`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`Michael H. Rubin (CA Bar No. 214636)
`michael.rubin@lw.com
`Elizabeth L. Deeley (CA Bar No. 230798)
`elizabeth.deeley@lw.com
`Melanie M. Blunschi (CA Bar No. 234264)
`melanie.blunschi@lw.com
`Joseph C. Hansen (CA Bar No. 275147)
`joseph.hansen@lw.com
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, California 94111-6538
`Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
`Facsimile: +1.415.395.8095
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Otonomo Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`05/13/2022
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
`Deputy Clerk
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`Case No.: CGC22599118
`
`DEFENDANT OTONOMO INC.’S
`NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF
`REMOVAL
`
`
`Complaint Filed: April 11, 2022
`
`
`
`
`SAMAN MOLLAEI, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`OTONOMO INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`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
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`Case No. CGC22599118
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-TITLED COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND
`
`THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 13, 2022, Defendant Otonomo Inc. in the above-
`captioned action removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District
`of California, by filing a Notice of Removal in that court. A true and correct copy of the Notice
`of Removal and all documents attached thereto is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The filing of this
`Notice effects removal of this action to federal court.
`
`
`
`DATED: May 13, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
` LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Melanie M. Blunschi
`
`Michael H. Rubin (CA Bar No. 214636)
`michael.rubin@lw.com
`Elizabeth L. Deeley (CA Bar No. 230798)
`elizabeth.deeley@lw.com
`Melanie M. Blunschi (CA Bar No. 234264)
`melanie.blunschi@lw.com
`Joseph C. Hansen (CA Bar No. 275147)
`joseph.hansen@lw.com
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, California 94111-6538
`Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
`Facsimile: +1.415.395.8095
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Otonomo Inc.
`
`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
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`Case No. CGC22599118
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02854 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`Michael H. Rubin (CA Bar No. 214636)
`michael.rubin@lw.com
`Elizabeth L. Deeley (CA Bar No. 230798)
`elizabeth.deeley@lw.com
`Melanie M Blunschi (CA Bar No. 234264)
`melanie.blunschi@lw.com
`Joseph C. Hansen (CA Bar No. 275147)
`joseph.hansen@lw.com
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, California 94111-6538
`Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Otonomo Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-02854
`
`DEFENDANT OTONOMO INC.’S
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`Removed from San Francisco Superior Court
`Complaint Filed: April 11, 2022
`
`
`SAMAN MOLLAEI, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`OTONOMO INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`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
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OTONOMO INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-02854
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02854 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`TO THE COURT, CLERK, PLAINTIFF, AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, Defendant Otonomo Inc. (“Otonomo”), through
`
`undersigned counsel, hereby removes the above-captioned action—with reservation of all defenses
`and rights—from the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San
`Francisco to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, pursuant to
`the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1441, 1446, and 1453. The
`grounds for removal are as follows:
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`I.
`On April 15, 2022, Otonomo was served with the Complaint and Summons for the
`1.
`action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, City and County of San Francisco,
`entitled Saman Mollaei, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Otonomo Inc.
`a Delaware Corporation, Case No. CGC22599118. A copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as
`Exhibit A. A copy of the Summons is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Copies of the Notice of
`Service of Process are attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), copies of all additional process, pleadings, and
`2.
`orders served on Defendant in San Francisco County Superior Court No. CGC22599118 are
`attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`This Notice of Removal is filed within thirty days of Otonomo’s receipt of the
`3.
`Summons and Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); see also Ex. C.
`
`II.
`
`THIS COURT HAS DIVERSITY JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO THE CLASS
`ACTION FAIRNESS ACT
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff purports to represent a class defined as:
`
`All California residents who own or lease a vehicle and whose GPS data
`has been collected by Otonomo. (Compl. ¶ 21.)
`
`This case is removable, and this Court has original jurisdiction over this action
`5.
