Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
`_________________________________
`
`No. 19-2001
`_________________________________
`
`ANOUSH CAB, INC.; ARAMS, INC.; ARARRAT, INC.; ATLANTIC CAB,
`INC.; BARLOW CAB, INC.; BEDROS CAB, INC.; BOYLSTON CAB, INC.;
`BRIGHAM CAB, INC.; CLEVELAND CAB, INC.; DIAMOND CAB, INC.;
`ELSIE CAB, INC.; FENWAY TAXI, INC.; G&A CAB, INC.; JORDAN CAB,
`INC.; JUBRAN CAB, INC.; KILMARNOCK CAB, INC.; LITTLE ISLAND
`CAB, INC.; LOCUST CAB, INC.; LONGWOOD CAB, INC.; M & AN CAB,
`INC.; M.P.E. CAB, INC.; MARBED CAB, INC.; MASSIS, INC.; MESROB,
`INC.; N.E. CAB, INC.; ORIOLE CAB, INC.; PETERBOROUGH CAB, INC.;
`QUEENSBURY CAB, INC.; SAHAG, INC.; SOVEREIGN CAB, INC.; V & A
`CAB, INC.; VERAS, INC.; VICKYS, INC.; YELLOWBIRD CAB, INC.
`
`Plaintiffs–Appellants,
`v.
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RASIER, LLC.
`
`Defendants–Appellees.
`
`(full caption follows on next page)
`_________________________________
`
`ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR
`THE DISTRICT OF MASSSACHUSETTS
`_______________________________
`
`INITIAL BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
`_______________________________
`
`Edward F. Haber (Bar #12006)
`Michelle H. Blauner (Bar #9683)
`Ian J. McLoughlin (Bar #1148877)
`Adam M. Stewart (Bar #117323)
`Patrick J. Vallely (Bar #1163450)
`Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
`Two Seaport Lane
`Boston, MA 02210
`Telephone: (617) 439-3939
`
`May 12, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
`
`
`No. 19-2001
`
`
`ANOUSH CAB, INC.; ARAMS, INC.; ARARRAT, INC.; ATLANTIC CAB,
`INC.; BARLOW CAB, INC.; BEDROS CAB, INC.; BOYLSTON CAB, INC.;
`BRIGHAM CAB, INC.; CLEVELAND CAB, INC.; DIAMOND CAB, INC.;
`ELSIE CAB, INC.; FENWAY TAXI, INC.; G&A CAB, INC.; JORDAN CAB,
`INC.; JUBRAN CAB, INC.; KILMARNOCK CAB, INC.; LITTLE ISLAND
`CAB, INC.; LOCUST CAB, INC.; LONGWOOD CAB, INC.; M & AN CAB,
`INC.; M.P.E. CAB, INC.; MARBED CAB, INC.; MASSIS, INC.; MESROB,
`INC.; N.E. CAB, INC.; ORIOLE CAB, INC.; PETERBOROUGH CAB, INC.;
`QUEENSBURY CAB, INC.; SAHAG, INC.; SOVEREIGN CAB, INC.; V & A
`CAB, INC.; VERAS, INC.; VICKYS, INC.; YELLOWBIRD CAB, INC.
