Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 1 of 42 Page ID #:866

1 ROBERT V. PRONGAY (#270796) JONATHAN M. ROTTER (#324137) 2 JENNIFER M. LEINBACH (#281404) 3 GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 4 , 90067 5 Telephone:(310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 6 Email: [email protected] 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed 8 Class 9 10 DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 WESTERN DIVISION

12 13 John E. Lautemann, Individually and Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO On Behalf of All Others Similarly 14 Situated , SECOND AMENDED CLASS 15 ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff, 16 17 v.

18 Bird Rides, Inc., 19 Defendant. 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 2 of 42 Page ID #:867

1 Plaintiff, John E. Lautemann, by undersigned counsel, hereby files his Class 2 Action Complaint against Defendant Bird Rides, Inc. (“Bird”). On behalf of 3 himself and the putative class, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant for (a) 4 trespass (Count I) and (b) nuisance (Count II). Plaintiff alleges the following upon 5 information and belief, except as to those allegations concerning Plaintiff, which 6 are alleged upon personal knowledge. Plaintiff’s information and belief is based 7 upon, among other things, Plaintiff’s counsel’s investigation, which includes 8 without limitation: (a) review and analysis of Bird’s advertising materials; (b) 9 review and analysis of other publicly available information concerning Bird; and 10 (c) Bird’s answer and responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admission. Plaintiff 11 believes that substantial evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth 12 herein after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. 13 NATURE OF THE ACTION AND OVERVIEW 14 1. This is a nationwide class action, as defined below in ¶¶ 139-140, on 15 behalf of owners and lessees of property located in California who have had their 16 property rights infringed upon by Bird electric scooters. 17 2. Bird is a dockless electric scooter (“e-scooter”) rental company. Users 18 rent Bird e-scooters by locating and unlocking a nearby GPS-enabled e-scooter 19 using Bird’s mobile application. Each ride costs a $1 base fee and 15 cents per 20 minute thereafter. Users end the ride by leaving the e-scooter at their destination 21 and locking the e-scooter. Then, the e-scooter’s location reappears on the map in 22 the app for other users to locate, unlock, and ride. The lack of any fixed points for 23 pick-up or drop-off is what makes the service “dockless.” 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 3 of 42 Page ID #:868

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 3. The lynchpin of Bird’s business model is the idea that users can find a 21 Bird e-scooter “anywhere” and leave it “anywhere” upon finishing their ride. For 22 example, as depicted in the below screenshot of the Apple App Store on November 23 30, 2018, the Company touts to potential users that Bird’s service provides the 24 convenience of e-scooters “that can be picked up and dropped off anywhere.” 25 4. Absent the convenience of being able to find or leave a Bird e-scooter 26 “anywhere,” potential users would be substantially less inclined to use Bird’s e- 27 scooter rental service. For example, if users could only leave the Bird e-scooter in 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 2 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 4 of 42 Page ID #:869

1 a designated area upon concluding their ride, a user might still have to walk 2 multiple blocks to their ultimate destination. Similarly, since e-scooters are 3 relatively inexpensive (costing between $100 to $500), and thus are affordable to a 4 large segment of the population, the fact that people prefer to rent Bird e-scooters 5 shows that the ability to simply leave a Bird e-scooter anywhere is a primary 6 reason why people use Bird’s service instead of buying or using their own e- 7 scooter. 8 5. Cities and towns where Bird offers its e-scooter rental service have 9 had their streets infested with e-scooters that are causing widely reported problems. 10 While users may get the convenience of leaving Bird’s e-scooters “anywhere,” 11 property owners are being harmed as e-scooters are flagrantly left on their property 12 or in an unsafe manner on the sidewalks adjacent to their property. 13 6. With this business model, Bird is willfully disregarding the real 14 property interests of class members who own or lease private property in 15 California cities where Bird operates. Bird’s e-scooters are causing unsafe 16 conditions on sidewalks, exposing property owners to legal liabilities, and 17 burdening property owners with removing Bird’s e-scooters from their property or 18 adjacent sidewalks. All the while, Bird has benefited substantially, as its valuation 19 has skyrocketed to more than $2 billion. 20 7. Despite widespread public criticisms and news reports, Bird 21 recklessly disregards that its e-scooters are being left by users on other people’s 22 private property and intentionally places its scooters on the sidewalks adjacent to 23 private property. Bird largely does not take any effective efforts to restrict where 24 users may leave the e-scooter after the ride’s end. 25 8. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant Bird has not taken 26 any sufficient or meaningful efforts to prohibit its e-scooters from being left on or 27 adjacent to California private property because doing so would jeopardize Bird’s 28 entire business model and weaken its position among its competitors. SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 3 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 5 of 42 Page ID #:870

1 9. Bird has itself recognized that in the e-scooter industry “[c]ompanies 2 are incentivized to be the least compliant to get the most rides.” 3 10. Instead of taking meaningful steps to stop the widespread littering of 4 their e-scooters on other people’s property, Bird intentionally looks the other way 5 and relies on grossly ineffective instructions to its users while knowing that the 6 instructions are being generally ignored and while Bird fails to enforce the 7 instructions. For example, Bird’s instructions merely tell users that when parking, 8 “Don’t block public pathways” and “Park by bike racks when available.” Buried in 9 Bird’s “Rental Agreement,”1 which many users have probably never even bothered 10 to read, the users purportedly agree, “Upon conclusion of Your ride, the Vehicle 11 must be parked at a lawful parking spot, i.e. the Vehicle cannot be parked on 12 private property or in a locked area or in any other non-public space.” This 13 language appears to be nothing more than a paper tiger as Bird has failed to take 14 meaningful action to address the widespread parking of its e-scooters on private 15 property. 16 11. Indeed, in California, Bird riders are generally permitted by Bird to 17 park Bird scooters on private property using the Bird mobile app even though such 18 parking is prohibited by the terms of Bird’s Rental Agreement. 19 12. As alleged herein, the unauthorized placement of Bird e-scooters on 20 property constitutes an intentional entry onto the property of class members. 21 Moreover, the placement of Bird e-scooters on private property or on the sidewalk 22 adjacent to private property constitutes nuisance. The continuing invasion of the 23 class member’s use and enjoyment of their properties, committed by Defendant 24 Bird on an ongoing basis for profit, has caused significant harm to members of the 25 26 1 27 The Rental Agreement on Bird’s website is dated August 1, 2018. It is unclear what the Rental Agreement stated prior to this date. 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 4 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 6 of 42 Page ID #:871

1 proposed class. Based on the acts and practices alleged herein, Defendant Bird is 2 liable for trespass and nuisance. 3 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4 13. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 5 1332(a)(1). The amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds 6 the sum or value of $75,000, and there is diversity between Plaintiff and 7 Defendant. 8 14. The amount in controversy between Plaintiff and Defendant exceeds 9 $75,000 because the cost of an injunction to prevent Bird’s trespass and nuisance 10 on and around Plaintiff’s private property would exceed said amount. Consistent 11 with Plaintiff’s view of the amount in controversy for Plaintiff’s individual claim, 12 in Defendant’s First Amended Counterclaim, which is only against Plaintiff, 13 Defendant has alleged that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. ECF No. 14 33, ¶ 4. 15 15. Because of various choices Bird has made in the design of its 16 business, preventing its trespass and nuisance would require several changes to its 17 hardware, software, and personnel and customer practices. As to hardware, Bird 18 would need to either upgrade its scooter fleet or install a network of sensors 19 capable of providing more accurate location data. Each of these changes would be 20 necessary just as to Plaintiff’s property, and will together cost Bird substantially in 21 excess of $75,000 both in out-of-pocket expenditure and reduced revenue. Each 22 potential required change is explained in more detail in the following paragraphs. 23 16. Bird scooters are equipped with Global Positioning System (GPS) 24 receivers, which allow the scooters to determine their approximate location, which 25 they then transmit to Bird. This is core aspect of Bird’s business, as Bird then 26 shows its users, through the Bird app, where they can pick up a Bird scooter. Bird 27 has in its app “geofenced” some areas, meaning that Bird limits the ability of its 28 scooters to perform in certain ways in those areas, e.g., move faster than a certain SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 5 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 7 of 42 Page ID #:872