`pursuant to CAFA and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1441, and 1453, because (A) this case is a putative
`class action with more than 100 members in the proposed class; (B) there is minimal diversity,
`because (i) Plaintiff and Otonomo are citizens of different states, and alternatively and in addition,
`
`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
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OTONOMO INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-02854
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02854 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`(ii) at least one of member of the putative class is a citizen of a state other than California; and
`(C) the Complaint places in controversy an amount that exceeds $5 million in the aggregate, taking
`into account all damages and equitable relief sought for all of the purported class members’ claims
`together, exclusive of interests and costs. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2), (d)(5)(B), (d)(6).
`This Is a Purported Class Action Within the Meaning of CAFA
`A.
`6.
`A “class action” under CAFA includes any civil action filed under Federal Rule of
`Civil Procedure 23 or a “similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action to
`be brought by 1 or more representative persons as a class action.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B).
`This lawsuit meets the definition of a class action because it is brought pursuant to
`7.
`a similar statute as Rule 23—namely, Section 382 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which
`authorizes one or more individuals to sue “for the benefit of all” when “the question is one of a
`common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is
`impracticable to bring them all before the court.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 382; see also 28 U.S.C.
`§§ 1332(d)(1)(B), (d)(5)(B); Compl. ¶ 33 (Plaintiff brings this action “[o]n behalf of himself and
`the Class.”).
`B. Minimal Diversity Is Satisfied
`For purposes of establishing federal jurisdiction, CAFA requires only minimal
`8.
`diversity. To establish diversity jurisdiction under CAFA for the purposes of removal, a defendant
`need only show that “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any
`defendant.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). “CAFA was intended to strongly favor federal jurisdiction
`over interstate class actions.” King v. Great Am. Chicken Corp. Inc., 903 F.3d 875, 878 (9th Cir.
`2018). Removal is, therefore, proper in the first instance where even one purported class member
`is a citizen of a state different from a defendant’s state of citizenship. See id. at 877; see also
`Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc., 856 F.3d 1274, 1276 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Under CAFA there is
`sufficient diversity to establish federal diversity jurisdiction so long as one class member has
`citizenship diverse from that of one defendant.”).
` As explained in the following paragraphs, that standard is met here because
`9.
`(i) Plaintiff is a citizen of a State different from Otonomo, and, additionally and independently, (ii)
`
`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
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OTONOMO INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-02854
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02854 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`the class, as defined by Plaintiff, includes at least one member who is a citizen of a state other than
`California.
`
`i. Defendant Is a Citizen of a State Different Than Plaintiff Is
`A corporation is deemed to be a citizen of every state or foreign state where it has
`10.
`been incorporated and where it has its principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). A
`corporation’s principal place of business is its “nerve center.” The nerve center is a “single place”
`and is the place where “a corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the
`corporation’s activities.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77-78, 92-93 (2010).
`Otonomo is incorporated in Delaware (see Compl. ¶ 7) and has it its principal place
`11.
`of business in Israel. See Declaration of Doron Simon in support of Notice of Removal (“Simon
`Decl.”), ¶ 4. Otonomo’s corporate headquarters are located in Israel. Simon Decl. ¶ 4. The majority
`of management team members are based in Israel, and that is where they “direct, control, and
`coordinate” Otonomo’s operations and activities. Simon Decl. ¶¶ 9-12; Hertz Corp., 559 U.S. at
`92-93. For example, all significant decisions related to Otonomo’s operations and activities
`generally are made in Israel, and all Board meetings are held at Otonomo’s Israel headquarters.
`Simon Decl. ¶ 12. Although certain Otonomo officers live in the United States, those officers work
`remotely, and their work primarily supports Otonomo’s operations and activities at its Israeli
`headquarters. Simon Decl. ¶ 10.
`Otonomo has no principal place of business in California. Simon Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7-8.
`12.
`Although Otonomo has a registered address in California, that address is used for mailing purposes
`only, and there is no physical office space and no employees working in any California office.
`Simon Decl. ¶ 8; see Hertz Corp., 559 U.S. at 97 (holding that courts should not accept an alleged
`“nerve center” if that location is “nothing more than a mail drop box, a bare office with a computer,
`or the location of an annual executive retreat”).