`
`Plaintiffs – Appellants
`
`GILL & GILL, INC.; NANAK NAAM, INC.; AMRITSAR EXPRESS, INC.;
`SONNY AND BOBBY TRANS., INC.; GILL TRANS., INC.; FINOS TAXI,
`INC.; CHARLENE TAXI, INC.; MYTASHA TAXI, INC.; WYOMING CAB,
`INC.; EDWARD’S TAXI, INC.; CURTIS CAB, INC.; MY FATHER TAXI, INC.;
`MIC-PAUL TAXI, INC.; A. STACY TAXI, INC.; PATTI PIE TAXI, INC.;
`MCGAFF TAXI, INC.; RAWAN TAXI, INC.; SPRING TAXI, INC.; SUMMERS
`TAXI, INC.; AUTUMN TAXI, INC.; WINTERS TAXI, INC.; BOW STREET
`TAXI; BLUE KNIGHT TAXI, INC.; CHELE TAXI, INC.; CHRISTMAS TAXI,
`INC.; GES TAXI, INC.; GRAND SPORT TAXI, INC.; BREENIE TAXI, INC.;
`LIL’S TAXI, INC.; CLAIRE TAXI, INC.; DON-LIL TAXI, INC.; ANDY’S CAB,
`INC.; BOARDMAN CAB, INC.; GROVE CAB, INC.; SECRET SQUIRREL
`TAXI, INC.; NAVJIT CAB, INC.; PREED, INC.; NAJJAR ENTERPRISES,
`INC.; BILGA, INC.; JIMMY 1, INC.; ANJU TRANS., INC.; DEEP CAB, INC.;
`EMATESSE CAB, INC.; CHRISTOPHER CAB, INC.; DADOO CAB, INC.;
`GURU GOBIND CAB, INC.; AUBANEL TRANS., INC.; RAMC CAB, INC.;
`TED D. J. TAXI, INC.; MAKONNEN CAB, INC.; YELLOW CAB OF
`BELMONT, INC.; MAJID, INC.; HIRAM’S TAXI, INC.; JOUNE, INC.; HARE
`HARE TRANS., INC.; ANPAUL CAB, INC.; TABIKING EXPRESS, INC.;
`MARCIA AND EVERTON CAB, INC.; RICARDO & JOANNE CAB, INC.;
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`PATIENCE TAXI, INC.; TURK TRANS., INC.; NATIVITY CAB, INC.; ROSE
`CAB, INC.; HAAMA TRANS, INC.; TOM’S TAXI, INC.; MERA SOAMI, INC.;
`MUGAL TRANS., INC.; KHAVEERI, INC.; F. EDEL, INC.; ANGEREB, INC.;
`TREMONT STREET TAXI, INC.; GANGA, INC.; NEW INVISION, INC.; K.
`HEYDEN, INC.; BRENT TAXI, INC.; IRAJ, INC.; SWAMI JI, INC.;
`GEOLANGE, INC.; ESPERANTA TAXI, INC.; SINGH CAB, INC.; SHIVA JI
`CAB, INC.; LARROUSE CAB, INC.; JAVE CAB, INC.; TALIN CAB, INC.;
`LUNICA, INC.; NILE EXPRESS, INC.; SMOOTH RIDER, INC.; E. AND ANNE
`TAXI, INC.; ALEN’S CAB, INC.; MEGAN CAB, INC.; SAMUEL
`TRANSPORTATION, INC.; PETIT GOAVE CAB, INC.; MICHAEL CAB, INC.;
`ABSOLUTE TAXI OF CAMBRIDGE, INC.; ALTA TAXI, INC.; TARJAN CAB,
`INC.; ALEXANDRIA TRANS., INC.; KOHSAR, INC.; RIVAL CAB, INC.;
`YHWH SABAOTH, INC.; PRAISE THE LORD, INC.; HARVARD SQUARE
`CAB, INC.; FLYING CARPET CAB, INC.; MEHROSE, INC.; AMAR TRANS.,
`INC.; RB CAB, INC.; CROYANCE CAB, INC.; P.I. CAB, INC.; HOMANO &
`CARL TAXI, INC.; FLEDO, INC.; J.W. CAB INC.; PIDI CAB, INC.;
`GODAVARI, INC.; ST. RICHARD TAXI, INC.; RUTH CAB, INC.;
`SATKARTAR, INC.; ELIOT CAB, INC.; WADH BAGH SINGH CAB, INC.;
`MY YASMINA CAB, INC.; TWO GIRLS TAXI, INC.; PAPESO CAB, INC.;
`ZAHIDA TRANS., INC.; YVES TAXI, INC.; YUNG CAB, INC.; PALOMA
`TRANSPORTATION, INC.; MARTHA’S TRANS., INC.; LA BOULE DE FEU,
