Case 3:22-cv-04918-SK Document 1 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`
`Richard Morin (SBN 285275)
`Law Office of Rick Morin, PC
`500 Newport Center Drive Suite 610
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Phone: (949) 996-3094
`Email: legal@rickmorin.net
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
` Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`LaTasha Turner,
`
`
`
`
`Lyft, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff LaTasha Turner (“Plaintiff”), alleges:
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`Plaintiff brings this action against Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) for unlawfully and intentionally
`discriminating against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s disability and denying Plaintiff equal access to
`its services.
`
`PARTIES
`2.
`Plaintiff is a natural person. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff is and has
`been considered disabled.
`3.
`Lyft is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco,
`California. At all times relevant, Lyft has done and did business in California.
`4.
`Lyft owns and operates the ride-sharing or ride-hailing mobile application and service
`also known simply as Lyft or the Lyft App.
`//
`
`1
`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 3:22-cv-04918-SK Document 1 Filed 08/29/22 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`5.
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`and 1343(a)(3) & (a)(4).
`6.
`Pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, an attendant and related cause
`of action, arising from the same nucleus of operative facts and arising out of the same transactions, is
`also brought under California state law.
`7.
`Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and is founded on the fact
`that Lyft’s principal office is within this judicial district.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`Plaintiff suffers from a disability, and/or medical conditions that is a disability.
`8.
`9.
`Plaintiff suffers from, among other things, a traumatic brain injury and bulging disks
`from her neck to her lower back related to a tragic 2020 auto accident.
`Plaintiff’s symptoms limit, some substantially, Plaintiff’s major life activities.
`10.
`11.
`Plaintiff has mobility issues that prevent her from safely bending over to pick up objects
`that she drops on the floor.
`12.
`Plaintiff utilizes a service dog to help address the challenges resulting from Plaintiff’s
`disability, which Plaintiff deals with on a daily basis.
`13.
`Plaintiff’s service dog is trained in specific tasks to assist Plaintiff with the symptoms
`of Plaintiff’s disability, including, but not limited to, picking up objects that Plaintiff drops on the floor
`or ground.
`14.
`Plaintiff was denied Lyft rides on the following occasions only after informing her Lyft
`driver via in-app message that she was accompanied by a service animal:
`a. July 22 with driver “Dusan”
`b. July 22 with driver “Jose”
`c. July 22 with driver “Leslie”
`d. July 25 with driver “Beverly”
`e. July 30 with driver “Huron”
`On each of these occasions, Plaintiff summoned a ride using Lyft’s mobile application.
`
`15.
`
`2
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04918-SK Document 1 Filed 08/29/22 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`Plaintiff would then notify the driver of the fact that she was accompanied by her service
`animal, or the driver themselves would see Plaintiff’s service animal as they approached Plaintiff for
`pickup. Defendant’s driver would then unilaterally cancel Plaintiff’s ride.
`17.
`In each of these five instances, Plaintiff was denied a ride by the Lyft driver solely
`because of her status as a disabled person utilizing a service animal.
`18. While Lyft claims to have a service animal policy requiring its drivers to accept rides
`from disabled individuals utilizing service animals, in reality, Lyft does absolutely nothing to ensure
`that its drivers do not actively discriminate against disabled individuals, resulting in ongoing denials
`of access.
`19.
`Plaintiff would like to use Lyft when it complies with the ADA requirements regarding
`service animals and changing its policies, trainings, and procedures accordingly.
`20.
`Plaintiff has been injured as result of Lyft’s conduct, including, but not limited to,
`emotional distress, frustration, and embarrassment.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
`42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates the previous paragraphs as if they had been fully stated
`
`21.
`
`herein.
`
`22.
`Title III of the ADA bans disability discrimination against an individual in places of
`public accommodation. The ADA states that “no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis
`of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
`accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to),
`or operates a place of public accommodation.”
`23.
`Lyft’s operation of the Lyft App affects commerce.
`24.
`Lyft accepts, solicits, advertise, and/or offers the Lyft App to the public.
`25.