1 speed, or at all, relying on scooters’ location determined through GPS. However, 2 the GPS units Bird chose for its fleet are not accurate enough to geofence a single 3 property like Plaintiff’s without applying the use restriction to a commercially 4 significant area outside of the property. On information and belief, this is 5 commercially unacceptable to Bird, and would cause the loss of more than 6 $75,000. Therefore, Bird’s currently deployed technological capabilities are 7 insufficient to allow it to both continue its business and implement appropriate 8 measures, that, along with personnel and customer policy changes, could 9 ameliorate the nuisance, and the trespass on Plaintiff’s property. 10 17. One option to address this would be for Bird to purchase a new fleet 11 of scooters with more accurate GPS technology for the City of Santa Monica, 12 where Plaintiff’s private property is located. Bird scooters cost approximately 13 $550 each, but the cost may exceed this amount if more advanced GPS systems are 14 installed. Bird currently has a permit to operate 750 scooters in the City of Santa 15 Monica. Therefore, the new fleet of scooters with more accurate GPS systems in 16 Santa Monica would cost Bird $412,500. This would allow Bird to specifically 17 alert its customers that they are not allowed to ride on the sidewalk in front of 18 Plaintiff’s private property, or to ride or park in the alley where the ingress and 19 egress to the property’s customer parking is located, and Bird could also stop the 20 scooters from operating in those areas and make it so that a ride cannot be ended in 21 those areas, i.e., the customer would continue to be charged for the ride until the 22 scooter is removed from the area. 23 18. Another option to would be to deploy a network of bluetooth location 24 sensors (“beacons”) that could interface with Bird’s existing fleet. Such beacons 25 would send bluetooth low energy signals to its scooters’ GPS for more precise 26 location accuracy than is possible with its existing reliance on GPS. These 27 beacons would be necessary in the area surrounding Plaintiff’s property on 28 Montana Avenue near downtown Santa Monica to prevent the scooters from SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 6 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 8 of 42 Page ID #:873

1 trespassing and causing a nuisance on Plaintiff’s property. As with the an 2 upgraded fleet, this would allow Bird to specifically alert its customers that they 3 are not allowed to ride on the sidewalk in front of Plaintiff’s private property, or to 4 ride or park in the alley where the ingress and egress to the property’s customer 5 parking is located, and Bird could also stop the scooters from operating in those 6 areas and make it so that a ride cannot be ended in those areas, i.e., the customer 7 would continue to be charged for the ride until the scooter is removed from the 8 area. Bird has discussed the possibility of such beacon installations with cities, 9 including Santa Monica and San Jose, both of which want Bird to prevent sidewalk 10 riding, but on information and belief, the reason that Bird has not installed such 11 beacon networks to date is the associated cost. The cost of feasibility and technical 12 studies, obtaining permitting for the beacons, obtaining rights to the physical space 13 needed to place the beacons, beacon installation, beacon maintenance, beacon 14 batteries (including replacement batteries), and the engineering cost of 15 incorporating the beacon technology into Bird’s internal systems and the mobile 16 application would far exceed $75,000, even for a system designed only with 17 Plaintiff’s property in mind. 18 19. Whether it upgrades its fleet or installs beacons, Bird would also need 19 to pay employees or independent contractors to remove Bird scooters from on or 20 near Plaintiff’s private property if a scooter was physically moved onto or near the 21 property, which could happen without locking or unlocking the scooter using the 22 mobile application, or if a customer otherwise rides or leaves a scooter there in 23 spite of the upgraded technological measures. Because Bird scooters could no 24 longer be parked in a large radius in the middle of Montana Avenue, Bird would 25 need to inform its customers of where appropriate parking is located on Montana 26 Avenue, which, on information and belief, would require Bird to negotiate and pay 27 for consensual Bird parking areas for its scooters outside of the no-parking zone 28 surrounding Plaintiff’s private property. This would likely also include additional SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 7 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 9 of 42 Page ID #:874

1 engineering costs to the mobile application to show customers on the mobile app 2 map where Bird parking is located on or near Montana Avenue. And, Bird would 3 have to impose penalties, including account termination, on its riders who violate 4 the geofencing restrictions. On information and belief, Bird has been reluctant to 5 take such steps due to the negative publicity they would cause among Bird’s user 6 base, which Bird is trying to grow as rapidly as possible, and Bird believes that 7 strict enforcement of rules applicable to users would substantially harm its growth. 8 These substantial costs would be in addition to the location-enhancing technologies 9 discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, each of which alone is already above the 10 jurisdictional threshold. 11 20. If Bird did not purchase a new fleet of scooters with more accurate 12 GPS technology or beacon technology to prevent its scooters from trespassing and 13 causing a nuisance on Plaintiff’s private property, Bird’s remaining option would 14 be to geofence a very large radius of Montana Avenue. Bird’s current GPS 15 technology is so imprecise that Bird would not be able to determine whether its 16 customers were riding or parking on the sidewalk in front of Plaintiff’s private 17 property or in the ingress and egress of the alleyway. Therefore, to prevent 18 trespass and nuisance Bird would essentially have to create a no-ride zone in the 19 middle of Montana Avenue. Montana Avenue is a highly popular street in Santa 20 Monica with more than 150 restaurants and retailers. If Bird’s customers could not 21 ride its scooters through Montana Avenue, this would significantly impact Bird’s 22 revenue and goodwill in an amount that exceeds $75,000. Would-be Bird 23 customers would choose to ride a competitor’s scooter or bike that had no Montana 24 Avenue restrictions. And Bird would still have to implement the personnel and 25 user policy changes to address scooters in the geofenced area despite its 26 designation on the app and in Bird’s systems. An example of how detrimental and 27 costly no-ride zones are to Bird, Bird sued the City of Beverly Hills in the Fall 28 2018 in the case styled Bird Rides, Inc., v. City of Beverly Hills, et al., Case No. SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 8 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 10 of 42 Page ID #:875

1 18STCP02762, because Beverly Hills did not permit Bird to operate within its city 2 limits and impounded Bird scooters, requiring Bird to geofence the city. In its 3 complaint, Bird alleged that it lost revenue and the City’s actions disrupted Bird’s 4 business and damaged Bird’s goodwill with its users, potential users, and the 5 general public. Similarly, Bird would be equally financial harmed if it could not 6 operate in a large area on Montana Avenue, in an amount greater than $75,000. 7 21. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because 8 Defendant’s principal executive offices are located in this district and a substantial 9 part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred within this district. 10 PARTIES 11 A. Plaintiff 12 22. John E. Lautemann is a Florida citizen. He owns property located at 13 1112 Montana Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90403, which includes an 14 apartment unit Plaintiff occasionally uses for housing when in California. As 15 alleged herein, Defendant’s placement of Bird e-scooters on or near his property 16 interfered with his use and enjoyment of his property and caused him and his 17 tenants substantial and unreasonable harm. Plaintiff is informed and believes that a 18 Bird Nest (explained below) is adjacent to his private property. 19 B. Defendant Bird Rides, Inc. 20 23. Defendant is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and 21 its principal executive offices are located in Venice, California. 22 SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS 23 A. Background Regarding E-Scooters 24 24. Electric scooter sharing was originally started by “” in 25 in 2012. 26 25. Since then, e-scooters have been popular throughout Europe, but their 27 popularity only increased in the United States around 2017. 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 9 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 11 of 42 Page ID #:876