`INC.; SPLENDIDE CAB, INC.; SHOOPITE CAB, INC.; GREEN LAND, INC.;
`TR CAB,INC.; FEDSEN & TEDSEN, INC.; DIEU EST BON, INC.; VICEROY
`CAB, INC.; NEGES JR., CAB, INC.; RADHA SWAMI BIAS, INC.; PROMISE
`CAB, INC.; G.G.M. CAB, INC.; PABLE TAXI, INC.; BROTHERS CAB, INC.;
`KASSIE CAB, INC.; JAZZ TAXI, INC.; B GOOD CAB, INC.; OHM, SHIVA &
`GANESH CAB, INC.; L’OISEAU TAXI, INC.; LYSETTE & JARDUS, INC.;
`FATIMA CAB, INC.; SELON DIEU CAB, INC.; M. & D. BROTHERS, INC.;
`LA TRINITE, INC.; LOVELY ONE, INC.; WILVENS CAB, INC.; GOOD TIME
`CAB, INC.; DOU DOU CAB, INC.; MGP TAXI, INC.; G. JOSE CAB, INC.;
`JEAHANNA TAXI, INC.; NATOU CAB, INC.; CLERNA CORP.; ANTONIO &
`FRANCO, INC.; GURU TEGH BHADUR CAB, INC.; STEFAN TUROLSKI;
`MONA CAB, INC.; ERIC & MARIA CAB, INC.; CHRIS AND JUNIOR, INC.;
`SURPRISE CAB, INC.; CHENAL CAB, INC.; ANH CAB, INC.; AUGUST CAB,
`INC.; KARTAR CAB, INC.; NIMRAH TRANS., INC.; JELUS CAB, INC.;
`ELZIRA & LUC CAB, INC.; BKMB, INC.; ONLY BELIEVE TAXI, INC.;
`NADA, INC.; MANOR CAB, INC.; GALEHAD TAXI, INC.; A. TAMMY CAB,
`INC.; GARVEN’S CAB, INC.; ARNOLD COURT TAXI, INC.; BBJ CAB, INC.;
`SILVA CAB, INC.; GUMAT CAB, INC.; BRIOL CAB, INC.; BEST IS BEST
`CAB, INC.; MJ TAXI CAB, INC.; SAMI’S TAXI, INC.; C.T.P. I, INC.; ERA ET
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`LABORA, INC.; MUNNY TRANS., INC.; HARSH CAB, INC.; SOEG CAB,
`INC.; ALDINE CAB, INC.; TIVY, INC.; ISAIH MATHEW, INC.;
`ADVANTAGE TAXI OF CAMBRIDGE, INC.; BANWAIT TRANS., INC.;
`CAYES II CAB, INC.; JACQUET CAB, INC.; EBEN-EZER TAXI CAB, INC.;
`YOLY-CARVENS, INC.; SHEIKH TRANS., INC.; MY NATHALIE CAB, INC.;
`RED FISH CAB, INC.; AZIN TAXI, INC.; MEKLIT CAB, INC.; P & S TAXI
`CORP.; ROBENSON TAXI, INC.; RP EXCELSIOR, INC.; MILLENNIUM
`TAXI, INC.; BB TAXI EXPRESS, INC.; TEJA TRANS., INC.; ROL & G., INC.;
`LOVE CAB, INC.; LES GENS DU NORD, INC. BHARGO INC. H & L CAB,
`INC.; DELIVRANCE CAB, INC.; TOWN TAXI OF CAPE COD, INC.;
`KURALA TRANS., INC.; TINA & NINA TRANS., INC.; MAVA TAXI, INC.;
`CAMBRIDGE CAB CONNECTION, INC.; HERNANDEZ
`TRANSPORTATION, INC.; RIL-TUL CAB, INC.; KHALSA CAB, INC.;
`ALPHA OMEGA CAB, INC.; T & J CAB, INC.; MT. EVEREST, INC.; U & I
`CORP.; JFL CAB, INC.; DADY-PHONE, INC.; R. CANDY TAXI, INC.;
`VICTORIA CAB, INC.; SELAM TRANSPORTATION, INC.; PRO-CAB, INC.;
`YOTILLE CAB, INC.; ABCD TAXI, INC.; NKB CAB, INC.; MARCUS CAB,
`INC.; ELPOORAG, INC.; KENDRA CORPORATION; BRITNEY CAB, INC.;
`ELAN CAB, INC.; JAI GURUDEV, CORPORATION; DOPHY TAXI, INC.;
`DREAMERS CAB,INC.; WALGER, INC.; DESDUNES UNITED, INC.;
`PATRICK TAXI, INC.; DOUCEUR CAB, INC.; JE CROIS EN DIEU, INC.; MT.