`The Lyft App is a public accommodation.
`26.
`The ADA prohibits, among other types of discrimination, failure to make reasonable
`modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when such modifications are necessary to afford
`
`3
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04918-SK Document 1 Filed 08/29/22 Page 4 of 8
`
`Lyft’s policy results in active discrimination against disabled patrons utilizing service
`
`
`
`
`such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with
`disabilities.
`27.
`animals.
`28.
`Lyft’s conduct knowingly and willfully denies and excludes Plaintiff from equal access
`to their public accommodation.
`29.
`As a result of Lyft’s conduct, Lyft actively and blatantly denies Plaintiff equal access to
`to Lyft’s platform and the rides that Lyft offers to provide to Plaintiff. Plaintiff faces continuing
`discrimination. Plaintiff continues to suffer denial of access and faces the prospect of unpleasant and
`discriminatory treatment should Plaintiff attempt to rebook rides with Lyft.
`30.
`It is readily achievable for Lyft to provide Plaintiff and other disabled people like
`Plaintiff full and equal access to the Lyft App services.
`31.
`Lyft does not have any legitimate business justification to excuse their denial of
`Plaintiff’s equal access.
`32.
`Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to remedies set forth in section 204(a) of the Civil Rights
`Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000(a)-3(a)), and/or pursuant to Federal Regulations adopted to implement the
`Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
`33.
`Plaintiff is a qualified disabled person for purposes of the ADA who is being subjected
`to discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title III and who has reasonable grounds for
`believing Plaintiff will be subjected to such discrimination each time that Plaintiff may attempt to use
`the Lyft App, in light of Lyft’s conduct.
`34.
`Lyft’s acts have proximately caused and will continue to cause irreparable injury to
`Plaintiff if not enjoined by this Court.
`35.
`Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief as to Lyft’s inaccessible policies. Plaintiff seeks
`preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin and eliminate the discriminatory practices that
`deny full and equal access for disabled persons. Further, Plaintiff seeks an award of reasonable statutory
`attorney fees, litigation expenses, and costs.
`//
`
`4
`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 3:22-cv-04918-SK Document 1 Filed 08/29/22 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Denial of Full and Equal Access to Public Facilities in a Public Accommodation
`Civ. Code §§ 54 et seq.
`36.
`Plaintiff incorporates all prior paragraphs as if fully stated herein.
`37.
`The Lyft App is an accommodation, public accommodation, or other place to which the
`general public is invited.
`38.
`Lyft denied and interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to access the Lyft App and the services
`provided through it.
`39.
`Plaintiff wishes to use the Lyft App but is substantially deterred from it because the lack
`of access and the significant policy barriers will foreseeably cause Plaintiff further difficulty,
`discomfort, and embarrassment. Plaintiff is unable, so long as such acts and omissions of Lyft
`continues, to achieve equal access to and use of the Lyft App.
`40.
`As a result of the denial of full and equal access to the described facilities and due to
`the acts and omissions of Lyft in owning and operating the Lyft App, Plaintiff has suffered a violation
`of civil rights, including but not limited to rights under Civil Code sections 54 and 54.1, and has
`suffered difficulty, discomfort and embarrassment, and physical, mental and emotional personal
`injuries.
`41.
`Lyft’s actions and omissions constitute discrimination against Plaintiff.
`42.
`Plaintiff has been damaged by Lyft’s wrongful conduct.
`43.
`Lyft has continued its illegal and discriminatory practices despite actual knowledge that
`persons with disabilities may attempt to patronize the Lyft App and encounter illegal policy barriers
`which deny them full and equal access when they do so.
`44.
`At all times herein mentioned, Lyft knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence
`should have known, that its practices at the Lyft App violated disabled access requirements and
`standards, and would have a discriminatory effect upon Plaintiff and upon other disabled persons, but
`Lyft has failed to rectify the violations, and presently continue a course of conduct of maintaining
`policy barriers that discriminate against Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled persons. For the
`foregoing reasons, Plaintiff alleges that an award of statutory treble damages are appropriate.
