Case 3:21-cv-09577-RS Document 33 Filed 04/14/22 Page 1 of 9
`
`Ten Post Office Square
`8th Floor South PMB #706
`Boston, MA 02109
`617.227.0548
`www.consovoymccarthy.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 14, 2022
`
`The Hon. Richard Seeborg, Chief Judge
`United States District Court
`Northern District of California
`San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom 3 – 17th Floor
`450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102
`
`Re: Valeria Chavez, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-cv-09577-
`RS
`
`
`Dear Chief Judge Seeborg:
`
`On behalf of the Petitioners in the above-captioned matter, we write to inform you that
`today the New York Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the state
`trial court’s decision rejecting Uber’s attempt to avoid the arbitration fees it bargained for
`in drafting its consumer arbitration agreement. A copy of the Appellate Division’s order
`is attached.
`
`The Appellate Division rejected Uber’s arguments at every turn, ruling that it “failed to
`establish a likelihood of success on the merits for any of its claims” because (1) “Uber
`failed to demonstrate AAA breached any agreed upon terms by failing to charge fees
`commensurate with its reasonable, actual costs[;]” (2) that “Uber has not shown a
`likelihood of success on the merits of its breach of implied covenant claim, as AAA was
`fully within its express rights under the CA Rules to charge the fees set forth in the fee
`schedule”); (3) that “Uber has not shown likelihood of success on another cause of action
`warranting restitution[;]” and (4) that Uber “has not shown a likelihood of success” on its
`unfair competition claim both because of the failure of the “underlying breach of the
`implied covenant claim” and because “AAA’s enforcement of its fee schedule does not
`offend public policy, and is not immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or
`substantially injurious to consumers.” Slip Op. 4-5. The Appellate Division further
`affirmed the trial court’s finding that Uber could not show irreparable harm. Id. 5-6.
`
`Despite some uncertainty at argument, it appears that Uber will not have any right to
`further appeal this interlocutory decision. Under New York’s procedural rules, the state’s
`Court of Appeals lacks further jurisdiction to review the denial of preliminary relief (absent
`limited exceptions not present here). See N.Y. CPLR §§ 5601, 5602. Moreover, Uber has
`previously represented to this Court that if it lost the pending appeal and “the New York
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09577-RS Document 33 Filed 04/14/22 Page 2 of 9
`
`April 14, 2022
`Page 2
`
`court holds that AAA’s rules do require Uber to pay the invoiced fees, Uber will meet its
`obligations and arbitrations will proceed.” See Doc. 27, at 13.
`
`If Uber is true to its representations to Your Honor and, having lost the appeal, now
`complies with the terms of its Arbitration Agreement and applicable law, there may be no
`need for an order compelling arbitration. On the other hand, if Uber reneges on its
`representation to this Court and continues to resist arbitration, further proceedings may
`be necessary. Claimants thus respectfully suggest this Court stay any further action on the
`pending motions for 21 days to determine whether AAA or Uber take further steps that
`alter the course of these federal proceedings. Alternatively, Claimants are available for a
`status conference at the Court’s convenience.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/Patrick Strawbridge
`Patrick Strawbridge (admitted pro hac vice)
`patrick@consovoymccarthy.com
`CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
`Ten Post Office Square
`8th Floor South PMB #706
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`(617) 227-0548
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bryan K. Weir (#310964)
`bryan@consovoymccarthy.com
`Thomas R. McCarthy (admitted pro hac vice)
`tom@consovoymccarthy.com
`CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
`1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
`Arlington, VA 22209
`(703) 243-9423
`
`Bradley A. Benbrook (#177786)
`brad@benbrooklawgroup.com
`BENBROOK LAW GROUP PC
`701 University Avenue, Suite 106
`Sacramento, CA 95825
`(916) 447-4900
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09577-RS Document 33 Filed 04/14/22 Page 3 of 9
`
`April 14, 2022
`Page 3
`
`
`cc: ECF Recipients
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09577-RS Document 33 Filed 04/14/22 Page 4 of 9
`Supreme Court of the State of New York
`Appellate Division, First Judicial Department
`
`
`Acosta, P.J., Kern, González, Shulman, JJ.
`
`15732
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`
`AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, INC.,
`Defendant-Respondent.
`
`Index No. 655549/21
`Case No. 2021-03782
`
`
`
`Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP, New York (Roberta A. Kaplan of counsel), for appellants.
`
`Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, New York (Theodore L. Hecht of counsel), for
`respondent.
`
`
`
`
`Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered October
`
`(cid:20)(cid:24)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:90)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:73)(cid:73)(cid:86)(cid:182)(cid:3)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:77)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:73)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:86)(cid:79)(cid:92)(cid:3)
`
`affirmed, without costs.
`
`
`
`This is a contract dispute between plaintiffs Uber Technologies, Inc. and Uber
`
`USA, LLC (together, Uber) and defendant the American Arbitration Association, Inc.