`CARMELLE TAXI, INC.; ABBED CAB, INC.; ADDIS CAB, INC.; ARIEL &
`JAPHETH, INC.; BETHEL CAB, INC.; CHARLIE CAB, INC.; CORETTA,
`INC.; CYRILO CAB, INC.; DALESHA TAXI, INC.; DESDUNES CAB, INC.;
`ELYSSE CORPORATION; FIRST STREET CAB, INC.; G & E. CAB, INC.; GL
`CAB, INC.; GOH CAB, INC.; GAGAN TAXI, INC.; JACQUELINE CAB, INC.;
`JEREMIE TAXI, INC.; LOUINE CAB, INC.; M. ANGELO CAB, INC.; NAHAR
`SINGH CAB, INC.; NEK FAB, INC.; O.D.J. TAXI, INC.; ONKAR CAB, INC.;
`PH & KN, INC.; RADHA TRANS., INC.; RANDAH CAB, INC.; S & J INC.;
`TWO BOYS CAB, INC.; VIRGINIA CAB, INC.; WINDSOR CAB, INC.;
`ZANDO CAB, INC.; AHRAM CAB, INC.; AN YIN PA TA, INC.; ANDERSON
`& JOSHUA CAB, INC.; ANNA CAB, INC.; ARISTOCRATS AMBIANCE
`TAXI, INC.; BAINET CAB, INC.; BAY CITY TAXI, INC.; BIBI’S CAB, INC.;
`C.E.F. CAB, INC.; CAMBRIDGE CLASSIC CAB, INC.; CAYES CAB, INC.;
`CENTRAL SQUARE, CAB, INC.; CLEO TAXI, INC.; DEFER CAB, INC.;
`DEMOSTERNE, INC.; EAGLE TAXI, INC.; EL CHALDAY, INC.;
`ELIZABETH CAB, INC.; ENCHANTE TAXI, INC.; EUREKA CAB, INC.;
`FARB, INC.; G & J CAB INC.; GIORGIO’S CAB, INC.; GOLDEN TEMPLE
`TRANS., INC.; GREEN STRIPE CAB, INC.; GURU TRANS., INC.; HAWELTI
`CAB, INC.; HOSANA TAXI, INC.; ITA CAB, INC.; IMPECCABLE TRANS,
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`INC.; JMF CAB, INC.; JV TAXI, INC.; JEZIL CAB, INC.; JOYSE CAB, INC.;
`KARIM CAB, INC.; KESHIA CAB, INC.; KEVIN TAXI, INC.; KRISHANA
`TRANS., INC.; KRISHNA KRISHNA TRANS., INC.; LARRIEUX CAB, INC.;
`LELE CAB, INC.; LEXINGTON TAXI, INC.; MIT CAB, INC.; MARK & S,
`INC.; MAS TAXI, INC.; MELCHISEDEK CAB, INC.; MIRKA, INC.;
`MOGADISHU CAB, INC.; NAJU, INC.; NELCHERI CAB, INC.; NO NO CAB,
`INC.; P & G CAB, INC.; P & P DUMERANT CORP.; PAFOU CAB, INC.;
`PAPU, INC.; PAUL CAB, INC.; QUEEN JESSICA CAB, INC.; RAAVI
`TRANS., INC.; RAI TRANSPORTATION, INC.; RED CAB OF WORCESTER,
`INC.; RENEE TAXI, INC.; RENETTE & FRANCKLYN, INC.; RIOS GON
`CAB, INC.; ROCK SOLID & MOMONE, INC.; ROLY CAB, INC.; SASUN
`CAB, INC.; SATNUM CAB, INC.; SEA WALL TAXI, INC.; SHANI TAXI,
`INC.; SHREE GANESH CAB, INC.; SUNSET CAB, INC.; SYMPHONY TAXI,
`INC.; TT, INC.; TAXI TECHNOLOGY, INC.; TAYLOR TAXI, INC.; TELFORT
`CAB, INC.; ULYSSE TRANS. HOLDING, CORP.; ULYSSE’S CAB, INC.; YO
`YO CAB, INC.; YOU TOO CAB, INC.; ZICKY CAB, INC.; 116 CAB, INC.;
`CADOUX TAXI, INC.; HANEF TRANS., INC.; TRISTAN & VANESSA CAB,
`INC.; BINYAMIN CAB, INC.; CATHUL, INC.; CHRISTOPHER’S CAB, INC.;
`DILLONS TRANS., INC.; MARZENEB, INC.; MESHUALEKIA, INC.;
`PHATRICKSEY CAB, INC.; YOU AND I CAB, INC.; BENITO & ROSELINE
`CAB, INC.; DE LEREBOURS, INC.; LARACINE, INC.; LEYNA CAB, INC.;
`MOBARAK CAB, INC.; REHAM CAB, INC.; ROSAMELIA INC.; SJP TAXI,
`INC.; THOMAS FAMILY, INC.; GADL CAB, INC. GARRETT CAMP;
`LIDETA CAB, INC.; KBS CAB, INC.; MSW TAXI, INC.; MAHNOOR TRANS.,
`INC.; PAL TAXI, INC.; ROODY’S CAB, INC.; C & G LEASING, INC. LA
`DILIGENCE, INC.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and RASIER, LLC.