`Thus, at the time of the filing of lawsuit, and at the time of removal, Otonomo is a
`13.
`citizen of Delaware and Israel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
`Plaintiff states that he is a “natural person and citizen of the State of California.”
`14.
`Compl. ¶ 6.
`
`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
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OTONOMO INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-02854
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02854 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`
`Because Plaintiff’s citizenship differs from Otonomo’s citizenship—Plaintiff is a
`15.
`citizen of California, while Otonomo is a citizen of Delaware and Israel—minimal diversity is
`satisfied.
`
`ii. The Class Includes Citizens of States Other than California
`Plaintiff purports to represent a class defined as “[a]ll California residents who own
`16.
`or lease a vehicle and whose GPS data has been collected by Otonomo.” Comp. ¶ 21.
`Residency and citizenship are analytically distinct, and the Complaint makes no
`17.
`mention of citizenship with regards to members of the putative class. Thus, there is sufficient
`“likelihood that some putative class members were legally domiciled in or subsequently relocated
`to another state” or “were not United States citizens” to support CAFA diversity jurisdiction. King,
`903 F.3d at 879-80; see id. at 879 (“A person’s state of citizenship is established by domicile, not
`simply residence, and a residential address in California does not guarantee that the person’s legal
`domicile [is] in California.”). For this reason, the Ninth Circuit has held that classes defined as
`“residents” of one state—like the class here—can still give rise to minimal diversity under CAFA.
`Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880, 884 (9th Cir. 2013) (“That a [putative class
`member] may have a residential address in California does not mean that person is a citizen of
`California.”).1
`This is particularly true with the class alleged in this case—effectively, California
`18.
`residents with cars containing GPS systems. California individuals who own or lease a vehicle
`may be California residents, but might also be a citizen of another state. For example, out-of-state
`students studying at California universities may own or lease a vehicle and be California residents,
`but they might not be California citizens. Similarly, because proof of California citizenship is not
`required to purchase or lease a vehicle in California, an individual who purchases or leases a
`vehicle in California may be a California resident, but does not have to be a California citizen.
`
`1 See also, e.g. King, 903 F.3d at 879 (finding it “not implausible that at least a few” putative class
`members “were citizens of other states even if they temporarily had a residential address in
`California, such as an out-of-state student ... attending college in California” and “very likely that
`some putative class members were not United States citizens”); McMorris v. TJX Cos., 493 F.
`Supp. 2d 158, 163 (D. Mass. 2007) (“[T]his putative class that is composed entirely of residents
`of Massachusetts, does not, by definition, foreclose the inclusion of non-citizens as well. This
`suffices to support the assertion of federal jurisdiction in this case.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`OTONOMO INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-02854
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02854 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`And, of course, citizens of other states can drive their cars into California when changing
`residences even if they do not change their citizenship.
`Accordingly, upon information and belief, at least one member of the putative class
`19.
`who owns or leases a vehicle and resides in California is a citizen of a state other than California.
`See Ehrman v. Cox Comms., Inc., 932 F.3d 1223, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019) (“A party’s allegation of
`minimal diversity may be based on ‘information and belief’” and “need not contain evidentiary
`submissions.” (citations and internal quotations omitted)). This is sufficient to establish minimal
`diversity under CAFA. See, e.g., King, 903 F.3d at 879.
`The Putative Class Exceeds 100 Members
`C.
`20.
`Plaintiff alleges that the putative class consists of “[a]ll California residents who
`own or lease a vehicle and whose GPS data has been collected by Otonomo.” Compl. ¶ 21. Plaintiff
`also alleges that Otonomo “collects and sells real-time GPS location from more than 50 million
`cars throughout the world, including from tens of thousands in California.” Id. ¶ 1. (emphasis
`added). Plaintiff further alleges that “tens of thousands of unsuspecting California drivers are
`being tracked” and that he is “one of tens of thousands of individuals in California being tracked”
`by Otonomo. Id. ¶¶ 3, 5 (emphasis added).
