Case 1:20-cv-09169-NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/21/20 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 1
`
`UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`
` No. 20-
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
` CLASS ACTION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`EDWARD SIPERAVAGE
`on behalf of himself and all others
`similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
`
`I.
`
`Preliminary Statement
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of all other persons
`
`similarly situated for damages arising from Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber)’s unfair
`
`business practices related to restrictions on vehicles eligible to be used by the drivers Uber
`
`employs. Specifically, this case deals with Uber’s refusal to honor its representations that
`
`particular vehicles could be used to drive for the more-selective Uber BlackSUV platform, causing
`
`Plaintiff and similarly affected drivers to lose hundreds or thousands of dollars in income.
`
`II.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`2.
`
`Jurisdiction of the Court arises under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1332(d)(2).
`
`3.
`
`Venue lies properly in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09169-NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/21/20 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 2
`
`III.
`
`Parties
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Edward Siperavage is an adult individual and citizen of the State of New
`
`Jersey who resides in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a corporation which regularly conducts
`
`business in the State of New Jersey, and has a principal place of business at 1455 Market Street,
`
`4th Floor, San Francisco, California, 94103.
`
`IV.
`
`Factual Allegations
`
`Uber’s Operations
`
`6.
`
`Uber’s business is based upon the operation of its mobile platform (or “app”) which
`
`connects its drivers to passengers who request rides through the platform.
`
`7.
`
`Uber pays drivers based upon completed rides, calculating the payment amount
`
`using a variety of factors including distance traveled, location, and level of demand. See
`
`https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/driver-app/.
`
`8.
`
`Uber drivers have the traditional role of employees, because Uber maintains a high
`
`degree of control over the conduct of its drivers’ work. Uber exercises that control in a number of
`
`ways, including but not limited to: (a) Uber dictates the rates drivers charge, and controls the
`
`manner in which they are paid; (b) Uber prohibits drivers from engaging and transporting these
`
`same passengers separately from the Uber platform; (c) Uber penalizes drivers for rejecting
`
`potential rides, requires drivers to accept potential rides without knowing the passenger’s
`
`destination and does not permit drivers to cancel rides once the destination is revealed; and (d)
`
`Drivers are not permitted to control the route driven – if they select a route that Uber deems
`
`“inefficient,” the driver is penalized through a retroactive “fare adjustment.”
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09169-NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/21/20 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 3
`
`9.
`
`Uber drivers regularly engage in interstate commerce by transporting passengers
`
`across state lines - by picking up a passenger in one state, and dropping the passenger off in a
`
`different state.
`
`10.
`
`This is particularly true of Uber drivers based in New Jersey, because New Jersey
`
`is a small state immediately adjacent to large population centers in other states, including New
`
`York City and Philadelphia.
`
`11.
`
`Further, Uber drivers based in New Jersey regularly transport drivers to or from
`
`some of the busiest airports in the United States located in or near New Jersey, including Newark
`
`International Airport and John F. Kennedy International Airport.
`
`12.
`
`Upon information and belief Uber maintains detailed records regarding locations
`
`where passengers are picked up and dropped off for each ride, and is able to determine based upon
`
`these records whether a particular driver has picked up a passenger in one state and dropped them
`
`off in a different state.
`
`13.
`
`Furthermore, Uber maintains detailed records regarding how much each driver is
`
`paid.
`
`14.
`
`An additional way Uber controls the conduct of its drivers’ work is by controlling
`
`the make, model, and year of vehicles which can be used for transporting passengers.
`
`15.
`
`Uber offers a variety of service levels based largely on the type of vehicle used.
`
`For example, in New Jersey, Uber offers UberX, UberComfort, UberXL, UberBlack, and Uber
`
`BlackSUV.
`
`16.
`
`Uber maintains specific requirements regarding the make, model, and year of
`
`vehicles which drivers can use to provide rides for each service level. For example, eligible
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09169-NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/21/20 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 4
`
`vehicles for the UberX level include “most newer cars” that meet certain criteria. See
`
`https://www.uber.com/drive/new-jersey/vehicle-requirements/
`
`17.
`
`Drivers are able to earn more per ride when a ride takes place on a higher service
`
`level – a driver will earn more money for a trip if it takes place through UberBlack than by driving
`
`an identical trip for UberXL.
`
`18.
`
`The highest available service level is Uber BlackSUV, which Uber promotes as a
`
`“luxury,” “high-end vehicle service.” Drivers with vehicles approved for Uber BlackSUV earn the
`
`most of the available service levels.
`
`19.
`
`Uber publicizes its vehicle requirements for each service level, including
`
`specifically listing the eligible vehicles for the UberBlack and Uber BlackSUV levels, on its
`
`website. Uber also communicates these requirements directly to drivers upon request.
`
`20.
`
`Uber intends for drivers to rely on its representations about eligible vehicles,
`
`including by offering lease and purchase assistance for drivers seeking to obtain access to an
`
`eligible vehicle.
`
` See https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/vehicle-solutions/.
`
` See also
`
`https://www.marketplace.org/2015/05/13/uber-drivers-struggle-pay-subprime-auto-loans/.
`
`21.
`
`Uber, however, does not adhere to these representations, and instead unilaterally
`
`changes the requirements, exacting serious consequences on the drivers who have relied upon
`
`existing vehicle eligibility standards.
`
`22.
`
`In September 2019, Uber changed its requirements for vehicle eligibility for Uber
`
`BlackSUV, removing the Acura MDX, Audi Q7, Chevrolet LTZ, Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford
`
`Expedition (non-Platinum series), Infinity QX60, Mercedes GL Class, Nissan Armada, and Toyota
`
`Sequoia from eligibility.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09169-NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/21/20 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 5
`
`23.
`
`Importantly, Uber did not simply stop accepting new registrations of such vehicles
`
`for Uber BlackSUV – it cut off all drivers using these vehicles from the ability to offer rides at
`
`the Uber BlackSUV level, restricting them to lower (and lower-paying) levels of service.
`
`24.
`
`Upon information and belief, Uber’s unilateral changes in vehicle eligibility
`
`standards have affected numerous drivers based in New Jersey.
`
`The Experience of Plaintiff Edward Siperavage
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff began driving for Uber in 2015, driving a Cadillac CTS to complete
`
`UberBlack trips.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff regularly picks up passengers in New Jersey and drops them off in
`
`Pennsylvania, and vice versa. Plaintiff also regularly drives passengers between New York and
`
`New Jersey.
`
`27.
`
`In the spring of 2017, Plaintiff began researching options to purchase a vehicle
`
`eligible to drive for Uber BlackSUV, to increase his income.
`
`28.
`
`On March 25, 2017, Plaintiff communicated with Uber via a messaging function
`
`on the Uber application, asking for the list of eligible vehicles for Uber BlackSUV.
`
`29.
`
`On March 27, 2017, an Uber representative responded listing the following vehicles
`
`as eligible for Uber BlackSUV in New Jersey:
`
`Acura - MDX
`Audi - Q7
`Cadillac - Escalade, Escalade EXT
`Chevrolet - LTZ, Suburban, Tahoe
`Ford - Expedition
`GMC - Yukon, Yukon XL
`Infiniti - QX56, QX60, QX80
`Lexus - LX
`Lincoln - Navigator
`Mercedes-Benz - GL-Class
`Nissan - Armada
`Toyota – Sequoia
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09169-NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/21/20 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 6
`
`
`30.
`
`On December 31, 2018, Plaintiff purchased a black 2017 Chevrolet Tahoe with a
`
`black leather interior (herein, “the Tahoe”), for the purpose of using to drive for Uber BlackSUV.
`
`Prior to completing the purchase he confirmed again that the vehicle was eligible for use at the
`
`Uber BlackSUV by reviewing the eligible vehicles listed on Uber’s website.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff paid $71,373.96 for the Tahoe, and intended to drive for Uber BlackSUV
`
`for as long as the 2017 model year was accepted, which he understood from Uber’s representations
`
`was seven years, until 2024.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff immediately began using the Tahoe to drive for the Uber BlackSUV
`
`service level.
`
`33.