1 26. Defendant Bird was founded in April 2017 and initially rolled out its 2 e-scooter rental service in Santa Monica. Bird’s founder and chief executive 3 officer, Travis VanderZanden (“VanderZanden”), has been quoted as saying: “We 4 [i.e., Bird] were the innovators on the electric scooter sharing market, and we were 5 the first in the world to do it.” 6 27. Since then the e-scooter market has grown wildly with numerous 7 competitors entering the market. The largest operators now include Bird, Lime, 8 Lyft, Jump Bikes (Uber), Bold (Taxify), Scoot Networks, Skip, and . 9 B. Overview Of Bird’s Business 10 1. How Bird E-Scooter Rental Works 11 28. Bird rents motorized e-scooters to the public via a mobile app and 12 GPS location system. Users rent Bird e-scooters by locating and unlocking a 13 nearby GPS-enabled e-scooter using Bird’s mobile application. Each ride costs a 14 $1 base fee and 15 cents per minute. Users end the ride by parking the e-scooter at 15 their destination and locking the e-scooter. Then, the e-scooter’s location reappears 16 on the map in the app for other users to locate, unlock, and, ride. The lack of any 17 fixed points for pick-up or drop-off is what makes the service “dockless.” 18 29. Bird promotes rider’s ability to park its scooters anywhere as a selling 19 point, i.e., Bird describes its service as a “mobile app that gives access to shared 20 personal electric vehicles (scooters) that can be picked up or dropped off 21 anywhere.”2 22 23 2 In a request for admission to Defendant, Plaintiff requested that Bird admit that 24 within the Bird Rider App, under “Where Should I leave my Bird after a ride?” 25 Bird instructs Riders that Riders can “drop off your Bird anywhere.” Bird expressly denied the request. In a request for admission to Defendant, Plaintiff 26 requested Bird admit that, on the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store, Bird 27 makes the following representation to potential users of the Bird Rider App: “Bird gives you access to shared personal electric vehicles (scooters) that can be picked 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 12 of 42 Page ID #:877

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 up and dropped off anywhere.” Bird objected to the request as vague and ambiguous. 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 11 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 13 of 42 Page ID #:878

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 AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 12 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 14 of 42 Page ID #:879

1 30. Bird informs riders that the only rule of parking the e-scooters is: “Don’t 2 block public pathways” and “Park by bike racks when available.” Most Bird rides do not 3 begin or end at a permanent location where e-scooters must be picked up or parked by 4 users. 5 31. Bird places electric scooters on public sidewalks and roadways, as 6 well as on private property. The placement of the Bird e-scooters in designated 7 areas are called “Bird Nests” or “Nests.” 8 32. Bird scooters are electric, and they need to be charged every night. To 9 do so, Bird hires people to collect e-scooters and to charge them. The Bird agents 10 responsible for placing Bird scooters in the designated Bird Nests are called 11 “Chargers.” Low-battery e-scooters are collected throughout the day by Bird’s 12 agents and these Bird Chargers ensure that all e-scooters are collected at the end of 13 the day. The e-scooters are dropped off by Bird’s agents the following morning 14 (typically between 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m.) at predetermined locations, i.e., Bird 15 Nests. 16 33. Because Bird e-scooters are GPS enabled, Bird knows or should know 17 when its e-scooters are parked on or adjacent to private property. 18 34. According to Bird’s submission to Santa Monica for the Santa Monica 19 Shared Mobility Pilot, Bird scooters are: 20 monitored by a highly skilled team of engineers and analysts via GPS. We [Bird] are able to track the location, vehicle battery, and status (in ride or 21 ready to ride) of any vehicle in our fleet at any time. We [Bird] created our 22 own operations system to maintain our data on all vehicles and riders.” Bird states “[b]ecause each scooter is equipped with GPS, we are able to monitor, 23 in real time, the locations of individual scooters in our fleets.3 24 25 3 In a request for admission to Defendant, Plaintiff requested that Bird admit that 26 this representation is accurate. Bird objected to the request as vague and 27 ambiguous but admitted that “the above-quoted language accurately described Bird’s technological capabilities and data collection and retention policies for 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 13 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 15 of 42 Page ID #:880

1 35. In Bird’s permit application to the city of Fort Lauderdale, Bird 2 represented that: 3 Using our bluetooth tracking technology, we are able to identify where Birds are at any given point in time...All Bird scooters have unique identifier codes 4 placed on the vehicle. This allows anybody to identify the specific vehicle, if 5 necessary. Furthermore, Bird scooters are GPS tracked so our team can respond to vehicles that require relocation or services quickly and accurately. 6 7 36. In some locations, Bird requires riders to take a photo of their Bird 8 and its parking placement when ending the ride. 9 37. Because these riders take a photo of their Birds when ending a ride, 10 Bird knows or should know when its e-scooters are parked on or adjacent to 11 private property. 12 2. Cities Where Bird Operates 13 38. Bird began in 2017 in California. Since then, Bird has purportedly 14 raised approximately $420 million of capital in three major rounds of investing. 15 Bird is now valued at $2 billion and dominates the market in Los Angeles. The 16 company estimates it now has 15,000 e-scooters on the road across Los Angeles. 17 39. Bird operates in, inter alia, the following cities: AR: Russellville; AZ: 18 Mesa, Peoria, Scottsdale, Tempe; CA: Campbell, Culver City, El Cajon, 19 Emeryville, Isla Vista, La Mesa, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Piedmont, 20 Riverside, San Diego, San Jose, Santa Clara, Santa Monica; CO: Aurora, Denver; 21 DC: Washington, D.C.; GA: Athens, Atlanta, Decatur; IN: Bloomington, 22 Indianapolis, West Lafayette; KY: Covington; Louisville; MD: Baltimore; MI: 23 Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Detroit, Windsor; MN: Minneapolis, St Paul; MO: 24 Columbia, Kansas City, St. Louis; NC: Cary, Charlotte, Greensboro, Morrisville, 25 Raleigh, Winston-Salem; OH: Cincinnati, Columbus, Oxford; OK: Norman, 26

27 scooters under normal operating conditions that Bird made available for rent in the City of Santa Monica for the Santa Monica Shared Mobility Pilot.” 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 16 of 42 Page ID #:881

1 Oklahoma City, Stillwater; OR: Portland; TN: Memphis, Nashville; TX: Abilene, 2 Austin, Dallas, Highland Park, Lubbock, Shavano Park, San Antonio, University 3 Park; UT: Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake; VA: Arlington, Virginia Beach, 4 Richmond. 5 40. Bird operates internationally in Vienna, Brussels, Paris, Tel Aviv, and 6 Mexico City. 7 3. Bird’s Business Model Is Premised On Disregarding Regulations and Property Rights 8 i) Bird Began Operating In Many Cities without Permits 9 41. Bird began operating its e-scooters within many cities’ limits without 10 obtaining the proper city permits. In other words, when Bird initially launched its 11 business, its e-scooters appeared in new cities overnight without Bird having 12 notified local officials or complied with the appropriate legal channels. Cities 13 often cannot respond effectively and quickly and must confront e-scooters 14 scattered in walkways and public areas. 15 42. For example, Bird employed such a tactic in Michigan. The city of 16 Ann Arbor announced that it “learned that a vendor, Bird Rides, Inc., had 17 deposited motorized scooters” and, on such short notice, could only respond by 18 reminding residents that “operating these scooters on city sidewalks or leaving 19 them in city streets is prohibited.” Within ten days of Bird’s deployment of 20 scooters, the city of Ann Arbor was forced to impound more than two dozen 21 scooters that had been left in rights-of-way. 22 43. The city of Santa Monica criminally charged Bird and Bird’s CEO, 23 VanderZanden, for deploying Birds within the city without first obtaining the 24 proper permitting. See Case Nos. LAX7AR24425-01 and LAX7AR24425-02. 25 44. The city of Beverly Hills banned motorized scooters within its city 26 limits, which led to the impound of over a thousand scooters. In October 2018, 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 15 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 17 of 42 Page ID #:882

1 Bird filed a lawsuit against the city of Beverly Hills seeking to overturn the city’s 2 ban. 3 45. Many local governments respond by impounding e-scooters, which 4 Bird can retrieve after paying a fine. Between late-August and early October 5 2018, the city of Norfolk, Virginia had impounded 400 Bird e-scooters that were 6 left on sidewalks. On October 3, 2018, the city of Virginia Beach began 7 impounding Bird e-scooters left unattended in parks or on rights of way that 8 impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 9 46. Cities have also sought judicial action to combat the issue of Bird e- 10 scooters blocking pathways. In the action styled City of Milwaukee v. Bird Rides, 11 Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01066, the City of Milwaukee brought forfeiture and 12 public nuisance claims against Bird, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent 13 Bird from renting e-scooters in the city. 14 47. Bird e-scooters are popular in universities, which have responded with 15 rules that regulate where the e-scooters can be used and parked to ensure the 16 safety of its students. However, Bird e-scooters are often left in prohibited areas 17 and impounded. For example, Indiana University impounded more than 150 e- 18 scooters within 20 days. Michigan State University impounded 176 e-scooters 19 within weeks of Bird’s introduction to the area because they were obstructing 20 bicycle and pedestrian traffic in the grass, on sidewalks, and disability-accessible 21 ramps. Michigan State University notified Bird that e-scooters must be registered 22 with the university to park in legally designated spaces allowed by the permits or 23 at a paid meter or lot. 24 48. Bird’s business model wreaks havoc on cities and universities who 25 must deal with the aftermath of the company’s launch in their local areas, such as 26 e-scooters left deserted in public areas. 27

