.229.7000
`Facsimile: 213.229.7520
`
`JOSHUA S. LIPSHUTZ, SBN 242557
`jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington D.C. 20036-5306
`Telephone: 202.955.8500
`Facsimile: 202.467.0539
`
`Attorneys for Uber Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`THOMAS COLOPY, CHRISTOPHER
`JAMES, and SPENCER VERHINES,
`individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-cv-06462-EMC
`DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO
`DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
`STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED
`COMPLAINT
`
`
` Hearing:
` Date: June 18, 2020
` Time: 1:30 p.m.
` Place: Courtroom 5
`
` Judge: Honorable Edward M. Chen
` Action Filed: October 8, 2019
` Trial Date: none set
`
`
`
`
`
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 3:19-CV-06462-EMC
`
`
`1
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 61 Filed 05/21/20 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on June 18, 2020, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`matter may be heard before the Honorable Edward M. Chen in Courtroom 5 of the United States
`District Court for the Northern District of California in the San Francisco Courthouse, Seventeenth
`Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.
`will, and hereby does, move this Court, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and (f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure, for an order dismissing or striking the sick pay, UCL, and declaratory judgment claims in
`Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint.
`First, Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory judgment of misclassification and entitlement to paid
`sick leave (Count I) should be dismissed because there is no private cause of action under California
`Labor Code §§ 246 or 2750.3. In addition, Plaintiffs have not pleaded that they personally have met
`the elements of Section 246 or the San Francisco and Los Angeles ordinances they assert here—in fact,
`there are no allegations about Colopy at all. If the Court does not dismiss the claims, it should at the
`very least strike the following portions of the complaint to the extent they concern Sections 246 and
`2750.3: Consolidated Complaint ¶¶ 2–3, 6, 41, 53, 55, 70(b).
`Second, because Plaintiffs have not alleged a violation of law, their claim that Uber’s actions
`were “unlawful” under the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Count VI) fails as well. Moreover,
`Plaintiffs may not seek equitable relief under the UCL as they have not shown that they lack an
`adequate remedy at law.
`Third, Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment count should be dismissed as it is wholly duplicative of
`their other causes of action.
`Fourth, Plaintiffs have waived all claims with respect to Thomas Colopy by not reasserting
`them in the Consolidated Complaint, and he should be dismissed from the case.
`
`
`DATED: May 21, 2020
`
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Theane Evangelis
` Theane Evangelis
`Attorneys for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 3:19-CV-06462-EMC
`i
`
`1
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 61 Filed 05/21/20 Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .............................................................. 2
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................... 5
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 6
`A.
`Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged a Cognizable Claim for Paid Sick Leave (Count I) ......... 7
`1.
`There Is No Private Right of Action to Sue for Violations of California
`Labor Code §§ 246 or 2750.3 ........................................................................... 7
`Plaintiffs Do Not Plead Sufficient Facts to Support Their Paid Sick
`Leave Claim .................................................................................................... 10
`Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim for Unlawful Business Practices (Count VI) ............. 15
`Count I Is Duplicative of Plaintiffs’ Other Causes of Action ..................................... 17
`Plaintiff Colopy Should Be Dismissed Because Plaintiffs Have Waived His
`Claims by Failing to Reassert Them in the Consolidated Complaint ......................... 18
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 19
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 3:19-CV-06462-EMC
`i
`
`1
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 61 Filed 05/21/20 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aiello v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP,
`2011 WL 13266352 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2011) .............................................................................17
`
`Allstate Ins. Co. v. Barnett,
`2011 WL 2415383 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2011) ................................................................................15
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ..........................................................................................................5, 6, 10, 12
`
`Backhaut v. Apple Inc.,
`2015 WL 4776427 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2015) ................................................................................16
`
`Barnes v. AT&T Pension Ben. Plan-Nonbargained Program,
`718 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ............................................................................................6
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ..........................................................................................................................5
`
`Biederman v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc.,
`2015 WL 3889371 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2015) ................................................................................18
`
`Birdsong v. Apple, Inc.,
`590 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................................................16
`
`Bowling v. Diamond Resorts Int’l, Inc.,
`2018 WL 3244068 (D. Haw. July 3, 2018) .....................................................................................12
`
`Brooks v. Agate Res., Inc.,
`2019 WL 2635594 (D. Or. Mar. 25, 2019) .....................................................................................12
`
`Bryant v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`671 F. App’x 985 (9th Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................17
`
`Carter v. Rasier-CA, LLC,
`2017 WL 4098858 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2017) ...............................................................................14
`
`Chao v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC,
`2013 WL 5487420 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2013) ...............................................................................14
`
`Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc.,
`710 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................................................19
`
`Colopy v. Uber Techs. Inc.,
`2019 WL 6841218 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) ....................................................................3, 7, 8, 13
`
`1
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 3:19-CV-06462-EMC
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 61 Filed 05/21/20 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,
`2014 WL 12607694 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2014) ................................................................................17
`
`Dimmick v. N. Cal. Inst. for Research & Educ.,
`2005 WL 8177404 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2005) ................................................................................10
`
`Doe v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`572 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................................5
`
`Edejer v. DHI Mortg. Co.,
`2009 WL 1684714 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2009) ................................................................................18
`
`Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty,
`984 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1993) ...........................................................................................................6
`
`Fiedler v. Clark,
`714 F.2d 77 (9th Cir. 1983) ...........................................................................................................1, 9
`
`In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (S. Dakota), N.A.,
`264 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2001) ...........................................................................................................18
`
`Fox-Quamme v. Health Net Health Plan of Or., Inc.,
`2016 WL 1724358 (D. Or. Apr. 29, 2016)......................................................................................10
`
`Frudden v. Pilling,
`842 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (D. Nev. 2012) ...............................................................................................9
`
`Gardner v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am.,
`2014 WL 2568895 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2014) ..................................................................................15
`
`Gazzano v. Stanford Univ.,
`2013 WL 2403646 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2013) ................................................................................19
`
`Graham v. U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`2015 WL 10322087 (D. Or. Dec. 2, 2015) .......................................................................................9
`
`Gutierrez v. Aaron’s Inc.,
`2010 WL 4968142 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2010).....................................................................................6
`
`Harding v. Time Warner, Inc.,
`2009 WL 2575898 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009) ..................................................................................5
`
`Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp.,
`2010 WL 2077015 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2010) ................................................................................15
`
`Heath v. Google LLC,
`2018 WL 398463 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2018) .........................................................................1, 18, 19
`
`Iolani Islander, LLC v. Stewart Title Guar. Co.,
`2017 WL 11139924 (D. Haw. Nov. 7, 2017)....................................................................................9
`
`1
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 3:19-CV-06462-EMC
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 61 Filed 05/21/20 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`J.L. v. Cissna,
`2019 WL 415579 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2019).....................................................................................19
`
`Jacobs v. Martin Sweets Co.,
`550 F.2d 364 (6th Cir. 1977) ...........................................................................................................12
`
`Jasper v. C.R. England, Inc.,
`2012 WL 7051321 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2012) ..................................................................................5
`
`Joyce v. Office of Architect of Capitol,
`966 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2013) ..................................................................................................13
`
`Lacayo v. Donahoe,
`2015 WL 993448 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2015) ....................................................................................13
`
`Lacey v. Maricopa County,
`693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) .......................................................................................................1, 18
`
`Landers v. Quality Commc’ns, Inc.,
`771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2014) ...........................................................................................................13
`
`Lee v. Postmates Inc.,
`2018 WL 6605659 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2018) ......................................................................8, 10, 13
`
`LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. Swyers,
`2018 WL 3439371 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2018) .................................................................................17
`
`Loo v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.,
`2019 WL 7753448 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019) ................................................................................15
`
`Lorenzo v. United States,
`2010 WL 11508278 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2010) ...............................................................................14
`
`Mangindin v. Wash. Mut. Bank,
`637 F. Supp. 2d 700 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ............................................................................................17
`
`Maya v. Centex Corp.,
`658 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) .........................................................................................................16
`
`McMillan v. Bank of America, N.A.,
`2014 WL 12521701 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2014) ..............................................................................17
`
`Miller v. Hearst Commc’ns, Inc.,
`2012 WL 3205241 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2012) ..................................................................................16
`
`Mir v. Kirchmeyer,
`2014 WL 12029269 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2014) ................................................................................14
`
`Mkt. Trading, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`388 F. App’x 707 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................16
`
`1
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 3:19-CV-06462-EMC
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 61 Filed 05/21/20 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,
`504 U.S. 374 (1992) ........................................................................................................................15
`
`Mort v. United States,
`86 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................................................15
`
`Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`2018 WL 510139 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018) ...................................................................................15
`
`Murphy v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.,
`690 F. App’x 553 (9th Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................16
`
`N. Cty. Commc’ns Corp. v. Cal. Catalog & Tech.,
`594 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2010) .........................................................................................................10
`
`N. Cty. Commc’ns Corp. v. McLeodUSA Telecomms. Servs., Inc.,
`2010 WL 1779445 (D. Ariz. May 3, 2010).....................................................................................10
`
`Noe v. Superior Court,
`237 Cal. App. 4th 316 (2015)............................................................................................................8
`
`O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`2019 WL 4394401 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2019) .........................................................................2, 3, 4
`
`Oildale Mut. Water Co. v. Crop Prod. Servs., Inc.,
`2014 WL 824958 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2014) ....................................................................................18
`
`Optrics Inc. v. Barracuda Networks Inc.,
`2018 WL 10604751 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2018) ............................................................................6, 10
`
`Patton v. Experian Data Corp.,
`2018 WL 6190349 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018) .................................................................................17
`
`Philips v. Ford Motor Co.,
`2015 WL 4111448 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2015) .............................................................................15, 18
`
`Philips v. Ford Motor Co.,
`726 F. App’x 608 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................15
`
`Pickrell v. Sorin Grp. USA, Inc.,
`293 F. Supp. 3d 865 (S.D. Iowa 2018)..............................................................................................9
`
`Prado v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp.,
`2014 WL 46634 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2014) .......................................................................................17
`
`Reilly v. Recreational Equip., Inc.,
`2019 WL 1024960 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2019) ....................................................................................5
`
`Romano v. SCI Direct, Inc.,
`2017 WL 8292778 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2017) ............................................................................8, 10
`
`1
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 3:19-CV-06462-EMC
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 61 Filed 05/21/20 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`Rosset v. Hunter Eng’g Co.,
`2014 WL 3569332 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2014) ...................................................................................8
`
`Sanders v. Choice Mfg. Co.,
`2011 WL 6002639 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011) ................................................................................10
`
`Schroeder v. Envoy Air, Inc.,
`2016 WL 11520388 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2016) ................................................................................7
`
`Schroeder v. United States,
`569 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................................................15
`
`Scott v. Cal. African Am. Museum,
`2015 WL 12803454 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2015) ...............................................................................16
`
`Seattle Audubon Soc. v. Moseley,
`80 F.3d 1401 (9th Cir. 1996) ...........................................................................................................17
`
`Segal v. Aquent LLC,
`2018 WL 4599754 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2018) ..................................................................................9
`
`Smith v. Level 3 Commc’ns Inc.,
`2014 WL 7463803 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2014) ................................................................................14
`
`Stearne v. Heartland Payment Sys. LLC,
`2018 WL 746492 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2018) .......................................................................................9
`
`Suarez v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
`2018 WL 2431473 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2018) ................................................................................14
`
`Swartz v. KPMG LLP,
`476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................................................17
`
`Tech. & Intellectual Prop. Strategies Grp. PC v. Fthenakis,
`2011 WL 3501690 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011) ............................................................................1, 17
`
`Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Mgmt., Inc.,
`203 Cal. App. 4th 1112 (2012)..........................................................................................................8
`
`Titus v. McLane Foodservice, Inc.,
`2016 WL 4797497 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2016) ..................................................................................7
`
`Villalpando v. Exel Direct Inc.,
`2014 WL 1338297 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2014) ..................................................................................8
`
`Wanxia Liao v. United States,
`2012 WL 3945772 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2012) ................................................................................17
`
`Ward v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London,
`2019 WL 4738244 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2019) ...............................................................................17
`
`1
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`
`
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 3:19-CV-06462-EMC
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 61 Filed 05/21/20 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc.,
`328 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2003) ...........................................................................................................5
`
`Watterson v. Fritcher,
`2018 WL 3965359 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2018) ..................................................................................9
`
`Wavecom Sols. Corp. v. Verizon Haw. Int’l Inc.,
`2011 WL 5374428 (D. Haw. Nov. 7, 2011)....................................................................................18
`
`Weaver v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,
`370 F. App’x 822 (9th Cir. 2010) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Westley v. Oclaro, Inc.,
`2013 WL 2384244 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2013) ................................................................................19
`
`Williams v. N.Y. City Health & Hosp. Corp.,
`2010 WL 2836356 (E.D.N.Y. July 16, 2010) .................................................................................13
`
`Wright v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.,
`2012 WL 253157 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2012) ....................................................................................16
`
`Zahabi v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`2012 WL 12920507 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2012) ...............................................................................17
`
`Zapata Fonseca v. Goya Foods Inc.,
`2016 WL 4698942 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2016) .................................................................................15
`
`Statutes and Ordinances
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 ...........................................................................................................16
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 246.....................................................................................................6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 246.5(a) ...............................................................................................................10, 12
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 248.5............................................................................................................................7
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 2698.............................................................................................................................9
`
`Cal. Lab. Code § 2750.3........................................................................................................6, 7, 8, 9, 10
`
`L.A., Cal., Mun. Code ch. XVIII, art. 7, § 187.04 ....................................................................11, 12, 13
`
`L.A., Cal., Public Order Under City of Los Angeles Emergency Authority:
`Supplemental Paid Sick Leave Due to COVID-19 (Apr. 7, 2020) ......................................11, 12, 13
`
`S.F., Cal., Admin. Code § 12W.3 .........................................................................................................13
`
`S.F., Cal., Admin. Code § 12W.4 ...................................................................................................11, 12
`
`S.F., Cal., Public Health Emergency Leave Ordinance, § 3 (Apr. 14, 2020) .................................11, 12
`
`
`
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 3:19-CV-06462-EMC
`vii
`
`
`
`1
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 61 Filed 05/21/20 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`S.F., Cal., Public Health Emergency Leave Ordinance, § 4 (Apr. 14, 2020) .......................................13
`
`S.F., Cal., Public Health Emergency Leave Ordinance, § 5 (Apr. 14, 2020) .......................................12
`
`Rules
`
`S.F., Cal., Rules Implementing the San Francisco Paid Sick Leave Ordinance, Rule
`6.3 (2018) ..................................................................................................................................11, 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 3:19-CV-06462-EMC
`viii
`
`
`
`1
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 61 Filed 05/21/20 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Plaintiffs allege that Uber has supposedly misclassified them as independent contractors rather
`than employees and, by doing so, has failed to provide (among other things) paid sick leave due under
`California and local law. But Plaintiffs’ claims are fatally flawed for a host of reasons, including those
`set forth below. The claims are not cognizable as a matter of law, and Plaintiffs do not plead, with
`sufficient facts, the basis for their claims. The deficient claims should therefore be dismissed.
`First, there is no private cause of action for paid sick leave under Sections 246 or 2750.3, and
`without a private right of action to enforce those provisions, Plaintiffs may not obtain declaratory or
`other relief on those grounds. See Fiedler v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 79 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). In
`any event, Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint alleges no facts showing that they meet any of the
`elements essential to entitle them to relief under the paid leave laws—including that they worked the
`minimum number of hours in San Francisco, Los Angeles, or California to entitle them to relief.
`Second, Plaintiffs’ UCL claim should be dismissed because Plaintiffs do not lack an adequate
`remedy at law, and they do not allege that they suffered any economic injury sufficient to convey
`statutory standing.
`Third, Plaintiffs’ Declaratory Judgment Act (“DJA”) claim should be dismissed as superfluous
`because it is predicated on the same allegations as—and would provide no additional relief than—their
`other causes of action. See Tech. & Intellectual Prop. Strategies Grp. PC v. Fthenakis, 2011 WL
`3501690, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011).
`Fourth, Plaintiff Thomas Colopy should be dismissed from the case. Plaintiffs’ Consolidated
`Complaint supersedes their prior complaints and “renders [them] without legal effect.” Lacey v.
`Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). And the Consolidated Complaint omits
`any mention of Colopy. They have thus failed to state any claims on Colopy’s behalf, and they have
`waived the right to reassert his claims at a later date. See Heath v. Google LLC, 2018 WL 398463, at
`*4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2018).
`
`
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 3:19-CV-06462-EMC
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 61 Filed 05/21/20 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`II.
`Uber is a technology company that connects individuals in need of a ride or deliveries (“riders”)
`with independent transportation providers willing to provide transportation or delivery services
`(“drivers”). Uber provides its technology through various software applications (“Uber Apps”), which
`drivers can license for a service fee.
`The O’Connor Action and Class Settlement
`A.
`On August 16, 2013, a group of drivers filed a class action complaint in this Court “on behalf
`of Uber drivers who have been misclassified as independent contractors,” alleging a variety of wage-
`and-hour violations under California law, ultimately including claims under the UCL and California
`Labor Code § 246. O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 13-cv-03826-EMC, 2019 WL 4394401 (N.D.
`Cal. Sept. 13, 2019), Dkt. 1 ¶ 3; O’Connor Dkt. 932 Counts I, IX. After “[f]ive years of contentious
`litigation,” “[t]he parties eventually entered into an agreement to settle both suits.” O’Connor, 2019
`WL 4394401, at *1. As this Court observed, “[t]he Settlement Agreement cover[ed] ‘all Drivers in
`California and Massachusetts who have used the Uber App at any time since August 16, 2009, up to
`and including February 28, 2019, and who have validly opted out of arbitration or for whom Uber has
`no record of acceptance of an arbitration agreement.’” Id.
`The O’Connor Settlement Agreement “contain[ed] an expansive release provision, requiring
`Class Members to release ‘any and all’ claims ‘based on or reasonably related to the claims asserted
`in’” the litigation. Id. In exchange, Uber agreed to adopt a number of changes to its business practices,
`including drafting a comprehensive, written deactivation policy; implementing a formal process for
`appealing deactivation decisions; and providing a course for deactivated drivers to regain access to the
`Uber App. O’Connor Dkt. 926 ¶ 127. It also agreed to pay $20 million into a non-reversionary
`settlement fund (id. ¶¶ 117–18), with “[e]ach claimant’s share … calculated in proportion with the
`number of miles he or she drove for Uber” (O’Connor, 2019 WL 4394401, at *2). As this Court
`observed, “Plaintiffs’ counsel estimate[d] that Class Members who drove 0–1,000 miles w[ould]
`receive approximately $360, those who drove 10,000 miles w[ould] receive $4,000, and those who
`
`
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 3:19-CV-06462-EMC
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 61 Filed 05/21/20 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`drove 100,000 miles w[ould] receive $36,000,” with “[t]he average settlement share for each claiming
`Class Member … be[ing] approximately $2,206.” Id.
`This Court granted final approval of the O’Connor Settlement Agreement on September 13,
`2019, concluding that “[t]he Settlement Agreement and this Order are binding on, and have res judicata
`and preclusive effect in, all pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings … that encompass the
`Settlement Class Members’ Released Claims … and that are maintained by or on behalf of any
`Settlement Class Member who has not been excluded from the Settlement Class as provided in the Opt-
`Out List approved by this Order.” Id. at *10. Only two individuals—Malden M. Moritz and James
`Reinking—opted out of the O’Connor Settlement Agreement. O’Connor Dkt. 957-1 ¶¶ 8–10 & Ex. C.
`Neither Mortiz nor Reinking are plaintiffs here.
`The Instant Action
`B.
`On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff Thomas Colopy filed this putative class action lawsuit against
`Uber on behalf of himself and “all other individuals who have worked as Uber drivers in California
`who have not released all of their claims against Uber,” alleging misclassification-based claims for
`failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, reimburse for business expenses, and provide itemized pay
`statements. Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 6, 27–30. Colopy was related to O’Connor, and was reassigned to this Court on
`October 10, 2019. Dkt. 8.
`Colopy moved for a preliminary injunction, asking this Court to order Uber to reclassify all
`drivers who use the Uber App in California as employees. Dkt. 2. Uber opposed and moved to dismiss.
`Dkts. 11, 19-1. This Court denied Colopy’s preliminary injunction motion and granted Uber’s motion
`to dismiss in part on December 16, 2019. See Colopy v. Uber Techs. Inc., 2019 WL 6841218, at *11
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) (Dkt. 30). On January 3, 2020, Colopy filed a First Amended Complaint,
`which added two named plaintiffs—Christopher James and Spencer Verhines. Dkt. 33 ¶¶ 6–7. Uber
`answered on February 3, 2020. Dkt. 34.
`On March 12, 2020, Verhines