`21. While Otonomo disputes these allegations, the class, as alleged, includes more than
`100 members. Accordingly, the requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5) is satisfied.
`The Amount in Controversy Exceeds $5 Million
`D.
`22.
`CAFA provides that “[i]n any class action, the claims of the individual class
`members shall be aggregated to determine whether the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
`value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(6). The amount in
`controversy is first determined by reviewing the allegations of the operative complaint.
`Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other
`grounds as stated in Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2013)
`(“Our starting point is ‘whether it is facially apparent from the complaint that the jurisdictional
`amount is in controversy.’”) (citation omitted). Where a complaint does not state a total dollar
`amount, a defendant’s notice of removal under CAFA need include “only a plausible allegation
`
`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
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OTONOMO INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-02854
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02854 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin
`Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014).
`23. While Plaintiff does not allege a specific total dollar amount in damages, Plaintiff’s
`demand exceeds CAFA’s $5,000,000 jurisdictional threshold.
`Plaintiff seeks “statutory damages of $5,000 for each violation of [the California
`24.
`Invasion of Privacy Act] pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 637.2(a), or three times the amount of
`actual damages, whichever is greater.” See Compl. Prayer for Relief § c. Since Plaintiff has
`claimed that Otonomo allegedly tracked “tens of thousands” of California individuals in violation
`of California Penal Code § 637.7 (see Compl. ¶¶ 3, 5), the potential total amount of statutory
`damages based on Plaintiff’s demand easily exceeds CAFA’s $5,000,000 threshold.
`Otonomo denies any and all liability and contends that Plaintiff’s allegations are
`25.
`entirely without merit. For purposes of this Notice of Removal, however, taking Plaintiff’s factual
`allegations as true and legal allegations as correct, Otonomo believes and alleges that the amount
`in controversy would exceed $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and satisfies the amount
`in controversy requirements of CAFA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
`III. VENUE AND INTRA-DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) because the
`26.
`Superior Court where the removed case was pending is located within this district.
`Venue is proper in the Oakland or San Francisco Divisions of this Court pursuant
`27.
`to Local Rule 3-2(d), as the original action was file in San Francisco County Superior Court.
`IV. REMOVAL PROCEDURE
`This Notice of Removal is signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`28.
`Procedure. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).
`Otonomo was served with the Complaint and Summons by personal service to its
`29.
`registered service agent on April 15, 2022. See Ex. C. Accordingly, this Notice of Removal is
`timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) as it is filed within 30 days of service.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), copies of all process, pleadings, and orders are
`30.
`attached hereto. See Ex. D.
`
`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
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OTONOMO INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-02854
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02854 Document 1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`
`
`Otonomo will serve written notice of the removal of this action upon all adverse
`31.
`parties promptly, and will file such notice with the Clerk of San Francisco Superior Court, as
`required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).
`CONCLUSION
`V.
`This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims by virtue of the Class
`32.
`Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). This action is thus properly removable to federal
`court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1453.
`WHEREFORE, Defendant Otonomo Inc. removes the above-captioned action to this
`
`Court.
`
`DATED: May 13, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`
`By: /s/ Melanie M. Blunschi
`Melanie M. Blunschi
`
`Michael H. Rubin (CA Bar No. 214636)
`michael.rubin@lw.com
`Elizabeth L. Deeley (CA Bar No. 230798)
`elizabeth.deeley@lw.com
`Melanie M Blunschi (CA Bar No. 234264)
`melanie.blunschi@lw.com
`Joseph C. Hansen (CA Bar No. 275147)
`joseph.hansen@lw.com
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, California 94111-6538
`Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
`Facsimile: +1.415.395.8095
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Otonomo Inc.