28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 16 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 18 of 42 Page ID #:883

1 ii) Bird’s Willful Disregard Of Property Rights Has Created Widespread Trespass And Nuisance As Bird Scooters Are 2 Causing Unsafe Conditions And Obstructions And Exposing Private Property Owners to Potential Liability 3 49. Under Bird’s current business model, Bird scooters are trespassing 4 and are a widespread nuisance. Bird does not have permanent locations such as 5 bike racks to park its e-scooters, thus Bird e-scooters are left on lawns and 6 sidewalks because the company has encouraged and permitted users to leave them 7 “anywhere.” Even Bird scooters that are parked upright can be easily tipped over 8 and obstruct pathways, often creating obstructions for pedestrians and vehicles. 9 50. Indeed, since summer 2018, Bird e-scooters have repeatedly been left 10 on Plaintiff’s property. Bird e-scooters have been left in the area reserved for 11 parking cars, near the entrance to the building, in the courtyard, and in the corridor. 12 Bird did not seek prior documented consent from Plaintiff before operating in the 13 area. Bird e-scooters are GPS-enabled, so Bird knows or should know that its e- 14 scooters have been placed on or near Plaintiff’s private property without obtaining 15 prior documented consent. 16 51. In addition, Bird’s e-scooters are placed in pre-designated Nests 17 distributed throughout cities in California where Bird operates. Upon information 18 and belief, Bird does not seek the prior documented consent of California private 19 property owners on a class-wide basis before designating an area a “Nest” adjacent 20 to and/or on their private property. These Nests, in conjunction with riders’ ability 21 to park Bird scooters “anywhere,” facilitate trespass and create a nuisance on or 22 around private property. 23 52. Because Bird does not have sufficient procedures to prevent its riders 24 and Chargers from interfering with property owners’ rights, cities are confronted 25 by frustrated residents who repeatedly find e-scooters on their property. For 26 example, Sun Gazette published an article titled “Devil is in the details as 27 Arlington beings regulating motorized scooters” that stated: 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 17 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 19 of 42 Page ID #:884

1 (Arlington, VA) The question of what would happen next was brought up, but not quite answered, at a Sept. 25 County Board meeting in 2 which the county government set up rules governing the operation of 3 the scooters, which have proliferated in recent months as Bird Rides Inc. – one of a number of rival firms launching the motorized scooters 4 across the nation – has set up shop in the county. County Board 5 member Libby Garvey attempted to get an answer from staff, persisting despite an attempt by board chairman Katie Cristol to shush 6 her and move on to other topics. 7 “I’d like to be able to tell people what to do,” Garvey said. “They’re 8 finding scooters in their yards.” County staff offered a stab at an 9 answer, but the discussion then branched off onto a tangent. So the Sun Gazette asked the county government to be specific and 10 definitive: Could someone who found a scooter on his/her property 11 remove it and, if the urge presents itself, destroy it? 12 The response from County Attorney Stephen MacIsaac, reprinted in 13 its entirety, was: “If a scooter were left on private property, the property owner could of course destroy the scooter,” MacIsaac 14 replied. “This would expose the property owner to potential liability 15 for destruction of property and, thus, it would not be prudent to do so without consulting their own personal counsel. The situation is a 16 trespass and the owner has remedies to have the scooter removed and 17 to recover any damages and costs they incur, and to pursue potential criminal and civil liability against the responsible parties. The county 18 cannot advise private property owners how to deal with such a 19 situation. As a practical matter, the most expeditious way to resolve the situation is likely to be to contact the scooter company to have it 20 removed. The county plans to work with the companies to avoid this 21 kind of problem, and to hold the individual users accountable for it. Meanwhile, property owners need to use their best judgment in 22 dealing with instances of trespass on their property.” 23 53. Bird e-scooters also create barriers that prevent persons with 24 disabilities from using public sidewalks and other rights-of-way. The e-scooters are 25 often left laying on their side and blocking paths of travel along the length of the e- 26 scooter. Furthermore, Bird e-scooters travel at a speed of approximately fifteen 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 18 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 20 of 42 Page ID #:885

1 miles per hour, creating a hazardous condition for mobility-impaired persons who 2 cannot respond quickly enough to avoid being hit by the e-scooters. 3 54. Indeed, Bird is being sued in the action styled Labowitz et al v. Bird 4 Rides Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-09329 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2018) for violations 5 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 6 California Government Code §§ 4450, 11135, California Civil Code § 54, public 7 nuisance, trespass, California Business and Professions Code § 17200, and unjust 8 enrichment. Mia Labowitz, who relies on a wheelchair for mobility, alleges that 9 Bird e-scooters are frequently abandoned in groups and left laying on their side, 10 which blocks her right-of-way. The e-scooters are also operated on sidewalks 11 alongside pedestrians; due to the e-scooters’ speed and the lack of restrictions 12 regarding the user, Labowitz alleges that Bird e-scooters pose a hazardous 13 condition for her since it is difficult for her to move out of the e-scooters’ way. 14 55. Because Bird does not require its e-scooters to be parked in a 15 permanent location such as a bike rack, the property owners who find the e- 16 scooters strewn on their lawns and on the sidewalks must move them to clear the 17 right-of-way for pedestrians and to prevent potential legal liability. 18 56. Bird e-scooters are GPS-enabled. Therefore, Bird has operated with 19 knowledge that its e-scooters are left on private property and/or obstructing 20 pathways without taking sufficient steps to prevent trespass and nuisance. 21 iii) Widespread Reports About Safety Issues With Bird 22 E-Scooters 23 57. Media reports highlight the severity of the safety issues posed by Bird 24 e-scooters. For example, Bird does not adequately control which users can access 25 its vehicles; Bird e-scooters are often used by teenagers without helmets or by 26 multiple people on a single e-scooter. Los Angeles Times published an article titled 27 “The Bird Electric Scooter Conundrum” that stated: 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 19 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 21 of 42 Page ID #:886

1 Even though Birds are meant to be ridden in bike lanes on city streets, Galan said, he does not feel safe on one anywhere but the beach bike 2 path. "I've seen a lot of people going 15 mph, and then hit something 3 because they didn't realize how close they were. It's not a problem with the Bird scooter. It's more a problem with people's depth 4 perception and misunderstanding their speed." Santa Monica police 5 have watched with some alarm, particularly after a helmet-less adult rider was seriously injured last month when she blew through a stop 6 near Sixth and Idaho and crashed into a car. 7 "In the last couple of weeks, our motor officers have been issuing 8 citations," said Santa Monica Police Department spokesman Lt. Saul 9 Rodriguez. Sometimes, he said, officers will warn a rider to use a 10 helmet or tell them to get off the sidewalk into the bike lane where they belong. 11 12 An even bigger problem, though, is the number of underaged riders. You can stand on the boardwalk between the Venice and Santa 13 Monica piers any day of the week and watch kids who look way 14 younger than 18 on the scooters. They don't wear helmets and they often ride double on the narrow plank meant for two feet, not four. 15 16 58. Bird’s failure to ensure that its e-scooters are safely operated results in 17 many accidents. An article by Los Angeles Times titled “Bird scooters – So Much 18 Fun, So Damn Dangerous” details accidents resulting from e-scooters travelling 19 on pedestrian pathways. It states:

20 I often hear people claim electric scooters are just as safe as bicycles. 21 I don’t think so.

22 “The electric motor gives you instant acceleration, instant torque,” 23 said Luis Levy, who owns a Santa Monica PR and marketing agency and is not a fan of Birds. Levy, who grew up riding a gas-powered 24 scooter in Brazil, was almost run down by a Bird last March when he 25 and his wife were walking on Fourth Street in Santa Monica during a light rain. “I heard a noise like someone skidding and turned around 26 and see a guy on a Bird, his wheels locked, coming at us fast.” 27 * * * 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 20 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 22 of 42 Page ID #:887

1 When I tweeted out a request to hear from people who had been in a 2 Bird related crash, I got an earful. 3 In March, a 39-year-old Los Angeles mother of six named Sharona 4 Kaplan swerved to avoid a toddler who had run in front of her Bird 5 on the beachside bike path in Santa Monica. Kaplan fell forward, breaking both bones in her right arm. Three days later, a surgeon put 6 plates and pins in her arm. 7 Though she is eventually expected to make a full recovery, she has 8 physical therapy twice a week and has been unable to pick up her 9 baby, who was 8 months old at the time of the crash. Her health 10 insurance says her car insurance should pay her medical bills; her car insurance says it won’t cover a crash on a two-wheeled vehicle. 11 12 UCLA senior Zach Johnson was asleep in his Westwood apartment when he was awakened by police officers who told him that 13 someone had thrown a Bird scooter through the rear window of his 14 2010 Jetta, parked on Landfair Avenue.

15 He traipsed outside in his pajamas to find a Bird half in his car and 16 half out. He ended up paying $300 to have the window replaced. After he sent the company the scooter’s ID number — at Bird’s 17 request — the company stopped responding to him. 18 Probably the most distressing story came from a Westside tech 19 entrepreneur who did not want me to use her name because she is 20 contemplating suing Bird. She and her 7-year-old son were walking on a sidewalk at UCLA when a Bird rider crashed into her at full 21 speed, briefly knocking her unconscious. “My bad,” she recalled the 22 young man saying before he rode away. Her doctor likened the force of impact to being tackled by a football player. 23 24 Her concussion has caused her to miss work and lose money. “I’m sure they are going to say they have zero liability if someone 25 behaves irresponsibly,” she told me. “But if they know it’s a 26 somewhat dangerous product, isn’t it evil of them to do that?” In emails she provided to me, she asked Bird to identify the rider to her 27 and ban him from future use. Bird would only say that it had taken 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 21 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 23 of 42 Page ID #:888

1 appropriate measures, and refused to divulge the rider’s name or any other information to her. 2

3 * * *

4 The other day, Luis Levy sent me links to two crash videos. One was 5 a minor Bird-on-Lime collision on the bike path where Venice meets Santa Monica. The other was the aftermath of a more serious 6 accident on Monday. Paramedics were loading a downed Bird rider 7 onto a stretcher. “I’m terrified someone is going to die,” Levy said.

8 Me too. And it’s probably just a matter of time. 9 10 59. In addition to obstructing pedestrian traffic, Bird e-scooters are 11 operated by users who are not informed and/or do not follow safety rules such as 12 having a valid driver’s license, and Bird does not have any procedures to ensure 13 that its users drive safely. Moreover, the brakes can fail, preventing users from 14 slowing to a stop. 15 60. The hazards posed by Bird e-scooters have led to numerous personal 16 injuries, ranging from broken bones to contusions. In the actions styled Borgia, et 17 al. v. Bird Rides, Inc. et al., Case No. 18-cv-01416 (Oct. 19, 2018); Bentolila v. 18 Bird Rides, Inc., Case No. BC725519 (Oct. 4, 2018); and Keating v. Bird Rides 19 Inc., Case No. BC719553 (Aug. 22, 2018), plaintiffs allege that Bird e-scooters are 20 left “virtually anywhere” and that Bird does not ensure that its users follow safety 21 rules, which endangers pedestrians and has caused serious injuries. In the action 22 styled Ackers v. Bird Rides, Inc. et al., Case No. BC720959 (Sept. 25, 2018), 23 plaintiff alleges that Bird has allowed its e-scooters to be operated on public 24 highways and byways of Los Angeles County without registering them as 25 motorized vehicles, in violation of local ordinance. The plaintiff in Ackers also 26 alleges that Bird profits without ensuring that users safely operate its e-scooters, 27 such as possessing a valid driver’s license. These actions show that many residents 28 are harmed by the unsafe conditions created by Bird e-scooters. SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 22 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 24 of 42 Page ID #:889

1 C. Bird Operates In Stark Contrast To Other Ride Share Businesses And Bird’s Business Model, Premised On Flagrant And 2 Intentional Disregard For Other’s Property Rights, Has Unjustly Enriched The Company 3 61. Since late-2000s, many U.S. cities have developed bike share 4 programs with docking stations to store vehicles. For example, Los Angeles 5 operates , Washington D.C. operates , and New 6 York City operates . 7 62. These bike share programs do not allow users to pick up and drop off 8 vehicles anywhere. Rather, they have stations with an adjacent payment kiosk that 9 are used to store and lock bikes. For example, Capital Bikeshare has more than 500 10 stations for over 4,300 bikes, and Citi Bike has more than 600 stations for over 11 12,000 bikes. Users are not constrained to return the bike to a specific station, but 12 these designated areas ensure that the vehicles can be conveniently accessed 13 without burdening property owners. 14 63. Bird’s business model, based on providing users the “convenience” of 15 finding or parking Bird e-scooters on others’ property, bypasses the major 16 expenses incurred by other bike share programs. 17 64. Docking stations for cities’ bike share programs cost more than 18 $50,000 each. The planning, design, and installation costs are as much as $4,000 19 per station. However, the major operating cost is redistribution: transporting bikes 20 from stations that are near or at capacity to those that are close to empty throughout 21 the day, especially during peak hours. According to a bike share planning guide by 22 the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, redistribution accounts for 23 as much as 30 percent of operating costs of a bike share business. 24 65. Revenue from riders only covers a portion of operating costs for 25 docked bike share programs. In Chicago, for example, users pay $10 per month or 26 $10 for a 24-hour pass, but this revenue only covers about 85 percent of the costs 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 23 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 25 of 42 Page ID #:890

1 of the program, which is one of the highest rates in the nation. In most areas, 2 revenue from riders covers between 35 and 77 percent of the costs. 3 66. As a result, cities struggle to break even and rely on public funding or 4 corporate sponsorships to maintain the service. For example, New York’s CitiBike 5 maintains more than 600 stations to dock over 12,000 bikes; the associated costs 6 are funded by a $41 million pledge from Citigroup to underwrite the program for 7 five years. Similarly, Birmingham, Alabama received $1.6 in federal grants and 8 $2.2 million in corporate sponsorships to start its program. 9 67. By allowing users to park or find e-scooters anywhere, Bird makes its 10 service more attractive to users, but it does not compensate property owners for the 11 e-scooters use of their property. 12 68. Moreover, Bird avoids having to spend funds to build docking 13 stations, to rent space from property owners for placement of the stations, and to 14 redistribute its e-scooters across its stations throughout the day. Bird encourages 15 its users to abandon e-scooters anywhere and merely suggests that the e-scooters 16 should be placed out of rights of way. 17 69. Thus, the company profits from a purported convenience to its users, 18 which interferes with the property owners’ rights as e-scooters are often left on 19 private property and/or blocking pathways. These costs are the major operating 20 costs for other bike-sharing companies, and Bird’s business model enriches the 21 company at the expense of property owners. 22 D. Acts of Trespass Facilitated By Bird’s Business Model 23 70. Bird’s business model facilitates third party trespass. 24 71. By allowing Bird users to park their scooters “anywhere,” Bird 25 permits its riders to trespass on private property without Bird having first obtained 26 the private property owner’s prior documented consent. 27 72. Once the Bird e-scooter is illegally parked and trespassing on private 28 property, Bird facilitates further third party trespass by causing the next rider to SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 24 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 26 of 42 Page ID #:891

1 trespass upon private property to unlock and rent the illegally parked Bird e- 2 scooter. 3 73. In other words, while the Bird scooter is parked on private property 4 without prior documented consent (trespassing), Bird is conducting its business on 5 that private property. 6 74. Bird facilities further third party trespass even if the trespassing e- 7 scooter is not rented because Bird deploys its Chargers to pick up the scooter no 8 later than day’s end. Therefore, the Bird agent trespasses on private property to 9 retrieve the Bird scooter for charging. 10 E. Bird’s Business Model Causes A Widespread Public Nuisance 11 75. Bird’s business model creates a widespread public nuisance. 12 76. Bird’s designation of so-called “Bird’s Nests,” in which Bird instructs 13 its agents to stage its electric scooters on or adjacent to private property creates a 14 nuisance. 15 77. Nests are a nuisance because they obstruct public roadways and 16 walkways. Even Bird scooters that are parked upright are easily tipped over and 17 frequently obstruct pathways, creating obstructions for pedestrians and vehicles 18 including wheelchairs. 19 78. As a result of with Bird’s instruction that riders can leave their Bird 20 scooters “anywhere,” these Bird scooters are scattered on or next to private 21 property without the prior documented consent from California private property 22 owners. 23 79. The property owners who find the e-scooters strewn on their lawns 24 and on the sidewalks are forced to remove the Bird scooters from their private 25 property to ensure that they are not liable for any injuries (or ADA violations) as a 26 result of their failure to abate a nuisance. 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 25 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 27 of 42 Page ID #:892