`
`5
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04918-SK Document 1 Filed 08/29/22 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`45.
`Further, although it is not necessary for Plaintiff to prove wrongful intent in order to
`show a violation of California Civil Code sections 54 and 54.1 or of Title III of the ADA, Lyft’s
`behavior was intentional.
`46.
`Plaintiff believes Lyft was aware and/or were made aware of its duties to refrain from
`establishing discriminatory policies against disabled persons, prior to the filing of this complaint.
`47.
` Lyft’s establishment of their discriminatory policy denying access to disabled persons
`to safely have full and equal access to the Lyft App, and their implementation of such a discriminatory
`policy against Plaintiff, indicate actual and implied malice toward Plaintiff and conscious disregard for
`Plaintiff’s rights.
`48.
`Plaintiff prays for injunctive relief that prohibits the acts complained of herein, which
`have the effect of wrongfully excluding Plaintiff and other members of the public who are disabled
`from full and equal access to these public facilities. Such acts and omissions are the cause of mental
`and emotional suffering for Plaintiff.
`49.
`Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief as to Lyft’s inaccessible policies. Plaintiff seeks
`preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin and eliminate the discriminatory practices that
`deny full and equal access for disabled persons, and seeks an award of reasonable statutory attorney
`fees, litigation expenses and costs.
`50.
`Plaintiff therefore seeks recovery of all reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses,
`and costs. Additionally, Plaintiff’s lawsuit is intended to require that Lyft make its facilities accessible
`to all disabled members of the public, justifying “public interest” attorney fees, litigation expenses and
`costs pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 and other
`applicable law.
`51.
`Plaintiff suffered damages as described are a result of Lyft’s violations. Damages are
`ongoing. Plaintiff remains hesitant and apprehensive about returning to the Lyft App. Plaintiff seeks
`the relief that is afforded by Civil Code sections 54, 54.1, and 54.3, including treble damages.
`//
`//
`//
`
`6
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-04918-SK Document 1 Filed 08/29/22 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`52.
`
`herein.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act
`California Civil Code §§ 51-53
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates the previous paragraphs as if they had been fully stated
`
`53.
`The Lyft App is a business establishment.
`54.
`Lyft intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff, denying Plaintiff full and equal access
`to the Lyft App.
`55.
`Lyft’s acts and omissions as specified with regard to the discriminatory treatment of
`Plaintiff, on the basis of Plaintiff’s disabilities, have been in violation of California Civil Code §§ 51
`and 51.5, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and have denied to Plaintiff’s right to full and equal
`accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every
`kind whatsoever.
`56.
`Plaintiff was harmed.
`57.
`Lyft’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
`58.
`Alternatively, the Unruh Act also provides that a violation of the ADA is a violation of
`the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code 51(f), so Lyft has violated the Unruh Act by violating the ADA.
`59.
`As a result of the violation of Plaintiffs civil rights protected by California Civil Code
`§§ 51 and 51.5, Plaintiff is entitled to the rights and remedies of California Civil Code § 52, including
`a trebling of actual damages, minimum statutory damages, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and
`costs, as allowed by statute, according to proof.
`60.
`Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin Lyft from violating disabled persons’ rights.
`PRAYER
`Plaintiff hereby prays for the following:
`1.
`Injunctive relief compelling Lyft to cease their discrimination of disabled persons and
`remove all accessibility policy barriers that relate to Plaintiff’s disability;
`2.
`Damages including actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and at least a
`statutory minimum of $4,000 for each offense;
`
`
`
`7
`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 3:22-cv-04918-SK Document 1 Filed 08/29/22 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`Punitive damages;
`4.
`Attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205, Civil Code sections §§ 52, 54, Code of
`Civil Procedure section 1021.5, and/or any other applicable statutes, expenses, and costs of suit;
`5.
`Other relief that the court deems appropriate.
`Plaintiff hereby demands a jury.
`Dated: August 29, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Law Office of Rick Morin, PC
`
`_________________________
`By: Richard Morin
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`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
`
`
`