`
`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
`
`AT T O RNEYS AT L AW
`SAN F RA NCI SCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OTONOMO INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-02854
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02854 Document 1-1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 1 of 10
`Case 3:22-cv-02854 Document 1-1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 1 of 10
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02854 Document 1-1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`Rafey S. Balabanian (SBN 315962)
`rbalabanian@edelson.com
`EDELSON PC
`150 California Street, 18th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Tel: 415.212.9300
`Fax: 415.373.9435
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`04/11/2022
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: JACKIE LAPREVOTTE
`Deputy Clerk
`
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`CGC-22-599118
`
`Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`
`(1) Violation of Cal. Penal Code § 637.7
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`SAMAN MOLLAEI, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`OTONOMO INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Saman Mollaei brings this Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`against Defendant Otonomo, Inc. for unlawfully tracking automobile drivers’ locations and
`movements without their permission or consent. Plaintiff alleges as follows upon personal
`knowledge as to himself and his own acts and experiences and, as to all other matters, upon
`information and belief.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`Defendant Otonomo Inc. is a data broker that secretly collects and sells real-time
`GPS location information from more than 50 million cars throughout the world, including from
`tens of thousands in California. This data allows Otonomo—and its paying clients—to easily
`pinpoint consumers’ precise locations at all times of day and gain specific insight about where
`they live, work, and worship, and who they associate with. Not surprisingly, Otonomo never
`requests (or receives) consent from drivers before tracking them and selling their highly private
`and valuable GPS location information to its clients.
`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 3:22-cv-02854 Document 1-1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`2.
`Of course, Otonomo cannot simply ask drivers for permission to track their GPS
`locations and sell them to scores of unknown third parties. Very few (if any) drivers would
`voluntarily provide a data broker like Otonomo unfettered access to their daily personal lives. As
`such, Otonomo has partnered with at least sixteen car manufacturers—including BMW, General
`Motors, Ford, and Toyota—to use electronic devices in their cars to send real-time GPS location
`data directly to Otonomo through a secret “always on” cellular data connection. In this way,
`drivers never even realize electronic tracking devices have been attached to their cars or that
`anybody is tracking their real-time movements, let alone a data broker.
`3.
`All the while, tens of thousands of unsuspecting California drivers are being
`tracked while they drop their kids off at school, go to work, pick up groceries, visit with friends,
`and otherwise go about their daily lives. These individuals are not suspects of any investigations,
`not part of any state or federal watchlists, and not subjects of any legitimate government
`surveillance programs. Nor do they have any notice that they are under constant surveillance by
`Otonomo or that Otonomo is turning around and selling their real-time movements to its paying
`clients.
`4.
`By secretly tracking the locations of consumers in their cars, Otonomo has
`violated and continues to violate the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), which
`specifically prohibits the use of an “electronic tracking device to determine the location or
`movement of a person” without consent. California Penal Code § 637.7(a).
`5.
`Plaintiff Mollaei is one of tens of thousands of individuals in California being
`tracked and exploited by Otonomo. This putative class action lawsuit seeks to put an end to
`Otonomo’s illegal and dangerous conduct and to hold the company accountable for their blatant
`violation of California law.
`
`PARTIES
`6.
`Plaintiff Saman Mollaei is a natural person and citizen of the State of California.
`7.
`Defendant Otonomo is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`State of Delaware with its principal place of business located at 2443 Fillmore Street, San
`Francisco, California 94115.
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02854 Document 1-1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`8.
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Article VI, Section 10 of
`the California Constitution.
`9.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it conducts business
`in this State, and the conduct alleged in this Complaint occurred in, and/or emanated from, this
`State.
`
`10.
`Venue is proper in this Court because the conduct at issue occurred in, and/or
`emanated from, this County.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`The California Invasion of Privacy Act
`11.
`In 1967, the California Legislature declared that “advances in science and
`technology have led to the development of new devices and techniques for the purpose of
`eavesdropping upon private communications and that the invasion of privacy resulting from the
`continual and increasing use of such devices and techniques has created a serious threat to the
`free exercise of personal liberties and cannot be tolerated in a free and civilized society.” Cal.
`Penal Code § 630. As a result, the Legislature passed the California Invasion of Privacy Act “to
`protect the right of privacy of the people of this state.” Id.
`12.