`
`Defendants – Appellees
`
`TRAVIS KALANICK and GARRETT CAMP,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1, Plaintiffs-Appellants Anoush Cab, Inc.;
`
`Arams, Inc.; Ararrat, Inc.; Atlantic Cab, Inc.; Barlow Cab, Inc.; Bedros Cab, Inc.;
`
`Boylston Cab, Inc.; Brigham Cab, Inc.; Cleveland Cab, Inc.; Diamond Cab, Inc.;
`
`Elsie Cab, Inc.; Fenway Taxi, Inc.; G&A Cab, Inc.; Jordan Cab, Inc.; Jubran Cab,
`
`Inc.; Kilmarnock Cab, Inc.; Little Island Cab, Inc.; Locust Cab, Inc.; Longwood
`
`Taxi, Inc.; M & AN Cabs, Inc.; M.P.E. Cab, Inc.; Marbed Cab, Inc.; Massis, Inc.;
`
`Mesrob Cab, Inc.; N.E. Cab, Inc.; Oriole Cab, Inc.; Peterborough Cab, Inc.;
`
`Queensbury Cab, Inc.; Sahag, Inc.; Sovereign Cab, Inc.; V&A Cab, Inc.; Veras,
`
`Inc.; Vickys, Inc.; and Yellowbird Cab, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”), hereby state that they
`
`are each privately held corporations with no parent corporations or publicly held
`
`corporations that own 10% or more of their stock.
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS-
`APPELLANTS ........................................................................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. vii
`
`REASONS WHY ORAL ARGUMENT SHOULD BE HEARD ............................. 1
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ............................. 2
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 4
`
`I.
`
`Procedural History ........................................................................................... 4
`
`II.
`
`The Decision Below ........................................................................................ 5
`
`III.
`
`Statement of Facts ............................................................................................ 8
`
`A. Vehicles-for-Hire Were Highly Regulated in Boston By
`State and Local Laws. ........................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`Uber Ridesharing Violated the Boston Ordinance. .............................10
`
`C.
`
`Uber Knew that the Boston Ordinance Prohibited Drivers
`of Unlicensed Private Vehicles from Picking Up
`Passengers for Hire in Boston. ............................................................11
`
`D. Uber Flooded the Market with Thousands of Non-
`Compliant Vehicles and Drivers Who Competed with
`Plaintiffs for Riders. ............................................................................13
`
`E.
`
`Uber’s Violation of Laws and Rules Governing Vehicles-
`for-Hire Enabled Uber to Obtain Pricing and Cost
`Advantages Which Plaintiffs Could Not Lawfully Match. .................14
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`Unlawful Competition from Uber Ridesharing Caused a
`Severe Decline in Taxi Ridership .......................................................16
`
`The Decline in Taxi Ridership Caused By Uber
`Ridesharing Led to a Steep Drop in Plaintiffs’ Leasing
`Revenue ...............................................................................................18
`
`Plaintiffs Lost Significant Profits as a Result of Unlawful
`Competition from Uber Ridesharing. ..................................................19
`
`The Value of Plaintiffs’ Taxi Medallions Plummeted as a
`Result of Unlawful Competition from Uber Ridesharing. ..................19
`
`Ridesharing Was Unlawful Until August 5, 2016, When
`the Transportation Network Company Act Became Law ...................22
`
`The Statements and Conduct of Government Officials
`Which Uber Construed to Be Tacit Approval of Uber
`Ridesharing ..........................................................................................22
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................26
`
`ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................30
`
`I.
`
`Standard of Review........................................................................................30
`
`II.
`
`The Court Applied the Wrong Legal Standards and Relied
`Upon Legally Impermissible Factors When It Concluded that
`Uber Was Not Liable to Plaintiffs for Common Law Unfair
`Competition. ..................................................................................................31
`
`A. Massachusetts Law Imposes Liability for Unfair
`Competition When Non-Compliant Competitors Violate
`Licensing Requirements Designed To Limit
`Unauthorized Competition. .................................................................31
`
`B.