1 F. Bird Has Capabilities It Could Use to Prevent Trespass and Abate the Nuisance Caused By Its Scooters 2 3 80. Bird has numerous capabilities it could use to prevent trespass and 4 abate the nuisance caused by its e-scooters. 5 81. As Bird has expanded into new cities, Bird has touted or employed 6 additional measures, such as seeking permission to park its e-scooters on or near 7 private property or creating “no parking zones” so that Bird scooters are not 8 illegally parked on private property. 9 82. Upon information and belief, those measures have not been instituted 10 (or are ineffective) on a class-wide basis and Bird e-scooters continue to trespass 11 on California private property and create a nuisance. 12 1. Bird Can Implement Geo-fencing 4 13 83. Bird has the ability to geo-fence real property locations. 14 84. Bird has not geo-fenced private property in California on a class-wide 15 basis. 16 85. In an August 29, 2018 press release, Bird touted its geo-fencing 17 capabilities as follows: 18 Geo-fencing: Bird’s new geo-fencing capability will help ensure 19 riders do not violate no rides zones and no parking zones.

20 With geo-fencing, the Bird app can indicate to riders locations within 21 a city where e-scooters are prohibited. These locations can be modified over time to reflect various events that may impact ride 22 zones. 23 24 25 4 In a request for admission, Plaintiff requested that Bird admit it has “geo-fencing 26 technology that allows Bird to create locations where Riders and Chargers are not 27 permitted to park and/or leave Bird Scooters.” Bird objected to this request as vague and ambiguous. 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 26 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 28 of 42 Page ID #:893

1 Geo-fencing will also be used to alert riders on where to find designated parking zones and to avoid no parking areas. 2

3 86. In a September 24, 2019 interview with The Verge, Bird’s CEO, 4 VanderZanden, explained geo-fencing as follows: 5 Yeah, because there’s geo-fencing, the geo-speed limit’s going to 6 work with geo-fencing on slowing you down. There’s also “no ride” 7 zones, there’s “no park” zones... a bunch of cool things like that that we’re doing, and so we’re going to be continuing that in the second 8 year. 9 87. Bird can use its geo-fencing technology to prevent its e-scooters from 10 being available for rent on its rider mobile app if that Bird scooter is parked on 11 private property. 12 88. Bird can use geo-fencing in conjunction with its mobile application to 13 create no parking zones. 14 89. Bird no parking zones can prohibit riders from ending rides when not 15 in an approved parking zone. 16 90. In a presentation to the city of Lafayette, Bird represented that: 17 18 “We are currently able to create in-app “No Parking” zones to educate riders of areas where they are not allowed to park.” 19

20 These “No Parking” zones prohibit riders from ending rides when 21 not in an approved parking zone.

22 91. In Bird’s submission to Santa Monica for the Santa Monica Shared 23 Mobility Pilot, Bird stated that: 24 In some cities, we have begun working with municipal authorities to create 25 designated dockless bike/scooter parking areas in parts of the city that are 26 particularly crowded. So long as these parking spaces – often the size of one car parking space – are on every block, it allows us [Bird] to continue to 27 provide ubiquitous access to Birds in a way that remains orderly in high- 28 traffic areas. This can be managed through GPS geofencing, in-app and push SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 27 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 29 of 42 Page ID #:894

1 notification reminders specific to the city. This would be in addition to physical signage clearly designating certain parts of the sidewalk as dockless 2 vehicle parking. 3

4 92. Bird has been required in specific instances to utilize its geo-fencing 5 capability. 6 93. In Boise, Idaho, for example, Bird was required to geo-fence a 7 number of areas on or around the city, including, the State Capitol Campus, Boise 8 State University campus, Garden City and Meridian as well as Kathryn Albertson 9 Park. 10 94. Bird has the capability to send push notifications to riders’ phones 11 when they cross into no go zones while in a ride. 12 95. For example, Bird agreed that for the no-ride zones in Boise, Idaho 13 that it would build the ability to send push notifications to riders’ phones when 14 riders cross into those zones while in a ride. 15 96. Yet, despite Bird’s geo-fencing capabilities, Bird has not geo-fenced 16 California private property on a class-wide basis. 17 97. As many property owners have reported, Bird has been largely 18 unresponsive to property owners’ complaints about the trespass and nuisance that 19 Bird e-scooters have created on their properties. 20 98. For example, in the action styled Marmolejo v. Bird Rides Inc., Case 21 No. SC129908 (Sept. 24, 2018), Plaintiffs Albert and Yolanda Marmolejo allege 22 that Bird e-scooters were left by Bird’s agents on their property, even after the 23 owners informed the company. Rather than changing its policy to prevent this from 24 occurring, Bird’s agents allegedly harassed the property owners, forcing the 25 property owners to seek relief in court for nuisance, trespass, negligence, assault, 26 and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 28 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 30 of 42 Page ID #:895

1 99. Some cities, such as Santa Monica and Venice, California, have 2 required Bird to deem certain areas a “no-go zone,” but Bird does not prevent 3 riders from scooting in the prohibited areas. As reported in a Los Angeles Times 4 article dated September 14, 2018: 5 California law prohibits motorized scooters on sidewalks, 6 including the narrow pathways along the Venice canals. 7 Bicycles, skateboards and scooters are also prohibited on the arched pedestrian bridges over the waterways. Earlier this 8 summer, Bird added a red zone there. 9 That hasn’t stopped riders from zipping down pedestrian-only 10 pathways and revving over the arched bridges, trying to go 11 fast enough to catch air on the other side, said Josie Scibetta, president emeritus of the Venice Canals Assn. 12 13 “I see Birds literally flying in the air, as fast as they can, and the kids are like, ‘Yay!’” Scibetta said. “People aren’t paying 14 attention to the red in the canal area, just as they don’t pay 15 attention to the rules that you have to have a helmet and you have to be 18.” 16 17 100. Thus, in California, Bird has continued to operate in willful disregard 18 of property lines and has ineffectively used its geo-fencing and GPS technologies 19 on a class-wide basis to prevent illegal operation of its e-scooters. 20 2. Bird Can Obtain Express Consent For Bird Parking 21 And Nest Placement 22 101. Bird has the ability to obtain express consent from property owners 23 such that Bird e-scooters can be legally parked on private property and/or Bird 24 Nests can be placed on or adjacent to private property. 25 102. Bird has not obtained express consent from private property owners in 26 California on a class-wide basis for Bird e-scooters to be parked on private 27 property and/or for Bird Nests can be placed on or adjacent to private property. 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 29 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 31 of 42 Page ID #:896

1 103. Bird has, in specific instances, negotiated designated parking or no go 2 zones for its e-scooters and its placement of Nests. 3 104. For example, Bird negotiated administrative revocable permits with 4 Oklahoma City for specific addresses within its city limits for placement of its 5 scooters, i.e., its Bird Nests. 6 105. In Coral Gables, Florida, Bird negotiated an agreement with South 7 Miami not to place it scooters in certain parts of town. 8 106. Bird has negotiated with private property owners for placement of 9 Nests on or adjacent to their private property. 10 107. For example, in Bird’s Portland, Oregon application, Bird stated that: 11 “Bird scooters are removed from the street nightly by our Chargers, and are charged, cleaned and given a maintenance inspection. Birds are then placed 12 in an orderly fashion every morning in predesignated Nest areas in the 13 curbside sidewalk furniture zone and on private property with the permission of property owners.” (emphasis added). 14

