Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Francis J. “Casey” Flynn, Jr.
`CA State Bar No. 304712
`LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
`422 South Curson Avenue
`Los Angeles, California 90036
`Tele: 314-662-2836
`Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com
`
`James J. Rosemergy (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
`8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
`St. Louis, MO 63105
`Tele: 314-725-7700
`Direct: 314-678-1064
`Fax: 314-721-0905
`jrosemergy@careydanis.com
`
`Steven A. Schwartz (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`Zachary P. Beatty (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
` & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
`361 W. Lancaster Ave.
`Haverford, PA 19041
`Telephone: (610) 642-8500
`Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
`steveschwartz@chimicles.com
`ZPB@chimicles.com
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`LONA’S LIL EATS, LLC, on its own
`behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`20-cv-6703
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
`DAMAGES
`AND
`INJUNCTIVE
`RELIEF FOR:
`
`1. FALSE ADVERTISING (Lanham
`Act § 43(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)))
`
`2. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
`FALSE ADVERTISING LAW
`(California Business & Professions
`
`))))
`
`
`)
`
`)))
`
`
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`DOORDASH, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Code §§ 17500, et seq.)
`
`3. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
`UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
`(California Business & Professions
`Code §§ 17200, et seq.)
`
`1.
`This matter stems from Defendant DoorDash, Inc.’s (“DoorDash”) unfair,
`deceptive, and anticompetitive practice regarding the manner in which it displays information
`about businesses with whom it does not have an agreement to provide service.
`2.
`Defendant is in the business of facilitating delivery services for restaurants via its
`websites and mobile apps. After a customer places an order for food from a restaurant using
`Defendant’s service, Defendant will engage someone from their network of drivers to go to the
`restaurant, pick it up, and deliver it to the consumer.
`3.
`Defendant has engaged in a pattern of behavior whereby customers are deceptively
`steered away from restaurants with whom DoorDash does not have a relationship by Doordash’s
`practice of affirmatively representing to consumers that those restaurants are closed, cannot
`deliver to them, or are not accepting orders at the time.
`PARTIES
`4.
`Plaintiff Lona’s Lil Eats, LLC (“Lona’s) is a Missouri limited liability company
`that maintains its principal place of business in St. Louis City, Missouri.
`5.
`Defendant DoorDash, Inc. (“DoorDash” or “Defendant”) is a Delaware corporation
`with its principal place of business located at 303 2nd Street, South Tower, Ste 800, San Francisco,
`CA 94107. Defendant is in in the business of facilitating delivery services for restaurants.
`JURISDICTION
`6.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`1331 in that this cause of action arises under certain federal statutes, in particular the Lanham
`Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims
`arising out of the same conduct that forms the case and controversy at issue pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 1367.
`
`
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`7.
`Defendant maintains its headquarters at 303 2nd Street, South Tower, Ste 800, San
`Francisco, CA 94107 and a substantial portion of the conduct at issue originated at that location,
`which is in the San Francisco division of this Court.
`VENUE
`8.
`Venue is proper in this district in that Defendant maintains its headquarters in this
`District, and upon information and belief, the decision-making that led to the conduct at issue in
`this litigation occurred in this District.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`9.
`DoorDash has relationships with certain restaurants around the country (“Partner
`Restaurants”) where DoorDash will take online orders from consumers using DoorDash’s
`websites and/or mobile apps which are then relayed on to the Partner Restaurants, and then
`DoorDash’s drivers will pick up the orders and deliver them to the consumers. Upon information
`and belief, DoorDash collects payments for these orders, and then Partner Restaurants have
`various commissions and related fees held back from funds collected from orders in payment to
`DoorDash for the services that it provides.
`10.
`DoorDash has developed significant market power, particularly as a result of the
`Covid-19 pandemic. With many restaurants unable or unwilling to offer dine-in services, many
`consumers have turned to DoorDash to have restaurant food delivered in lieu of eating out.
`11.
`The market power is such that restaurants are put in a difficult situation: they can
`become Partner Restaurants and pay exorbitant fees and commissions to Defendant, or they
`decline to do so and risk losing out on sales.
`12.
`This already difficult choice is made far more difficult, however, because
`DoorDash publishes false and misleading information about restaurants that are not Partner
`Restaurants.
`
`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
`
`3
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13.
`For example, Plaintiff is not a Partner Restaurant with DoorDash. Nevertheless, if
`a consumer were to search for “Lona’s Lil Eats delivery”—as a result of DoorDash’s market
`power and internet marketing strategies—then one of the first results that comes up is a link for
`Plaintiff’s restaurant on a DoorDash’s website (referred to as a “landing page”). Clicking through
`the link will bring a consumer to a page with DoorDash branding and the complete menu, as if it
`were possible to place an order through the site:1
`
`14.
`DoorDash’s site will let you go through the process of placing an order, including
`the opportunity to customize your order, adding credibility to the idea that Lona’s has partnered
`with DoorDash and that placing an order is possible in the abstract:
`
`
`
`
`1 Images herein reflect DoorDash websites as of August 18, 2020.
`
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`The order, however, cannot be completed, because no matter what the user’s
`proximity to Lona’s may be, the site will say that it is “unavailable” on account of being “out of
`the delivery area” and “too far.”
`
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`16.
`Of note, the address selected for the purpose of this demonstration is directly across
`the street from Lona’s and even reflects on DoorDash’s site that it is only 200 feet away:
`
`
`17.
`
`The problem is not, in fact, that the delivery address is too far away, the problem is
`
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`that Lona’s has not agreed to pay DoorDash’s exorbitant fees. A consumer can change his or her
`address over and over again, but it will never become available for delivery because Lona’s is not
`a Partner Restaurant.
`18.
`In other instances in the past, DoorDash would represent to customers looking for
`Lona’s that the restaurant was “Closed.”
`19.
`DoorDash takes advantage of the existing market demand for Lona’s and other
`restaurants to drive traffic to its site, at which time it will redirect customers to other Partner
`Restaurants by suggesting that Lona’s is not an option.
`20.
`In fact, Lona’s provides curb-side service, and, therefore, it is an option.
`DoorDash’s representations that Lona’s is too far away for delivery or closed are not true.
`21.
`Accordingly, DoorDash is publishing false and deceptive information about the
`ability to get food from Lona’s as a means of punishing it for not partnering with it, and/or
`pressuring it to partner with it, and to redirect would-be Lona’s business to its Partner Restaurants.
`Defendant’s conduct has an obvious, significant, and unfair impact upon the competitive
`landscape within the restaurant industry and results in damage to Plaintiff and members of the
`Class.
`22.
`DoorDash has engaged in the same behavior with respect to other restaurants who
`decide against becoming DoorDash Partner Restaurants.
`23.
`This behavior is particularly troubling in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. At
`a time when many restaurants—and in particular locally owned restaurants (as opposed to
`national chains)—are struggling to stay open and have been forced to radically change their
`business model to survive, DoorDash is engaged in predatory, deceptive, and anticompetitive
`behavior that takes unfair advantage of their market position.
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`24.
`Plaintiff brings this action and seeks to certify and maintain it as a class action under
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, individually and on behalf of the following Class:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`All restaurants, entities, and/or individuals with any ownership interest in such
`restaurants or entities, in the United States who do not do business with Defendant
`DoorDash but who nevertheless have a landing page on a DoorDash website and/or
`within its mobile app.
`
`Excluded from the Class are: (a) Defendant and any entities in which Defendant
`has a controlling interest; (b) Any entities in which Defendant’s officers, directors,
`or employees are employed and any of the legal representatives, heirs, successors,
`or assigns of Defendant; (c) All current employees of Defendant; (d) The Judge(s)
`to whom this case or any transferred case is assigned and any member of the Judges’
`immediate family and any other judicial officer assigned to this case or any
`transferred case; (f) All governmental entities; and (g) anyone who makes a timely
`election to be excluded from the Class.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25.
`Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the definitions of the proposed Class
`and/or to add Subclasses if necessary before the Court determines whether certification is
`appropriate and as the Court may otherwise allow.
`26.
`This case is properly brought as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2),
`(b)(3), and (c)(4), and all requirements therein are met for the reasons set forth herein.
`27.
`The claims of all Class members derive directly from a single course of conduct by
`the Defendant. Defendant has engaged and continues to engage in uniform and standardized
`conduct toward the Class members. Defendant does not differentiate, in degree of care or candor,
`in its actions or inactions, or the content of its statements or omissions, among individual Class
`members. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on Plaintiff’s own behalf and
`on behalf of all other restaurants, entities, and individuals similarly situated pursuant under Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 23. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy,
`predominance, and superiority requirements of these provisions.
`28.
`Certification of Plaintiff’s claims is appropriate because Plaintiff can prove the
`elements of Plaintiff’s claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence as would be used to
`prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claim.
`Numerosity - Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The Class is so numerous that joinder of
`29.
`all members is impracticable. While the exact number is not known at this time, it is generally
`
`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
`
`8
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 9 of 18
`
`
`
`ascertainable by appropriate discovery, and it is believed the Class includes many thousands of
`members. The numerosity requirement is, therefore, satisfied. Undoubtedly, individual joinder
`in this case is impracticable. More than one thousand Class members is sufficient to satisfy
`numerosity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).
`Ascertainability. The Class is ascertainable because its members can be readily
`30.
`identified using business records, and other information kept by Defendant in the usual course of
`business and within its control or Plaintiff and the Class themselves. Plaintiff anticipates
`providing appropriate notice to the Class to be approved by the Court after class certification, or
`pursuant to court order.
`Commonality and Predominance - Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and (b)(3). There
`31.
`are several questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and the members of the
`Class. All of the members of the Class’ claims are based upon the same facts and circumstances.
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class
`predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. The resolution
`of common questions in this case will resolve the claims of both Plaintiff and the Class. Common
`questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
`a.
`Whether Defendant unfairly, unethically, unlawfully, falsely, deceptively,
`misleadingly, unconscionably, and/or confusingly misrepresented the status of operations for
`members of the Class;
`b.
`Whether Defendant targeted customers of Class members and unfairly,
`unethically, unlawfully, falsely, fraudulently, deceptively, misleadingly, unconscionably, and/or
`confusingly redirected them to Partner Restaurants;
`c.
`Whether Defendant otherwise engaged in unfair, unlawful, fraudulent,
`unethical, unconscionable, and/or deceptive trade practices;
`d.
`Whether Defendant had a duty to provide accurate information about Class
`members’ operations;
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`9
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`e.
`Whether Defendant violated the applicable statutes identified herein;
`f.
`Whether Defendant concealed material facts in its advertising materials
`and/or failed to adequately disclose material facts;
`g.
`Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to actual, compensatory,
`nominal, statutory, and/or punitive damages;
`h.
`Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to injunctive, declaratory relief,
`or other equitable relief; and
`i.
`Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees
`
`and costs.
`Typicality - Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of
`32.
`the Class. The claims of the Plaintiff and the respective Class are based on the same legal theories
`and arise from the same unlawful and willful conduct of Defendant, resulting in the same injury
`to the Plaintiff and the respective Class. Plaintiff and all members of the Class are similarly
`affected by Defendant’s wrongful conduct and were damaged in the same way. Plaintiff’s
`interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, those of the other Class members. Plaintiff
`has been damaged by the same wrongdoing set forth in this Complaint.
`Adequacy - Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiff is an adequate Class representative
`33.
`because Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action
`litigation; neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel have any interest adverse to those of the other
`members of the Class; Plaintiff is knowledgeable about the subject matter of this action and will
`assist counsel to vigorously prosecute this litigation and has or can acquire adequate financial
`resources to assure that the interests of the Class will not be harmed. The interests of the members
`of Class will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. As such,
`Plaintiff meets the adequacy requirement.
`Superiority - Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The class action is superior to other
`34.
`available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this dispute. The injury suffered by each
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`member of the Class, while meaningful on an individual basis, is not of such magnitude as to
`make the prosecution of individual actions against Defendant economically feasible. Even if
`members of the Class themselves could afford such individualized litigation, the court system
`could not. In addition to the burden and expense of managing many actions, individualized
`litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. Individualized litigation
`increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system presented by the legal and
`factual issues of the case. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management
`difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive
`supervision by a single court.
`Policies Generally Applicable to the Class - Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Defendant
`35.
`has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby requiring the
`Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of conduct toward the
`members of the Class, and making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the Class as
`a whole. Defendant’s practices challenged herein apply to and affect the members of the Class
`uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinge on Defendant’s conduct with respect
`to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff.
`Injunctive and Declaratory Relief is Appropriate - Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1).
`36.
`Defendant has acted, or refused to act on, grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby
`making appropriate final and injunctive relief with respect to the members of the Class as a whole.
`37.
`The prosecution of separate actions by the individual members of the Class would
`create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual members of the
`Class.
`38.
`The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would
`create a risk of adjudications with respect to them which would, as a practical matter, be
`dispositive of the interests of other members of the Class not parties to the adjudications, or
`substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`11
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 12 of 18
`
`
`
`Certification of Particular Issues. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4). Issue certification is
`39.
`also appropriate with respect to any or all of the common issues identified herein.
`COUNT I
`FALSE ADVERTISING
`(Lanham Act § 43(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)))
`40.
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations as though
`fully set forth herein.
`41.
`Defendant’s conduct as set forth herein significantly impacts interstate commerce
`and commerce within this district.
`42.
`As described more fully herein, Defendant has engaged in a course of conduct with
`respect to the advertising of its services and the services of restaurants that contains false and/or
`misleading statements of fact, or omissions of critical facts, including those of Plaintiff and
`members of the Class.
`43.
`These false and/or misleading statements, or omissions of material facts, include
`the following:
`a.
`Suggesting in its advertising that Defendant has a business relationship with
`Plaintiff and members of the Class and that it is authorized to provide information regarding their
`services when in fact no such authorization exists;
`b.
`Providing false and/or misleading information about the operating status of
`restaurants, including whether it is open, whether food can be delivered from that restaurant, and
`whether other services are available from those establishments.
`c.
`Failing to advise consumers that restaurants are in fact open and delivery
`from restaurants may be available through other services or means.
`44.
`The false and misleading statements and omissions described herein are material,
`are intended to have an impact on whether consumers order delivery service from one of
`Defendant’s Partner Restaurants as opposed to ordering delivery service from members of the
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`12
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 13 of 18
`
`
`
`Class, and do in fact have such an impact.
`45.
`The false and misleading statements and omissions described herein actually
`deceive or have the tendency to deceive customers of Plaintiff and the Class and has steered
`delivery orders away from those restaurants.
`46.
`Indeed, Defendant’s conduct results in both short term and longer term damage to
`Plaintiff and members of the Class in that consumers are led to believe that they are not operating
`at all, or that they do not provide delivery service, such that not only do they miss out on orders
`in the short term, they are less likely to attempt to order from them in the future, since they are
`represented to be closed or not available.
`47.
`Given the COVID-19 crisis, the short-term damage to restaurants caused by
`DoorDash’s conduct has the potential to be so great as to result in the closing or bankruptcy of
`restaurants.
`48.
`Defendant’s conduct as described herein constitutes a violation of the Lanham Act
`§ 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
`49.
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation and false and misleading
`statements and omissions described herein, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117, Plaintiff and the Class
`have sustained monetary damages. Plaintiff and the Class are likewise entitled to recover from
`Defendant all profits, gains and advantages obtained stemming from this improper conduct.
`50.
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation and false and misleading
`statements and omissions described herein, Plaintiff and the class have additionally sustained
`other irreparable injury, including loss of market position, loss of reputation, loss of goodwill, the
`ability to continue as a going concern, and other damage for which there is no adequate remedy
`at law. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to equitable relief enjoining Defendant
`from engaging in the conduct described herein, and other similarly deceptive, anticompetitive,
`and improper conduct, and mandating the cessation and reversal of all existing false advertising.
`51.
`Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117, Plaintiff is further entitled to recover the costs of this
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`13
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 14 of 18
`
`
`
`action. Defendant’s conduct was intentional, characterized by an evil motive, and with the design
`of deceiving the general public to unfairly reap profits at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class,
`entitling Plaintiff to a statutory multiplier of actual damages, additional damages and reasonable
`attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`COUNT II
`VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FALSE ADVERTISING LAW
`(California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq.)
`
`
`52.
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations as though
`fully set forth herein.
`53.
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 provides:
`It is unlawful for any . . . corporation . . . with intent directly or indirectly to dispose
`of real or personal property or to perform services, professional or otherwise,. . .
`to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or
`disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated … from this state before the
`public in any state, in any newspaper or other publication, or any advertising
`device, . . . or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the Internet,
`any statement . . . . which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which
`by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.
`54.
`Defendant caused to be made or disseminated throughout the United States, through
`advertising, marketing and other publications, statements, including statements included in its
`general advertising and on its website that falsified information about Plaintiff and the Class, and
`omitted material information from consumers and members of the Class.
`55.
`Defendant knew or should have known through the exercise of reasonable care that
`the omitted information was material to consumers.
`56.
`Defendant has violated Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 because its omissions
`regarding the operations of Plaintiff and members of the Class were material and likely to deceive
`a reasonable consumer.
`57.
`Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered an injury in fact, including the
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`14
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 15 of 18
`
`
`
`loss of money or property, as a result of Defendant’s unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive practices.
`Consumers relied on the representations by Defendant from which Defendant omitted material
`information as described herein, which in turn resulted in damage to Plaintiff and the Class. Had
`consumers been aware of the omitted information, they would have altered their purchasing
`behavior.
`58.
`All of the wrongful conduct alleged herein occurred, and continues to occur, in the
`conduct of Defendant’s business. Defendant’s wrongful conduct is part of a pattern or generalized
`course of conduct that is still perpetuated and repeated, in the state of California and elsewhere.
`59.
`Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the other Class members, request that this
`Court enter such orders or judgments as may be necessary to enjoin Defendant from continuing
`its unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive practices and to restore to Plaintiff and the other Class
`members any money Defendant acquired by unfair competition, including restitution and/or
`restitutionary disgorgement, and for such other relief set forth below.
`60.
`Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to California
`Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.
`
`COUNT III
`VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
`(California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.)
`61.
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations as though
`fully set forth herein.
`62.
`California’s Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200,
`et seq., defines unfair business competition to include any “unfair,” “unlawful,” or “fraudulent”
`business act or practice. The Act also provides for injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement
`of profits for violations.
`63.
`Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts and practices, as
`described herein, were and are in violation of the UCL. Defendant’s conduct violates the UCL in
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`15
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 16 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the following ways:
`a. By knowingly and intentionally concealing material information concerning the
`true nature of Plaintiff’s services and operations;
`b. By violating other California laws, including Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et
`seq.; and,
`c. By violating Lanham Act § 43(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
`64.
`Defendant’s omissions alleged herein caused Plaintiff and the other Class members
`to suffer damage to their business operations in that consumers seeking their products were instead
`improperly steered to other Partner Restaurants and did business with them instead, both in the
`immediate term, and thereafter.
`65.
`Defendant’s practice is also immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous and
`causes injury to consumers which outweigh its benefits.
`66.
`Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class members have suffered injury in fact, including
`lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts.
`67.
`In the alternative, to the extent that it is determined that damages are not calculable,
`Plaintiff requests injunctive relief prohibiting DoorDash from engaging in the conduct and
`practices alleged herein.
`68.
`Plaintiff seeks to enjoin further unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent acts or practices
`by Defendant, under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Class pray for judgment as follows:
`A.
`For an order certifying the proposed class, appointing Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
`counsel to represent the proposed Class, appointing the undersigned counsel for Plaintiff as Lead
`Counsel for the Class;
`B.
`An order awarding declaratory relief finding the unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent,
`and/or unfair business practices alleged in this Complaint to be unlawful and improper;
`
`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
`
`16
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 17 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`Appropriate equitable relief;
`D.
`An order awarding restitution, disgorgement, actual damages, statutory damages,
`exemplary damages, and punitive damages under applicable law, and compensatory damages for
`economic loss, diminished value, and out-of-pocket costs in an amount to be determined at trial;
`E.
`In the alternative, to the extent that it is determined that damages are not calculable,
`Plaintiff requests equitable and injunctive relief prohibiting DoorDash from engaging in the
`conduct and practices alleged herein.
`F.
`A declaration that Defendant is financially responsible for all Class notice and the
`administration of Class relief;
`G.
`An order awarding any applicable statutory and civil penalties;
`H.
`An order requiring Defendant to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any
`amounts awarded;
`I.
`An award of costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees as permitted by law; and
`J.
`Such other or further relief as the Court may deem appropriate, just, and proper
`under the circumstances.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial for all claims so triable.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 24, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Francis J. “Casey” Flynn, Jr.
`By:
`Francis J. “Casey” Flynn, Jr.
`CA State Bar No. 304712
`LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
`422 South Curson Avenue
`Los Angeles, California 90036
`Tele: 314-662-2836
`Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com
`
`James J. Rosemergy (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
`8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
`St. Louis, MO 63105
`Tele: 314-725-7700
`
`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
`
`17
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06703-TSH Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 18 of 18
`
`
`
`Direct: 314-678-1064
`Fax: 314-721-0905
`jrosemergy@careydanis.com
`
`CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
` & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
`
`Steven A. Schwartz (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`Zachary P. Beatty (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`361 W. Lancaster Ave.
`Haverford, PA 19041
`Telephone: (610) 642-8500
`Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
`steveschwartz@chimicles.com
`ZPB@chimicles.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND
`THE PROPOSED CLASS
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`18
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`