`
`Boston’s Vehicle-for-Hire Laws Limited Competition to
`1,825 Licensed Competitors in Order to Prevent
`Unreasonable and Destructive Competition. .......................................34
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Court Erred by Imposing an Egregiousness
`Requirement On, and Permitting a Good Faith Defense
`to, Plaintiffs’ Common Law Unfair Competition Claim. ...................35
`
`The Court Erred In Concluding that Uber Did Not
`Engage In Common Law Unfair Competition. ...................................37
`
`III. The Court Applied the Wrong Legal Standards and Relied
`Upon Legally Impermissible Factors When It Concluded that
`Uber Did Not Violate Chapter 93A. ..............................................................38
`
`A. Uber Violated Chapter 93A Because Its Conduct
`Violated Established Standards of Unfair Competition. .....................39
`
`B.
`
`Uber’s Violation of Boston’s Unambiguous Vehicle-for-
`Hire Laws, Which Enabled It to Obtain Competitive
`Advantages over Plaintiffs, Violated Chapter 93A. ............................41
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`A Competitor Engages in Unfair Methods of
`Competition When It Obtains Economic
`Advantages From Breaking the Law. .......................................41
`
`The Violation of a Statute Gives Rise to a Chapter
`93A Claim When It Enables Unfair Methods of
`Competition. ..............................................................................44
`
`Because the Court Found that Uber Obtained
`Economic Advantages from Violating Boston’s
`Vehicle-for-Hire Laws, It Was Legal Error for the
`Court to Conclude that Uber Did Not Violate
`Chapter 93A. .............................................................................45
`
`It Was Legal Error for the Court to Apply a Heightened
`Unfairness Standard to Plaintiffs’ Claims That Were
`Based on Established Common Law and Statutory
`Standards of Unfair Competition. .......................................................47
`
`It Was Legal Error for the Court to Exonerate Uber from
`Chapter 93A Liability Because the City Did Not Shut
`Down Uber’s Ridesharing Service. .....................................................50
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`No Government Official Had Authority, Tacitly or
`Expressly, to Permit Uber’s Violations of Boston’s
`Vehicle-for-Hire Laws. .............................................................51
`
`Conduct and Statements of Government Officials
`that Did Not Make Uber Ridesharing a Permitted
`Practice under Section 3 of Chapter 93A, Cannot
`Absolve Uber from Chapter 93A Liability. ..............................53
`
`E.
`
`It Was Legal Error for the Court to Rely Upon Uber’s
`Good Faith and State of Mind to Exonerate Uber from
`Chapter 93A Liability. .........................................................................56
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Good Faith Provides No Defense to Liability
`Under Chapter 93A. ..................................................................56
`
`Uber’s Belief that It Acted Consistently with
`Statements of Government Officials Provided No
`Defense under Chapter 93A. .....................................................58
`
`Uber’s Knowledge that Ridesharing Was
`Prohibited by the Boston Ordinance Precluded a
`Finding of Good Faith as a Matter of Law. ..............................60
`
`F.
`
`Even if an Egregiousness Standard Were Applicable, the
`Court’s Decision Absolving Uber From Chapter 93A
`Liability Must Be Reversed Because the Court Accorded
`Significant Weight to Legally Impermissible Factors. .......................62
`
`IV. The Court Erred in Entering Judgment for Uber on Plaintiffs’
`Conspiracy and Aiding and Abetting Claims. ...............................................63
`
`A. Uber Engaged in a Conspiracy Because Uber and its
`Drivers, Through the Sheer Force of Numbers Acting in
`Combination, Injured Plaintiffs in Ways that They Would
`Not Have Been Able to Accomplish Had They Been
`Acting Individually..............................................................................63
`
`B.
`
`Uber Aided and Abetted Its Drivers’ Violations of
`Boston Vehicle-for-Hire Laws. ...........................................................65
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`V. Uber’s Unlawful Conduct Caused Plaintiffs Harm in the Form
`of Lost Leasing Revenues, Lost Profits and Reduced Taxi
`Medallion Values. ..........................................................................................66
`
`VI. The Court Applied an Incorrect Legal Standard and Ignored
`Undisputed Evidence and Testimony From Uber’s Expert
`Regarding Plaintiffs’ Damages. .....................................................................68
`
`A.
`
`The Court Committed Legal Error by Placing the Burden
`on Plaintiffs to Disaggregate Any Concurrent Causes of
`Their Damages. ...................................................................................69
`
`1.
`
`The Court Erroneously Placed the Burden on
`Plaintiffs to Disaggregate Damages. .........................................69
`
`2. Massachusetts Law Does Not Require Plaintiffs to
`Disaggregate Damages; Rather, Uber Had the
`Burden to Disaggregate Damages. ............................................71
`
`3.