15 108. Bird has also negotiated with small business owners for placement of 16 Bird Nests on or near their businesses. 17 109. For example, in Bird’s Morrisville, North Carolina application, Bird 18 discusses designating its Nest placement in partnership with local businesses. 19 110. Bird represented to the city of Baltimore in the Baltimore Pilot 20 Agreement that Bird has the capability to obtain private property owners’ 21 permission to park Bird Scooters on Private Property.5 22 111. Bird has made similar representations to cities throughout the country 23 and has agreed to obtain consent from private property owners if Bird scooters are 24 to be parked outside of the public right-of-way, i.e., on private property. 25

26 5 In a request for admission to Defendant, Plaintiff requested that Bird admit this 27 representation to the city of Baltimore was accurate. Bird objected to the request as vague and ambiguous. 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 30 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 32 of 42 Page ID #:897

1 112. These cities include, inter alia, Bloomington, Indiana, Columbia, 2 Missouri, Culver City, California, Kansas City, Missouri, Oxford Ohio (Miami 3 University), and Saint Louis, Missouri. 4 113. Bird’s Personal Mobility Vehicles Pilot Program agreement with 5 Coral Gables, Florida, for example, specifically requires the consent of private 6 property owners for Bird vehicles to be parked on private property, and Bird is 7 required to “actively manage the vehicle fleet to ensure orderly parking and the 8 free and unobstructed use of the Right of Way in consultation with the City’s 9 Public Works Director.” 10 114. In California, however, Bird has not obtained express consent from 11 private property owners on a class-wide basis for designated Bird parking and/or 12 for the placement of Nests on or adjacent to their private property. 13 3. Bird Can Institute Community Mode On A Class- Wide Basis 14

15 115. “Community Mode” is a feature on the Bird mobile app that enables 16 anyone to report bad parking and nest drops. 17 116. Bird has the ability to make Community Mode available, on a class- 18 wide basis, on its mobile app. 19 117. Bird has not made Community Mode available, on a class-wide basis, 20 on its mobile app. 21 118. In Bird’s license application to the city of Boise, Idaho, for example 22 Bird represented: 23 Influencing rider behavior - Bird is working on introducing a “community mode” to our app that would allow riders and non-riders 24 to take photos of unacceptable rider behavior and report them to our 25 operations team.

26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 31 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 33 of 42 Page ID #:898

1 119. Additionally, in Bird’s presentation to the City of Lafayette, Bird 2 touted its “Community Mode” as “Frictionless, intuitive feature enabling anyone to 3 report bad parking and nest drops.” 4 120. Bird’s permit application to the city of Indianapolis explained the 5 following complaint process for badly parked Bird scooters: 6 Each Bird scooter is tagged with a 4-digit ID number, making it easy for members of the community to report improperly parked Birds and for us to 7 follow up and identify the most recent user of a particular scooter. Bird 8 staffs 24-hour support at our Headquarters in Venice, California. They provide support via phone, in-app chat, and email across the country. 9 Complaints that require immediate action are given to charger support and 10 chargers or staff are deployed to assist with re-balancing and other needs.

11 121. In Bird’s permit application to the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 12 Bird represented: 13 Together, we have a responsibility to keep our neighborhood safe and clean, 14 which means keeping our sidewalks clear. To help with this we’ve launched Community Mode, a simple in-app reporting feature that allows anyone to 15 communicate instances where a Bird is hindering the movement of our 16 community. 17 122. Similarly, in Bird’s Greensboro, North Carolina permit application, 18 Bird stated: 19 To ensure that scooters do not inhibit roadway accessibility, Bird 20 communicates to all riders where scooters should be parked on the right-of- 21 way - in the furniture zone, and not blocking driveways, entrances, access ramps, fire hydrants, benches, etc. To resolve instances of improper parking, 22 Bird’s in-app Community Mode feature enables any person - whether or not 23 they have a Bird account - to easily report an improperly parked Bird.

24 123. In Bird’s Norman, Oklahoma revocable limited license and 25 agreement, Bird agreed to remove its scooters from private property within two- 26 hours of notification by the property owner: 27 Where fee title to the Premises is owned by a party other than the City, 28 Licensee will remove scooters within two hours’ notice (whether oral or SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 32 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 34 of 42 Page ID #:899

1 written) of any objection by the fee owner or its designee. Licensee shall be responsible to ensure that no scooter(s) are placed or stationed by Licensee’s 2 agents or employees on that fee owners’ premises at a future time unless said 3 objection if revoked in writing by the fee owner or its designee. Where Licensee's customers place scooters on any objecting fee property owners’ 4 property at a future date, Licensee shall remove scooters within two hours’ 5 of receiving notice of such placement. Any failure by Licensee to act in conformance with this Agreement may result in the imposition of fines per 6 the City Code and/or impoundment of any offending scooter by the City, and 7 Licensee will pay such fines and fees as set forth in Paragraph 8 herein.

8 124. Bird has other mobile application technologies that it could use to 9 allow individuals to report improperly placed Birds. 10 125. For example, in the Bird Charger mobile application, Bird has a 11 reporting option that allows Chargers to inform the company when a Bird has been 12 found on someone’s property. 13 126. In California, however, Bird has not implemented Community Mode 14 on a class-wide basis, and has not provided a way for class members who do not 15 wish to use the full Bird application, including providing payment information, to 16 use Community Mode. In addition, using the Bird app requires agreeing to Bird’s 17 Terms of Service and Bird Rental Agreement, Waiver of Liability and Release, 18 which contain many provisions totally inappropriate for someone seeking to report 19 trespass or nuisance, including limiting damages to $25, requiring the user to 20 indemnify Bird and to release Bird (and its officers, directors, agents, subsidiaries, 21 joint ventures and employees) from any kind of claim. Bird likewise requires users 22 to give up their right to file a lawsuit in court, or to bring a class action in any 23 forum. 24 4. Bird Can Enforce Its Rental Agreement 25 26 127. Bird has the ability to enforce its Rental Agreement, 1.8 “Prohibited 27 Acts,” in which the rider agrees that, “The Vehicle must be parked at a lawful 28 parking spot, in an upright position using the kickstand. The Vehicle cannot be SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 33 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 35 of 42 Page ID #:900

1 parked on unauthorized private property, in a locked area, or in any other 2 unapproved non-public space.” 3 128. Bird does not enforce its Rental Agreement, 1.8, such that, on a class- 4 wide basis, Bird scooters are prevented from being parked on authorized private 5 property located in California. 6 129. Although Bird’s Rental Agreement states that “The Vehicle cannot be 7 parked on unauthorized private property,” Bird’s mobile application instructs 8 riders that they can “drop off your Bird anywhere,” and Bird advertises itself as the 9 “mobile app that gives access to shared personal electric vehicles (scooters) that 10 can be picked up or dropped off anywhere.” 11 130. If Bird enforced its Rental Agreement, which prohibits parking on 12 unauthorized private property, then the trespass complained of herein would not 13 occur. 14 131. Bird has the capabilities and technology to enforce its Rental 15 Agreement. 16 132. For example, in some cities, such as Boise and Lafayette, Bird has 17 implemented end-of-ride photos and/or automated parking photo analysis. 18 133. In Bird’s presentation to the city of Lafayette, Bird represented its 19 Automating Parking Photo Analysis as follows: 20 We have added an end-of-ride photo requirement in our app, to ensure Bird riders are parking properly and not obstructing entrances, sidewalks 21 or ADA ramps. 22 134. In Bird’s Boise, Idaho permit application, Bird states: 23 Riders are prompted at the end of every ride to take a photo of how they 24 parked their Bird to verify proper parking. This prompt reminds individuals 25 that they are prohibited from blocking sidewalks, access ramps, driveways, doorways, and more. 26

27 The photos are collected as a way to verify proper parking in the event of hazardous or improper parking being reported. The images also serve as 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 34 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 36 of 42 Page ID #:901