`
`On or about August 5, 2019, Uber sent Plaintiff an email notifying him that as of
`
`September 2, 2019, a Chevrolet Tahoe would no longer be eligible for the Uber BlackSUV service
`
`level.
`
`34.
`
`On September 2, 2019, Plaintiff’s ability to access the Uber BlackSUV service level
`
`through the Uber app was terminated.
`
`35.
`
`Since September 2, 2019, Plaintiff has continued to drive the Tahoe for the
`
`UberBlack service level. Although he continues to complete approximately the same number and
`
`type of trips, without the higher rate available for Uber BlackSUV trips, Plaintiff’s earnings from
`
`Uber are reduced by more than $200 per month.
`
`36.
`
`As a result of Uber’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered damages, including without
`
`limitation and by example only: loss of revenues, loss of employment opportunity, embarrassment,
`
`humiliation, and other emotional and mental distress.
`
`37.
`
`At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant’s conduct was a result of its deliberate
`
`policies and practices.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09169-NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/21/20 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 7
`
`38.
`
`At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant was acting by and through its agents,
`
`servants, and/or employees who were acting within the course and scope of their agency or
`
`employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the Defendant herein.
`
`V. Class Action Allegations
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the following Class of consumers:
`
`All natural persons with an address in the State of New Jersey who, beginning six
`(6) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and continuing through the conclusion
`of this action, (i) drove an eligible Acura MDX, Audi Q7, Chevrolet LTZ,
`Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford Expedition (non-Platinum series), Infinity QX60, Mercedes
`GL Class, Nissan Armada, Toyota Sequoia, and/or any other vehicle which was
`previously approved through Uber’s Uber BlackSUV service level, and (ii)
`Defendant terminated the person’s access to the Uber BlackSUV service level
`following a change to vehicle eligibility requirements.
`
`40.
`
`The Class members are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
`
`Although the precise number of Class members is known only to Defendant, Plaintiff avers upon
`
`information and belief that the Class members minimally numbers in the hundreds.
`
`41.
`
`There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over any
`
`questions affecting only individual Class members. The principal questions concern whether Uber
`
`breached its obligations to Class members created by contract or promise, or the covenant of good
`
`faith and fair dealing, and whether members of the Class are entitled to actual damages in the form
`
`of lost earnings.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class, which all arise from the
`
`same operative facts and are based on the same legal theories.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff is
`
`committed to vigorously litigating this matter. Further, Plaintiff has secured counsel who are
`
`experienced in handling consumer class actions. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has any interests
`
`which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this claim.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09169-NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/21/20 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 8
`
`44.
`
`This action should be maintained as a class action because the prosecution of
`
`separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying
`
`adjudications with respect to individual members which would establish incompatible standards
`
`of conduct for the parties opposing the Class, as well as a risk of adjudications with respect to
`
`individual members which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other
`
`members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect
`
`their interests.
`
`45.
`
`A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
`
`controversy. Management of the Class’s claims is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties
`
`than those presented in many individual claims. The identities of the Class members may be
`
`derived from Defendant’s records.
`
`COUNT ONE
`Breach of Contract
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth
`
`46.
`
`at length herein.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff and Defendant are parties to a contract regarding the use of the Uber
`
`platform, including terms regarding eligible vehicles stating that Acura MDX, Audi Q7, Chevrolet
`
`LTZ, Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford Expedition (non-Platinum series), Infinity QX60, Mercedes GL
`
`Class, Nissan Armada, Toyota Sequoia and/or other vehicles of an appropriate model year could
`
`be used be in connection with the Uber BlackSUV service level.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant breached the contract between the parties by removing prohibiting
`
`drivers registered with otherwise-eligible Acura MDX, Audi Q7, Chevrolet LTZ, Chevrolet Tahoe,
`
`Ford Expedition (non-Platinum series), Infinity QX60, Mercedes GL Class, Nissan Armada,
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09169-NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/21/20 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 9
`
`Toyota Sequoia and/or other vehicles of an appropriate model year from accepting and completing
`
`rides on the Uber BlackSUV service level.
`
`49.