`
`The Court Erroneously Imposed on Plaintiffs
`Causation and Damages Requirements Which Are
`Contrary to Massachusetts Law. ...............................................74
`
`The Court Ignored Substantial, Undisputed Evidence
`That Uber’s P2P Operations Caused Plaintiffs’
`Significant Losses of Profits and Declines in Medallion
`Values. .................................................................................................76
`
`Because Uber Did Not Meet Its Burden to Disaggregate
`Damages, This Court Should Enter Judgment Awarding
`Plaintiffs their Lost Profits, As Measured by Uber’s
`Expert, and Their Medallion Value Losses, As Measured
`By Uber’s Market Share. .....................................................................79
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................81
`
`RULE 32(a)(7) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .............................................83
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................84
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`A P East, Inc. v. Bd. of Assessors of Westborough,
`40 Mass. App. Ct. 9124, 661 N.E.2d 1344 (1996) ..............................................59
`
`A.B. & C. Motor Transp. Co. v. Dep’t of Pub. Utils.,
`327 Mass. 550, 100 N.E.2d 560 (1951) ...............................................................32
`
`Ahern v. Scholz,
`85 F.3d 774 (1st Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................31
`
`Air Safety, Inc. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston,
`94 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996) ......................................................................................79
`
`Ameriquest Mortg.Co. v. Nosek (In re Nosek),
`609 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2010) ............................................................................. 30, 62
`
`Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Labs., Inc.,
`803 F.3d 518 (11th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................43
`
`Aspinall v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
`453 Mass. 431, 902 N.E.2d 421 (2009) ...............................................................53
`
`Babbitt v. Oglala Sioux Tribal Pub. Safety Dep’t,
`194 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................52
`
`Baker v. Goldman,
`771 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 30, 62, 79
`
`Blevio v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,
`39 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1994) ............................................................................... 48, 76
`
`Borman v. Raymark Indus., Inc.,
`960 F.2d 327 (3d Cir. 1992) .................................................................................73
`
`Boston & Maine R.R. v. Hart,
`254 Mass. 253, 150 N.E. 212 (1926) ...................................................................32
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`Boston Neighborhood Taxi Ass’n v. Dep’t of Pub. Utils.,
`410 Mass. 686, 575 N.E.2d 52 (1991) .......................................................... 34, 52
`
`Boston Taxi Owners Ass’n v. City of Boston,
`180 F. Supp. 3d 108 (D. Mass. 2016) ..................................................................50
`
`Bricklayers & Trowel Trades Int’l Pension Fund v. Credit Suisse Sec.
`(USA) LLC,
`752 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................74
`
`C&B Sales & Serv. Inc. v. McDonald,
`177 F.3d 384 (5th Cir. 1999)................................................................................81
`
`Cal. Rice Indus. v. FTC,
`102 F.2d 716 (9th Cir. 1939)................................................................................42
`
`Cambridge Plating Co. v. Napco, Inc.,
`85 F.3d 752 (1st Cir. 1996) ........................................................................... 39, 47
`
`Campbell v. Ackerman,
`903 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................68
`
`Castricone v. Mical,
`74 Mass. App. Ct. 591, 909 N.E.2d 29 (2009) ............................................. 48, 60
`
`Ciardi v. F. Hoffmann La Roche, Ltd.,
`436 Mass. 53, 762 N.E.2d 303 (2002) .................................................................41
`
`City of Boston v. Back Bay Cultural Ass’n,
`418 Mass. 175, 635 N.E.2d 1175 (1994) .............................................................51
`
`Coca-Cola Co. v. Dorris,
`311 F. Supp. 287 (E.D. Ark. 1970) ......................................................................36
`
`Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin,
`908 F.2d 1142 (3d Cir. 1990) ...............................................................................73
`
`Commonwealth v. De Cotis,
`366 Mass. 234, 316 N.E.2d 748 (1974) ........................................................ 42, 53
`
`Damon v. Sun Co.,
`87 F.3d 1467 (1st Cir. 1996) ......................................................................... 71, 72
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`Datacomm Interface, Inc. v. Computerworld, Inc.,
`396 Mass. 760, 489 N.E.2d 185 (1986) ...............................................................79
`
`Delicata v. Bourlesses,
`9 Mass. App. Ct. 713, 404 N.E.2d 667 (1980) ....................................................71
`
`Di Millio v. Sheepscot Pilots, Inc.,
`870 F.2d 746 (1st Cir. 1989) ................................................................................81
`
`Drakopoulos v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n,
`465 Mass. 775, 991 N.E.2d 1086 (2013) .............................................................45
`
`Drumgold v. Callahan,
`707 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2013) ..................................................................................66
`
`Duclersaint v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n,
`427 Mass. 809, 696 N.E.2d 536 (1998) ........................................................ 49, 61
`
`Dumont v. Reily Foods Co.,
`934 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2019) ..................................................................................30
`
`Dynamic Fluid Control v. Int’l Valve Mfg.,
`790 F. Supp. 2d 732 (N.D. Ill. 2011) ...................................................................36
`
`Estrada v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co.,
`53 F. Supp. 3d 484 (D. Mass. 2014) ....................................................................54
`
`Eugene Dietzgen Co. v. FTC,
`142 F.2d 321 (7th Cir. 1944)................................................................................42
`
`Exhibit Source, Inc. v. Wells Ave. Bus. Ctr., LLC.,
`94 Mass. App. Ct. 497, 114 N.E.3d 993 (2018) ..................................................48
`
`Fairyfoot Prods. Co. v. FTC,
`80 F.2d 684, 687 (7th Cir. 1935) .........................................................................57
`
`Fed. Home Loan Bank of Boston v. Ally Fin., Inc.,
`2019 Mass. Super. LEXIS 484 (Aug. 20, 2019) ..................................................75
`
`Feldman v. Aspen Tech., Inc.,
`2007 Mass. Super. LEXIS 118 (Mar. 3, 2007) ....................................................76
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`Fleming v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co.,
`445 Mass. 381, 837 N.E.2d 1113 (2005) .............................................................54
`
`FTC v. Bronson Partners, LLC,
`2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3315 (D. Conn. Jan. 25, 2006) .......................................57
`
`FTC v. Capital Choice Consumer Credit,
`2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32306 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2004) ....................................61
`
`FTC v. Cyberspace.com, LLC,
`453 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................57
`
`FTC v. Infinity Grp. Servs.,
`2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135962 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2009) .................................57
`
`FTC v. Lending Club Corp.,
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223856 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2019) .................................58
`
`FTC v. Loanpointe,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104982 (D. Utah Sept. 16, 2011) ............................ 58, 61
`
`FTC v. Motion Picture Adver. Serv. Co.,
`344 U.S. 392 (1953) .............................................................................................41
`
`FTC v. R. F. Keppel & Bro., Inc.,
`291 U.S. 304 (1934) ................................................................................ 41, 42, 43
`
`Gossels v. Fleet Nat’l Bank,
`453 Mass. 366, 902 N.E.2d 370 (2009) ...............................................................39
`
`Gucci Am., Inc. v. Action Activewear, Inc.,
`759 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)................................................................36
`
`Gurrobat v. HTH Corp.,
`133 Haw. 1, 323 P.3d 792 (2014) ........................................................................44
`
`Harhen v. Brown,
`46 Mass. App. Ct. 793, 710 N.E.2d 224 (1999) ..................................................61
`
`Harrington v. Fall River Hous. Auth.,
`27 Mass. App. Ct. 301, 538 N.E.2d 24 (1989) ....................................................59
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case: 19-2001 Document: 00117588492 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/12/2020 Entry ID: 6338316
`
`
`
`Harrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
`981 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1992) ..................................................................................70
`
`Heckler v. Community Health Servs.,
`467 U.S. 51 (1984) ...............................................................................................52
`
`HipSaver Co. v. J.T. Posey Co.,
`490 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D. Mass. 2007) ....................................................................35
`
`In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig.,
`332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2003)................................................................................70
`
`In re Neurontin Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig.,
`712 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2013) ..................................................................................67
`
`In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig.,
`491 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D. Mass. 2007) ............................................................. 72, 80
`
`Incase Inc. v. Timex Corp.,
`488 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2007) ........................................................................... 31, 46
`
`Int’l Art Co. v. FTC,
`109 F.2d 393 (7th Cir. 1940)................................................................................53
`
`J.E. Pierce Apothecary, Inc. v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc.,
`365 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D. Mass. 2005) ........................................................... 45, 51
`
`Katin v. Nat’l Real Estate Info. Servs.,
`2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31398 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2009) ....................................45
`
`Keach v. Boyajian,
`243 B.R. 851 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2000) ....................................................................61
`
`Kenney v. Rust,
`17 Mass. App. Ct. 699, 462 N.E.2d 333 (1984) ..................................................67
`
`Kiribati Seafood Co., LLC v. Dechert LLP,
`478 Mass. 111, 83 N.E.3d 7