`In recognition of the dangers posed by the increasing power, sophistication, and
`availability of modern computer and communications technologies, CIPA expressly prohibits the
`use of an “electronic tracking device to determine the location or movement of a person” without
`consent. Cal. Penal Code § 637.7(a). “Electronic tracking device” is defined as “any device
`attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals its location or movement by the
`transmission of electronic signals.” Id. § 637.7(d).
`Otonomo Secretly Tracks Real-Time Locations and Movements In Violation of CIPA
`13.
`Otonomo is a data broker that collects a multitude of data generated by
`automobile drivers, including specifically, real-time GPS location data. Though it is not a
`consumer-facing company and provides no information to drivers about the data it is collecting
`from them and selling, Otonomo proudly admits that it collects 4.1 billion data points per day
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02854 Document 1-1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 5 of 10
`
`and has already tracked 330 billion miles of travel. See Figure 1 below, show ing a screenshot of
`
`the marketing materials Otonomo provides to potential investors and customers.
`
`One Platfo rm. Unlim ited Potential.
`Car data opens up a whole wor l d of possjbilities,
`from bringing
`h@ightened safety and efficiency to transportat/011 to delighting dr ivers
`and passengers w itn brartd-new expe ri ences.
`
`ThO Otonomo Automotive Data Scrv,ccs Platform paves the woy for apps
`and services that beneftt d'1vers, passengers, service providers, and the
`transportation ecosystem.
`
`Data from 22M+
`vehicles wor ldw ide
`
`--.
`•
`
`100+ ecosystem
`
`partne rs e
`
`12 OEMS on the
`platform, incl uding
`BMW, Daimler,
`FCA& MMC
`
`Ingesting 4B+ data
`po ints/day
`
`(I
`
`300B + mites
`
`-Track ing
`-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Global partnership
`with Avis Budget
`Group
`
`112 count ries
`
`(Figure 1.)
`
`14.
`
`Not only does Otonomo collect enormous amounts of data from unsuspecting
`
`drivers , it also sells the data to various third patties , includin g softwai·e applicat ion developers,
`
`23
`
`insurance companies , and adve1tisers, among many others.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15.
`
`To collect the highly private and valuable location data from automobi les without
`
`the drivers knowing, Otonomo paitners with automob ile manufacturers-such
`
`as BMW-to
`
`26
`
`install electronic tracking devices in their cai·s. These electronic tracking devices typically take
`
`27
`
`the fo1m of telematics contro l units ("TCUs") that feature persistent internet connections . These
`
`28
`
`devices collect info1mation from the vai·iety of sensors and radios-including
`
`the GPS sensors-
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02854 Document 1-1 Filed 05/13/22 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`
`to determine the car’s precise physical GPS location. The devices then transmit the data over the
`persistent cellular data connection to Otonomo, which, in turn, allows Otonomo—and its paying
`clients—to pinpoint the location and movement of every similarly connected car and driver.
`16.
`Unfortunately, Otonomo does not obtain—or even try to obtain—consent from
`the tens of thousands of California drivers it tracks.
`FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF MOLLAEI
`17.
`Plaintiff Mollaei is a California resident that drives a 2020 BMW X3.
`18. When Plaintiff’s vehicle was delivered to him, it contained an attached electronic
`tracking device that allowed Otonomo to track its real-time GPS locations and movements, and
`to transmit the data wirelessly to Otonomo.
`19.
`Otonomo has used the attached electronic tracking device to the collect Mollaei’s
`real-time GPS locations and movements.
`20.
`At no time did Otonomo receive—or even seek—Plaintiff’s consent to track his
`vehicle’s locations or movements using an electronic tracking device.
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`Class Definition: Plaintiff Saman Mollaei brings this action on behalf of himself
`21.
`and a class defined as follows:
`
`All California residents who own or lease a vehicle and whose GPS data has been
`collected by Otonomo.
`
`The following people are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding
`over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents,
`successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling
`interest and their current or former officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and
`file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have
`been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and
`Defendant’s counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors,