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
`
`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 187 Filed 02/17/22 Page 1 of 29
`
`
`SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN, SBN 310719
`(sliss@llrlaw.com)
`ANNE KRAMER, SBN 315131
`(akramer@llrlaw.com)
`LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
`729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
`Boston, MA 02116
`Telephone:
`(617) 994-5800
`Facsimile:
`(617) 994-5801
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`CHRISTOPHER JAMES, et al., individually
`and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 19-cv-06462-EMC
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
`PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`THEREOF
`
`
`Hearing Date: March 24, 2022
`Hearing Time: 1:30 pm
`Courtroom:
`5
`Judge: Judge Edward Chen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF – CASE NO. CV 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
`
`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 187 Filed 02/17/22 Page 2 of 29
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on March 24, 2022, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 5 of this
`Court, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 17th Floor, San Francisco, California, Plaintiffs
`Christopher James, Spencer Verhines, and Kent Hassell, individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated, will, and hereby do, move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`23 and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) for an order:
`(1) Preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement between Defendant Uber
`Technologies, Inc. and Plaintiffs (attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Shannon
`Liss-Riordan, filed concurrently herewith), on the grounds that its terms are sufficiently
`fair, reasonable, and adequate for notice to be issued to the settlement class;
`(2) Certifying the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal
`Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c);
`(3) Approving the form and content of the proposed class notice and notice plan (Exhibits B,
`D, F & G to the Settlement Agreement);
`(4) Appointing Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. to represent the settlement class as class
`counsel;
`(5) Appointing Simpluris as Settlement Administrator;
`(6) Scheduling a hearing regarding final approval of the proposed settlement, Class Counsel’s
`request for attorneys’ fees and costs, and enhancement payments to the Named Plaintiffs;
`and
`(7) Granting such other and further relief as may be appropriate.
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion; the Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities below; the Declaration of Shannon Liss-Riordan filed concurrently herewith; all
`supporting exhibits filed herewith; all other pleadings and papers filed in this action; and any
`argument or evidence that may be presented at or prior to the hearing in this matter.
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF – CASE NO. CV 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
`
`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 187 Filed 02/17/22 Page 3 of 29
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Litigation History .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`The Proposed Settlement............................................................................................... 6
`
`THE LEGAL STANDARD ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`Certification of the Settlement Class is Appropriate..................................................... 9
`
`1.
`
`Requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) ............................................................ 10
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Numerosity .......................................................................................... 10
`
`Commonality ....................................................................................... 10
`
`Typicality ............................................................................................ 11
`
`Adequacy............................................................................................. 11
`
`2.
`
`Requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) ............................................................ 11
`
`B.
`
`The Court Should Preliminarily Approve the Settlement ........................................... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Settlement is the Product of Informed, Non-Collusive Negotiation ........ 13
`
`The Relief Provided for the Settlement Class Is Fair and Adequate............... 15
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Risks of Further Litigation .................................................................. 15
`
`Benefit to Drivers ................................................................................ 17
`
`The Settlement Has No Obvious Deficiencies ................................................ 17
`
`The Settlement Does Not Unfairly Grant Preferential Treatment to Any ...... 18
`
`Settlement Class Members .......................................................................................... 18
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF – CASE NO. CV 19-CV-06462-EMC
`
`
`

`

`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 187 Filed 02/17/22 Page 4 of 29
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Acosta v. Trans Union, LLC
`243 F.R.D. 377 (C.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................................................................. 13
`
`
`
`Alberto v. GMRI, Inc.
`252 F.R.D. 652 (E.D. Cal. 2008) .............................................................................................. 9, 12
`
`Barbosa v. Cargill Meat Sols. Corp.
`297 F.R.D. 431 (E.D. Cal. 2013) ............................................................................................ 10, 17
`
`Barcia v. Contain-A-Way, Inc.
`2009 WL 587844 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2009) .................................................................................. 14
`
`Barnes v. The Equinox Grp., Inc.
`2013 WL 3988804 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2013) ................................................................................ 18
`
`Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co.
`306 F.R.D. 245 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................................. 19
`
`Benitez v. W. Milling, LLC
`No. 1:18-CV-01484-SKO, 2020 WL 3412725 (E.D. Cal. June 22, 2020) ................................... 18
`
`Chu v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC
`2011 WL 672645 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2011)................................................................................. 19
`
`Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle
`955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ......................................................................................................... 9
`
`Cotter v. Lyft
`3:13-cv-04065-VC (N.D. Cal.) ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`Cotter v. Lyft, Inc.
`176 F. Supp. 3d 930 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ............................................................................................ 2
`
`Cotter v. Lyft, Inc.
`193 F.Supp.3d 1030 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ............................................................................................ 2
`
`Covillo v. Specialtys Cafe
`2014 WL 954516 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2014) .................................................................................. 19
`
`Custom LED, LLC v. eBay, Inc.
`2013 WL 6114379 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2013) .............................................................................. 17
`
`Dalton v. Lee Publications, Inc.
`270 F.R.D. 555 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF – CASE NO. CV 19-CV-06462-EMC
`
`
`

`

`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 187 Filed 02/17/22 Page 5 of 29
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Deaver v. Compass Bank
`2015 WL 4999953 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2015) .............................................................. 9, 13, 15, 17
`
`
`
`Estrella v. Freedom Fin’l Network
`2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61236 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ........................................................................... 11
`
`Garcia v. Border Transp. Group, LLC
`28 Cal. App. 5th 558 (2018).......................................................................................................... 16
`
`Groves v. Maplebear Inc. dba Instacart
`BC695401 (L.A. Sup. Ct.) .............................................................................................................. 7
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.1998) .............................................................................................. 9, 10, 11
`
`Hassell v. Uber Technologies Inc.
`Case No. 4:20-cv-04062-PJH (N.D. Cal.) .................................................................................. 1, 4
`
`Hassell v. Uber Techs., Inc.
`2020 WL 7173218 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2020) .................................................................................. 4
`
`Hassell v. Uber Techs., Inc.
`2021 WL 2531076 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2021) ................................................................................ 4
`
`Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co.
`2018 WL 6619983 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018). ................................................................. 13, 15, 18
`
`Hendricks v. StarKist Co.
`2015 WL 4498083 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2015) ............................................................................... 18
`
`Hernandez v. Dutton Ranch Corp.
`No. 19-CV-00817-EMC, 2021 WL 5053476 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2021) .................................... 18
`
`In re Activision Sec. Litig.
`723 F. Supp. 1373 (N.D.Cal.1989) ............................................................................................... 17
`
`In re Heritage Bond Litig.
`2005 WL 1594403 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) ................................................................................ 9
`
`In re Tableware Antitrust Litig.,
`484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................................ 3, 9, 18
`
`James v. Uber
`Ninth Cir. No. 21-80006 (9th Cir. April 13, 2021) ................................................................... 5, 12
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF – CASE NO. CV 19-CV-06462-EMC
`
`
`

`

`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 187 Filed 02/17/22 Page 6 of 29
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`James v. Uber Techs. Inc.
`338 F.R.D. 123 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ...................................................................................... 10, 11, 12
`
`
`
`Johnson v. VCG-IS, LLC
`Case No. 30-2015-00802813 (Super. Ct. Cal. July 18, 2018) ...................................................... 16
`
`Karl v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings Inc.
`2018 WL 5809428 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2018) ................................................................................ 16
`
`Lusby v. GameStop Inc.
`2015 WL 1501095 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2015) .............................................................................. 18
`
`Marciano v. DoorDash (“Marciano I”)
` Case No. CGC-15-548101(Cal. Sup. Ct. July 12, 2018) ............................................................... 7
`
`Marciano v. DoorDash Inc.
`CGC-15-548102 (Kahn, J.) (Cal. Sup. Ct. July 12, 2018) .............................................................. 2
`
`Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc.
`221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) .................................................................................................... 8
`
`Nielson v. The Sports Authority
`2013 WL 3957764 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2013) ............................................................................... 14
`
`Noll v. eBay, Inc.
`309 F.R.D. 593 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................................. 12
`
`O’Connor v. Uber
`Civ. A. No. 13-3826-EMC (N.D. Cal.) ........................................................................................... 3
`
`O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc.
`201 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .......................................................................................... 2
`
`O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc.
`82 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .......................................................................................... 16
`
`O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc.
`No. 13-CV-03826-EMC, 2019 WL 4394401 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2019), aff'd, No.
`19-17073, 2019 WL 7602362 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2019) .......................................................... 1, 3, 7
`
`Oppenlander v. Standard Oil Co. (Ind.)
`64 F.R.D. 597 (D.Colo.1974) ........................................................................................................ 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF – CASE NO. CV 19-CV-06462-EMC
`
`
`

`

`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 187 Filed 02/17/22 Page 7 of 29
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`People v. Uber Techs., Inc.
`56 Cal. App. 5th 266, 270 Cal. Rptr. 3d 290 (2020), as modified on denial of reh'g
`(Nov. 20, 2020), review denied (Feb. 10, 2021) ........................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`Satchell v. Fed. Express Corp.
`2007 WL 1114010 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007) .............................................................................. 14
`
`Singer v. Postmates
`4:15-cv-01284-JSW (N.D. Cal.) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`Smith v. Cardinal Logistics Mgmt. Corp.
`2008 WL 4156364 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2008) ............................................................................... 10
`
`Spann v. J.C. Penney Corp.
`2016 WL 297399 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2016) ................................................................................. 12
`
`Van Vranken v. Atl. Richfield Co.
`901 F. Supp. 294 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ............................................................................................... 19
`
`Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing, Inc.
`266 F.R.D. 482 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ................................................................................ 12, 14, 15, 18
`
`Verhines v. Uber Techs. Inc.
`Civ. A. No. 3:20-cv-01886 (N.D. Cal.) ........................................................................................... 3
`
`Villalpando v. Exel Direct, Inc.
`303 F.R.D. 588 (N.D. Ca. 2014) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`Villegas v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
`2012 WL 5878390 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012) .............................................................................. 13
`
`Vinh Nguyen v. Radient Pharm. Corp.
`2014 WL 1802293 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2014) ................................................................................ 18
`
`Zolkos v. Scriptfleet, Inc.
`2014 WL 7011819 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2014) ................................................................................ 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF – CASE NO. CV 19-CV-06462-EMC
`
`
`

`

`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 187 Filed 02/17/22 Page 8 of 29
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Statutes
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`29 U.S.C. § 216 ..................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Cal. Lab. Code §2802.......................................................................................................................... 16
`
`Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
`28 U.S.C. § 1715 ............................................................................................................................. 9
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ......................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF – CASE NO. CV 19-CV-06462-EMC
`
`
`

`

`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 187 Filed 02/17/22 Page 9 of 29
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 23, Plaintiffs Christopher James, Spencer Verhines,
`and Kent Hassell (“Plaintiffs”) move this Court for an order preliminarily approving a proposed class
`action settlement agreement entered into by Plaintiffs and Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.
`(“Defendant” or “Uber”).1 The Settlement follows more than two years of extremely active and highly
`contested litigation and was achieved with the assistance of Mediator Martin Scheinman, who oversaw a
`mediation session and continued ongoing discussions after the mediation session for several weeks. The
`Settlement Agreement is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Shannon Liss-Riordan (filed
`herewith) (“Liss-Riordan Decl.”).
`This Court previously considered and approved a $20 million settlement on behalf of roughly
`15,000 California and Massachusetts drivers who were not bound by Uber’s arbitration clause.
`O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 13-CV-03826-EMC, 2019 WL 4394401, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13,
`2019), aff'd, 2019 WL 7602362 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2019). This settlement covers a much smaller class of
`roughly 1,322 California Uber drivers who have continued to opt out of Uber’s arbitration clause with
`each new contract. The class period picks up where the O’Connor class settlement left off on February
`28, 2019, and it goes up to the date of Proposition 22’s enactment, December 17, 2020, for Uber drivers
`who transported passengers.2 Thus, it also covers a much shorter period of time than the O’Connor
`settlement: 22 months, as compared to the O’Connor settlement which covered a class period of 114
`
`
`
`1 Kent Hassell filed a separate action on behalf of Uber Eats drivers who opted out of arbitration,
`Hassell v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-04062-PJH (N.D. Cal.). There is substantial
`overlap between the classes of drivers who drove on the Uber Driver App (covered by the James case)
`and the Uber Eats App (covered by the Hassell case), and the claims are substantively identical. This
`proposed settlement will cover both Uber passenger drivers and Uber Eats drivers. Plaintiffs seek to add
`Mr. Hassell to this case for settlement purposes, and this proposed settlement will resolve this action and
`the pending Hassell case, which the Parties will seek to stay pending settlement approval here.
`
`2 Drivers who drove exclusively for Uber EATS and were not part of the earlier O’Connor
`settlement will release claims from March 18, 2016 through October 7, 2021. These drivers comprise
`less than 10% of the overall Settlement Class. See Liss-Riordan Decl. at ⁋ 9.
`
`
`
`1
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF – CASE NO. CV 19-CV-06462-EMC
`
`

`

`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 187 Filed 02/17/22 Page 10 of 29
`
`
`
`months. For this much smaller class and shorter time period, Plaintiffs have secured a recovery for these
`drivers of $8.43 million.
`Thus, this settlement amount (which is non-reversionary) will provide class members with higher
`settlement amounts (on a per mile basis) than those already approved as fair and adequate by this Court
`in O’Connor.3 Although this settlement (once again) does not resolve the question of whether Uber
`drivers are employees under California law, it is nonetheless of significant value to class members.
`Given the passage of Proposition 22, the import of that determination has been blunted, as it is unclear
`whether the answer to the question of whether Uber can satisfy the ABC test will determine drivers’
`status going forward. Furthermore, this settlement provides an immediate benefit for these drivers and
`achieves a significant award for members of the class. This Court and others have recognized that a
`settlement of misclassification claims like this one need not resolve the ultimate misclassification
`question. See O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., 201 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1132 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (indicating
`that this Court likely would have approved the 2016 settlement were it not for the PAGA portion of the
`settlement, notwithstanding the fact that it did not declare drivers to be employees going forward)4; see
`also Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 176 F. Supp. 3d 930, 936-37 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (approving class settlement that
`did not resolve the classification question and expressly rejecting argument that settlement should not be
`approved because it did not reclassify drivers as employees). The agreement submitted here is eminently
`fair, adequate, and reasonable and should be approved by this Court.
`The settlement satisfies the standard for preliminary approval—it is undoubtedly within the
`range of possible approval to justify sending notice to settlement class members and scheduling final
`
`
`3
`In the past, courts have approved settlements for amounts in the range of 15 to 20% of
`reimbursement expenses. See, e.g., Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 193 F.Supp.3d 1030, 1039 (N.D. Cal. 2016)
`(approving class action settlement of Lyft drivers’ misclassification claims that provided 17% recovery
`on drivers’ expense reimbursement claim); Marciano v. DoorDash Inc. CGC-15-548102 (Kahn, J.) (Cal.
`Sup. Ct. July 12, 2018) (approving settlement of between 21% and 31% of the estimated value of the
`most valuable expense reimbursement claim depending on whether contingency was triggered). Here,
`the figure is 100% of the estimated value of the vehicle and telephone expense reimbursement claim.
`
`4 Notably, there has been no PAGA claim raised in this case, and this settlement contains no
`release of PAGA claims.
`
`
`
`2
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF – CASE NO. CV 19-CV-06462-EMC
`
`

`

`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 187 Filed 02/17/22 Page 11 of 29
`
`
`
`approval proceedings; moreover, Plaintiffs submit that the proposed settlement (which is higher than the
`2019 settlement approved by this Court) is likely to earn final approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (e); In re
`Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Thus, the Court should: (1)
`grant preliminary approval of the settlement; (2) certify, for settlement purposes only, a settlement class
`of Uber drivers in California who are not bound by an arbitration clause; (3) approve the manner and
`forms of notice; (4) appoint Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. to represent the settlement class as class
`counsel; (5) appoint Simpluris as Settlement Administrator; and (6) schedule a hearing for final approval
`in June 2022.
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`Litigation History
`A.
`On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff Thomas Colopy filed a class action complaint in this case, alleging
`that Uber drivers were misclassified as independent contractors under California law, and, as a result of
`their misclassification, drivers were owed expense reimbursement, minimum wage, overtime, and had
`not received itemized wage statements as required by California law. See Dkt. 1. The case was intended
`to bring claims that post-dated the prior settlement of misclassification and wage claims on behalf of
`California Uber drivers not bound by Uber’s arbitration agreement in O’Connor v. Uber, Civ. A. No. 13-
`3826-EMC (N.D. Cal.). That settlement resolved claims on behalf of drivers not bound to arbitrate with
`Uber from the start of Uber’s operations in California until February 28, 2019. O'Connor v. Uber Techs.,
`Inc., 2019 WL 4394401, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2019), aff'd, 2019 WL 7602362 (9th Cir. Dec. 20,
`2019).
`
`On January 3, 2020, Plaintiffs Thomas Colopy, Christopher James, and Spencer Verhines filed a
`First Amended Complaint asserting the same claims. See Dkt. 33. On April 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an
`amended consolidated complaint, with only Christopher James and Spencer Verhines serving as named
`plaintiffs and adding allegations regarding Uber’s failure to provide paid sick leave during the
`
`
`
`3
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF – CASE NO. CV 19-CV-06462-EMC
`
`

`

`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 187 Filed 02/17/22 Page 12 of 29
`
`
`
`pandemic. See Dkt. 47.5 Meanwhile, on June 18, 2020, Plaintiff Kent Hassell filed a class action
`complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting similar
`claims against Uber on behalf of himself and a proposed class of Uber Eats drivers who opted out of
`arbitration. See Hassell, Civ. A. No. 4:20-cv-04062-PJH, Dkt. 1. There, the Parties litigated Uber’s two
`hotly contested Motions to Dismiss, see Hassell v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2020 WL 7173218 (N.D. Cal. Dec.
`7, 2020); Hassell v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2021 WL 2531076, at *14 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2021), and
`Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in January 2021. See Hassell, Civ. A. No. 4:20-cv-04062-PJH,
`Dkt. 33.
`The parties in this case engaged in extensive discovery. Plaintiffs propounded multiple sets of
`written discovery (totaling more than 50 requests) and received and reviewed more than 19,550 pages of
`documents produced by Uber. See Liss-Riordan Decl. at ⁋ 3. Uber likewise propounded multiple sets of
`written discovery (totaling more than 180 requests) and reviewed nearly 1,500 pages of documents
`produced by the two Named Plaintiffs, Verhines and James. Id. Uber deposed Christopher James and
`Spencer Verhines, and Plaintiffs deposed a Rule 30(b)(6) witness from Uber. The parties engaged in a
`protracted meet and confer process regarding various discovery disputes and planned to engage in more
`discovery. Id.
`The parties also briefed and argued a Motion to Dismiss filed by Uber and multiple Motions for
`Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs. Id. at ¶ 4.6 Thereafter, the parties briefed and argued class
`certification. Id. at ¶ 6. On January 26, 2021, the Court issued an order certifying a class of “Uber
`drivers who drove for Uber in the State of California between February 28, 2019 and December 16,
`
`
`
`5 On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff Spencer Verhines filed a separate complaint in California state
`court, which was subsequently removed to this court and captioned Verhines v. Uber Techs. Inc., Civ.
`A. No. 3:20-cv-01886 (N.D. Cal.). This complaint focused on Uber’s failure to provide paid sick leave
`during the pandemic. This case was consolidated with this case as part of the amended consolidated
`complaint. See Liss-Riordan Decl. at ¶ 2, n. 1.
`
`6
`That injunction motion ultimately ended in a settlement of Plaintiffs’ claims for pandemic-
`related sick pay for 2020, which provided substantial relief to a number of California Uber drivers. See
`id. The amount of relief paid under that settlement is not included in the settlement value quoted here.
`
`
`
`4
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT AND
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF – CASE NO. CV 19-CV-06462-EMC
`
`

`

`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`Case 3:19-cv-06462-EMC Document 187 Filed 02/17/22 Page 13 of 29
`
`
`
`2020, and who opted out of Uber’s arbitration agreement,” on their misclassification claims and on their
`claims for expense reimbursement pay statements, but not on their claims for minimum wage, overtime,
`and paid sick leave. See Dkt. 143. Uber filed a petition for review to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), which Plaintiffs opposed. See James v. Uber, Ninth Cir. No. 21-80006,
`Dkt. No. 1, Dkt. No. 2. That petition was subsequently denied. James v. Uber, Ninth Cir. No. 21-80006,
`Dkt. No. 4 (9th Cir. April 13, 2021).
`The parties moved on to briefing summary judgment. See Liss-Riordan Decl. at ⁋ 7. On August
`12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment against Uber “on its affirmative defense that
`the certified class members are properly classified as independent contractors.” See Dkt. 174. Uber
`requested and was granted an extension of time to file its response, and the parties were scheduled to
`complete briefing and argue summary judgment before the Court on February 3, 2022. See Liss-Riordan
`Decl. at ⁋ 7.
`Prior to this settlement being reached, the parties engaged in extensive negotiations before Judge
`Spero (spanning nine mediation sessions and many hours) in connection with the Verhines sick pay
`case, ultimately resulting in Uber’s rollout of a program to provide certain benefits to drivers during the
`pandemic.7 Id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiffs’ counsel received no attorneys’ fees in connection with negotiating this
`extremely hard-fought settlement and performed extensive work to make sure Uber followed through on
`its commitment and to make sure drivers were able to easily access the benefits she obtained for them
`through that negotiation. Id.
`The parties mediated the remaining claims in the case in October 2021, pursuant to the