`
`The conduct of Defendant was a direct and proximate cause, as well as a substantial
`
`factor, in bringing about the serious injuries, actual damages and harm to the Plaintiff and the Class
`
`that are outlined more fully above and, as a result, Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff and the Class
`
`for the full amount of actual damages, as well as such further relief, as may be permitted by law.
`
`COUNT TWO
`Promissory Estoppel
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth
`
`50.
`
`at length herein.
`
`51.
`
`In its business dealings with Plaintiff and other drivers in the State of New Jersey,
`
`Uber repeatedly made binding representations or promises stating that Acura MDX, Audi Q7,
`
`Chevrolet LTZ, Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford Expedition (non-Platinum series), Infinity QX60,
`
`Mercedes GL Class, Nissan Armada, Toyota Sequoia and/or other vehicles of an appropriate
`
`model year were eligible to be used in connection with Uber’s Uber BlackSUV service level.
`
`52.
`
`Uber made these representations or promises with the intent that Plaintiff and other
`
`New Jersey-based drivers would rely on them in selecting vehicles to use on the Uber platform.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff and other New Jersey-based drivers reasonably relied upon Uber’s
`
`representations and promises regarding vehicle eligibility in selecting vehicles.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff and other drivers who so relied upon Uber’s vehicle eligibility
`
`representations for Uber BlackSUV experienced substantial detriment in the form of lost earnings
`
`after Uber, in spite of its promises to the contrary, prohibited drivers with otherwise eligible Acura
`
`MDX, Audi Q7, Chevrolet LTZ, Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford Expedition (non-Platinum series), Infinity
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09169-NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/21/20 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 10
`
`QX60, Mercedes GL Class, Nissan Armada, Toyota Sequoia and/or other vehicles from accessing
`
`the Uber BlackSUV service level.
`
`55.
`
`The conduct of Defendant was a direct and proximate cause, as well as a substantial
`
`factor, in bringing about the serious injuries, actual damages and harm to the Plaintiff and the Class
`
`that are outlined more fully above and, as a result, Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff and the Class
`
`for the full amount of actual damages, as well as such further relief, as may be permitted by law.
`
`COUNT THREE
`Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though the same were set forth
`
`56.
`
`at length herein.
`
`57.
`
`The agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant regarding access to the Uber
`
`platform contained an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
`
`58.
`
`By, contrary to its prior representations, terminating the ability of Plaintiff and other
`
`drivers of otherwise eligible Acura MDX, Audi Q7, Chevrolet LTZ, Chevrolet Tahoe, Ford
`
`Expedition (non-Platinum series), Infinity QX60, Mercedes GL Class, Nissan Armada, Toyota
`
`Sequoia and/or vehicles from accessing the Uber BlackSUV service level, Defendant breached the
`
`covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
`
`59.
`
`Defendant acted in bad faith and/or with a malicious motive to deny Plaintiff and
`
`other drivers of some of the benefit of the bargain originally intended by the parties, thereby
`
`causing Plaintiff and other drivers damages as outlined above.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`60. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and damages against
`
`the Defendant, based on the following requested relief:
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-09169-NLH-KMW Document 1 Filed 07/21/20 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 11
`
`61.
`
`An order certifying the Class and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and appointing
`
`Plaintiff and his counsel to represent them;
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`Actual damages;
`
`Pre- and post-judgment interest;
`
`Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.
`
`VI.
`
`Jury Trial Demand
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`VIII. Designation of Trial Counsel
`
`
`
`Plaintiff hereby designates James A. Francis and John Soumilas as trial counsel in the
`
`above-captioned matter. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this designation as necessary.
`
`IX. Arbitration Certification
`
`
`
`I, John Soumilas, counsel of record, do hereby certify pursuant to Local Civil Rule 201.1(d)
`
`that relief other than monetary damages is sought and that the damages sought are in excess of
`
`$150,000. I further certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now
`
`pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court.
`
`Dated: July 21, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ John Soumilas
`JAMES A FRANCIS
`JOHN SOUMILAS
`LAUREN KW BRENNAN
`FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
`1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Tel. (215) 735-8600
`Fax (215) 940-8000
`jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
`jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
`lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
`
` Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
`
`