`
`(AAA) over fees for approximately 31,500 similarly situated arbitrations. Uber(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3)
`
`platform, (cid:179)(cid:56)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:180)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:88)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:68)(cid:78)(cid:72)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:68)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)
`
`have it delivered by a driver for a restaurant-specific delivery fee. In order to use the
`
`service, c(cid:88)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:84)(cid:88)(cid:76)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:80)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:86)(cid:72), which contains a
`
`provision stating that any dispute between the customer and Uber would be settled by
`
`binding arbitration administered by the AAA in accordance with (cid:36)(cid:36)(cid:36)(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:85)(cid:88)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:15) the
`
`Consumer Arbitration Rules (CA Rules). Following the death of George Floyd in June
`
`2020, Uber announced it would waive its delivery fee charged to customers for orders
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09577-RS Document 33 Filed 04/14/22 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`placed at certain qualifying Black-owned restaurants from June 4, 2020 through
`
`December 1, 2020. Shortly after, the law firm of Consovoy McCarthy PLLC began
`
`searching for Uber Eats customers who paid a delivery fee to a nonblack owned
`
`restaurant during the relevant time and asking them to challenge the lawfulness of
`
`(cid:56)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:92)(cid:3)by claiming it constituted unlawful reverse race discrimination. From
`
`October 26, 2020 to December 9, 2020, the Consovoy Firm filed over 31,000
`
`substantively identical arbitration demands with AAA on behalf of the Uber Eats
`
`customers against Uber.
`
`In December 2020, AAA accepted and agreed to administer the claims according
`
`to the CA Rules, which included a fee schedule for individual cases. According to the fee
`
`schedule, for each case, Uber would owe AAA a $500 filing fee, a $1,400 standard case
`
`management fee, and a $1,500 arbitrator fee, for a total of approximately $107 million if
`
`charged the full amount under the fee schedule. AAA exercised its discretion as to the
`
`filing fee, and reduced it to approximately $4.3 million, which Uber paid without
`
`objection.
`
`The parties and AAA then engaged in months of fruitless negotiations to come up
`
`with a more efficient process for dealing with the 31,500 arbitration cases. Finally, in
`
`April 2021, AAA told the parties that absent an agreement between them, it would
`
`administer the cases pursuant to the CA Rules, including invoicing fees according to the
`
`fee schedule. In doing so, AAA was committing to invoice Uber a minimum of
`
`approximately $91.6 million. AAA then broke the claims down into five different
`
`batches, with the first batch containing 477 non-California cases, and the remaining
`
`batches each containing approximately 7,771 California cases. AAA requested payment
`
`of the case management fee for the first batch for a total of $667,800 by April 30, 2021.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09577-RS Document 33 Filed 04/14/22 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Uber stated it would pay that amount, (cid:69)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:179)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:180)(cid:3)AAA responded by
`
`stating if payment was made under protest, it would return such fees and
`
`administratively close the case files. AAA also invoked California Code of Civil
`
`Procedure §§ 1281.97 to 1281.99 (the Cal CP Arbitration Rule). The Cal CP Arbitration
`
`Rule provides that a drafting party that fails to pay arbitral administration fees or costs
`
`under the arbitration administrator(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:85)(cid:88)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:90)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:68)(cid:92)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:179)(cid:71)(cid:88)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:180)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:179)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:80)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:69)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:73)(cid:68)(cid:88)(cid:79)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:90)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:74)(cid:75)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:17)(cid:180)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:82)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:80)(cid:68)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:3)
`
`sanctions on the breaching party, including entry of a default judgment, prohibiting
`
`discovery, monetary sanctions, and orders of contempt. On May 13, 2021, Uber paid the
`
`$667,800 in case management fees for the first 477 cases.
`
`On September 14, 2021, AAA issued an invoice demanding payment of $10.879
`
`(cid:80)(cid:76)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:80)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:179)(cid:69)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:180)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:26)(cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:88)(cid:69)(cid:77)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)
`
`CP Arbitration Rule. Uber then filed this complaint against AAA alleging that its
`
`invoicing was unlawful. Uber asserted declaratory judgment claims based upon breach
`
`of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
`
`(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:85)(cid:3)
`
`Competition Law (Cal Bus & Prof Code § 17200 et seq.). Simultaneously, Uber moved
`
`for a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo by enjoining AAA from issuing
`
`any additional invoices, prohibiting AAA from closing any open arbitrations due to
`
`(cid:56)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:73)(cid:88)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:36)(cid:36)(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:89)(cid:82)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:72)(cid:91)(cid:87)(cid:72)nding the invoicing deadline in the event
`
`(cid:56)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:77)(cid:88)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:17)
`
`(cid:54)(cid:88)(cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:79)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:72)(cid:91)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:70)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:70)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:92)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)
`
`a preliminary injunction. In seeking a preliminary injunction, Uber had to
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09577-RS Document 33 Filed 04/14/22 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`(cid:179)demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) a likelihood of success on the
`
`merits, (2) irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) a
`
`balancing of the equities in the movant(cid:182)s favor(cid:180)(cid:3)(cid:11)Gilliland v Acquafredda Enters., LLC,
`
`92 AD3d 19, 24-25 [1st Dept 2011]; see CPLR 6301).
`
`Uber failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits for any of its claims.
`
`Uber failed to demonstrate AAA breached any agreed upon terms by failing to charge
`
`fees commensurate with its reasonable, actual costs. While Uber alleges that it, the
`
`claimants, and AAA are all bound by the CA Rules and Consumer Due Process Protocol
`
`Statement of Principles (Protocol), neither of those documents requires AAA to charge
`
`reasonable fees related to its actual costs. Rather, the CA Rules repeatedly state AAA will
`
`charge fees as outlined in the attached fee schedule. The CA Rules also allow AAA to
`
`exercise sole discretion as to whether to apply the CA Rules, whether to interpret and
`
`apply the fee schedule to a particular case or cases, and whether to consider an
`
`alternative payment process for multiple case filings. The Protocol, while not explicitly
`
`mentioned in (cid:56)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3)Terms of Use, has language regarding reasonableness of fees, but
`
`the sections referenced by Uber primarily deal with ensuring consumers receive due
`
`process and the impartiality of the arbitrators. Thus, it is unlikely Uber would succeed
`
`on its declaratory judgment breach of contract claim.
`
`Uber has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its breach of implied
`
`covenant claim, as AAA was fully within its express rights under the CA Rules to charge
`
`the fees set forth in the fee schedule (see Carma Devs. [Cal.], Inc. v Marathon Dev. Cal.,
`
`Inc., 2 Cal 4th 342, 374 [1992]), and while it chose not to exercise its discretion and
`
`reduce the fees after the parties could not agree to a more efficient manner of
`
`proceeding with over 31,000 arbitrations, there is no evidence AAA acted with
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09577-RS Document 33 Filed 04/14/22 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`dishonesty, deceit, or unfaithfulness to duty (Storek & Storek, Inc. v Citicorp Real
`
`Estate, Inc., 100 Cal App 4th 44, 59 [2002]). As for the unjust enrichment claim, under
`
`California law, it is not a separate cause of action, and Uber has not shown likelihood of
`
`success on another cause of action warranting restitution (see McBride v Boughton, 123
`
`Cal App 4th 379, 387 [2004]).
`
`
`
`Uber failed to establish likelihood of success on its claim under California Unfair
`
`Competition Law, which provides that (cid:179)unfair competition shall mean and include any
`
`unlawful [or] unfair . . . business act or practice(cid:180)(cid:3)(cid:11)Cal Bus & Prof Code § 17200).
`
`(cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:74)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)this claim is unlikely to succeed under the unlawful
`
`prong, as Uber has not shown a likelihood of success on the underlying breach of the
`
`implied covenant claim. It is also unlikely to succeed under the unfair prong, as (cid:36)(cid:36)(cid:36)(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:3)
`
`enforcement of its fee schedule does not offend public policy, and is not immoral,
`
`unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers (People v
`
`Casa Blanca Convalescent Homes, 159 Cal App 3d 509, 530 [1984]). Because Supreme
`
`Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Uber failed to establish a likelihood of
`
`success on the merits on any claim, this Court need not reach the issue of arbitral
`
`immunity under California law.
`
`
`
`Supreme Court providently found a lack of irreparable harm. Uber solely seeks
`
`declaratory judgments for the four claims in its complaint. However, Uber may not seek
`
`a declaratory judgment when other remedies are available, such as monetary damages
`
`(see Atlas MF Mezzanine Borrower, LLC v Macquarie Tex. Loan Holder LLC, 174 AD3d
`
`150, 163 [1st Dept 2019]), and here, monetary damages are available for all four of
`
`(cid:56)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:182)(cid:86) claims. Uber is effectively seeking a substantial reduction to the additional $91
`
`million AAA will invoice to arbitrate the claims, which would be a monetary judgment
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09577-RS Document 33 Filed 04/14/22 Page 9 of 9
`
`
`
`precluding the preliminary injunction (see Credit Agricole Indosuez v Rossiyskiy Kredit
`
`Bank, 94 NY2d 541, 545, 548 [2000]; JSC VTB Bank v Mavlyanov, 154 AD3d 560, 561
`
`[1st Dept 2017]). In addition, Uber has asserted counterclaims against its arbitration
`
`counterparties seeking reimbursement of the fees at issue, thus cutting against its claim
`
`of irreparable harm. Further, Uber could avoid the alleged irreparable harm caused by
`
`AAA by changing the assigned arbitration organization for the 31,000 cases.
`
`
`
`The balance of the equities weighs in favor of AAA. While Uber is trying to avoid
`
`paying the arbitration fees associated with 31,000 nearly identical cases, it made the
`
`business decision to preclude class, collective, or representative claims in its arbitration
`
`agreement with its consumers, and AAA(cid:182)(cid:86) fees are directly attributable to that decision
`
`(see Avenue A Assoc. LP v Board of Mgrs. of the Hearth House Condominium, 190
`
`AD3d 473, 474 [1st Dept 2021]).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
`
`
`OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ENTERED: April 14, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`