1 verification that a particular rider has, in fact, misparked a Bird. This allows us to follow up with riders with further education. Repeat offenders can have 2 their accounts suspended and, in some cases, terminated. 3 4 135. Bird makes a similar representations about the end-of-ride photo in its 5 Greensboro, North Carolina and Louisville, Kentucky permit applications. 6 136. Similarly, in Bird’s Fort Lauderdale permit application, Bird stated: 7 Bird explicitly instructs riders on the proper way to park their scooters-in the furniture zone, not blocking driveways, entrances, access ramp, fire 8 hydrants, benches, etc. in the app, on our website, and through outbound 9 communications (email, push, and in-app notifications). At the end of every ride, riders are instructed to photograph their Bird to “verify proper 10 parking.” 11 137. Bird can enforce its Rental Agreement by prohibiting a rider from 12 parking a scooter on private property as shown in an end-of-ride photo. 13 138. Bird can also enforce its Rental Agreement with its “no parking” 14 zones that prohibit riders from ending rides when not in an approved parking zone. 15 139. In California, however, Bird has not enforced its Rental Agreement on 16 a class-wide basis such that Bird scooters cannot be parked on authorized private 17 property. 18 F. The Requested Injunction Would Cost Bird At Least $5 Million 19 140. In this case, Plaintiff is seeking an injunction that forbids Bird from 20 parking its e-scooters (i.e., Nests), or allowing its e-scooters to be parked, on or 21 adjacent to private property located in California unless the property owner has 22 given prior documented authorization for the Nest and/or parking. Such an 23 injunction is necessary to protect property owners from trespass, property damage, 24 and other interferences to their property rights and to their ability to use and enjoy 25 their property. 26 141. Although Bird clearly has the capabilities and technology (geo- 27 fencing, GPS, and no parking zone capability) to comply with such an injunction, 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 35 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 37 of 42 Page ID #:902

1 the injunction would significantly undermine Bird’s business model. As detailed 2 in above, Bird’s success hinges on the convenience of finding and leaving e- 3 scooters “anywhere.” If the areas where Bird’s e-scooters can be parked or staged 4 were limited, the business’s appeal would diminish, and fewer people would 5 choose e-scooters over traditional modes of transportation. This would 6 significantly undercut Bird’s revenue. 7 142. An injunction would also impose administrative costs on Bird to 8 monitor the placement of e-scooters after every ride, to ensure that e-scooters are 9 not parked on or adjacent to private property located in California without prior 10 documented authorization from the property owner, and to seek the consent of 11 property owners before allowing users to park e-scooters on their property. 12 143. Moreover, to comply with the injunction, Bird may be required to 13 modify its business model, including making changes to its rider mobile 14 application, compensating property owners for the use of their private property, 15 and Bird may be required to create sufficient designated areas for e-scooter parking 16 akin to docking stations used by city bike share programs. 17 144. Thus, the injunction would meaningfully impact the Bird’s valuation 18 and its ability to fund its future growth. The costs of complying with such an 19 injunction would exceed $5 million. 20 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 21 145. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action on behalf of himself and 22 all others similarly situated as members of the proposed class pursuant to Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2). 24 146. The proposed nationwide class (the “Class”) Plaintiff seeks to 25 represent is defined as follows: 26 All persons or entities who have an ownership and/or possessory interest in private property located in California who have had a Bird 27 e-scooter placed on such property or on any sidewalk adjacent to such 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 36 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 38 of 42 Page ID #:903

1 property, without the prior documented consent of such property owner/possessor. 2

3 147. The proposed sub-Class Plaintiff (the “Nuisance Class”) seeks to 4 represent is defined as follows: 5 All persons or entities who have an ownership and/or possessory 6 interest in private property located in California where Bird has 7 placed a Nest adjacent to such property without the prior documented consent of such property owner/possessor. 8 9 148. Excluded from the Classes are Defendant; its legal representatives, 10 officers, directors, assignees, and successors; any city, state, federal or municipal 11 government; its current or former employees; and any of its current or former 12 independent contractors. 13 149. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class definitions and to add 14 additional sub-Classes as appropriate if discovery and further investigation reveal 15 that the Classes should be expanded, divided into sub-Classes, or modified in any 16 other way. 17 150. Although the exact number of Class members is uncertain and can 18 only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, the number is great enough 19 such that joinder is impracticable. 20 151. The disposition of the claims of these Class members in a single 21 action will provide substantial benefits to all parties and to the Court. Class 22 members are readily identifiable from information and records in Defendant’s 23 possession, custody, or control. 24 152. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class 25 as all members of the Classes are similarly affected by Defendant’s wrongful 26 conduct, and Plaintiff and other members of the Class sustained damages arising 27 out of the same wrongful conduct by Defendant, as alleged herein. 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 37 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 39 of 42 Page ID #:904

1 153. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 2 members of the Classes and has retained counsel competent and experienced in 3 complex and class action litigation. 4 154. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this 5 action on behalf of the Classes and have the financial resources to do so. Neither 6 Plaintiff nor his counsel have interests adverse to those of the Classes. 7 155. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and 8 Class members that predominate over any question affecting only individual Class 9 members. These common legal and factual issues include, inter alia: 10 a. whether Defendant Bird’s conduct constituted a trespass and/or nuisance at common law and if so, what remedies are available 11 by law; 12 b. whether the Court should enjoin Defendant Bird from continuing to engage in the conduct complained of herein; and 13 c. the appropriate measure of relief, including but not limited to a 14 preliminary injunction and/or permanent injunction.

15 156. Plaintiff and other Class members have all suffered and will continue 16 to suffer harm as a result of Defendant’s unlawful and wrongful conduct. A class 17 action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication 18 of this controversy. 19 157. Absent a class action, most Class members would likely find the cost 20 of litigating their claims prohibitively high and would therefore have no effective 21 remedy at law. Because of the relatively small size of the individual Class 22 member’s claims, it is likely that few if any Class members could afford to seek 23 legal redress for Defendant’s misconduct as alleged herein. Absent a class action, 24 Class members will continue to suffer from Bird’s trespass and nuisance, and 25 Defendant’s misconduct will continue without remedy. 26 158. Class action treatment of common questions of law and fact would 27 also be a superior method to multiple individual actions or piecemeal litigation in 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 38 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 40 of 42 Page ID #:905

1 that class action treatment will conserve the resources of the courts and the 2 litigants, and will promote consistency and efficiency of adjudication. 3 Count I 4 Trespass 5 159. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by 6 reference. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of members of the 7 Class. 8 160. As described above, Bird intentionally placed its e-scooters on or near 9 the Plaintiff’s and other proposed Class Members’ properties. 10 161. By these placements, and promoting the ability of Bird rider’s to 11 “park” the e-scooters anywhere, Bird caused its e-scooters to enter Plaintiff’s and 12 putative Class Members’ properties. 13 162. By continuing to advertise the scooters as available for rent when 14 parked on private property, Bird is conducting business on the Class’s property 15 without consent and inviting further acts of trespass. 16 163. The foregoing conduct remains ongoing, as at the time of the filing of 17 this Complaint, Bird continued to place its e-scooters on or near the properties of 18 Plaintiff and other members of the proposed Class. 19 164. The foregoing conduct constitutes trespass, as Bird has intentionally 20 or recklessly caused an unlawful interference with possession of private property. 21 Bird has failed to obtain permission for its acts of trespass, and its unlawful 22 interference has caused harm. 23 165. As a direct and proximate result of Bird’s actions, Bird is liable to 24 Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed Class. 25 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 39 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 41 of 42 Page ID #:906

1 Count II 2 Nuisance 3 166. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by 4 reference. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of members of the 5 Class. 6 167. As alleged herein, Bird knew or should have known that its e-scooters 7 were intentionally placed on or near Plaintiff’s property, and directed its Chargers 8 to place its e-scooters on or near Plaintiff’s property. 9 168. Plaintiff and Class members have an interest in the use and enjoyment 10 of their land. 11 169. Bird undertook the foregoing conduct without authorization from 12 Plaintiff or other members of the proposed Class. 13 170. The foregoing conduct has caused foreseeable incursions by Bird 14 users onto Plaintiff’s and Class members’ property, thereby invading their use and 15 enjoyment of their properties. 16 171. Plaintiff and members of the Class have been substantially and 17 unreasonably harmed in a variety of ways by these incursions, including but not 18 limited to suffering property damage, removing e-scooters from their properties 19 and clearing the rights-of way adjacent to their properties, and incurring costs to 20 secure their properties against unwanted incursions. 21 172. The invasion described above remains ongoing, as at the time of the 22 filing of the Complaint, Bird continued to place its e-scooters, and promote 23 “parking” its e-scooters, on Plaintiff’s property. 24 173. The foregoing conduct constitutes a nuisance. 25 174. As a direct and proximate result of Bird’s willful conduct, Bird is 26 liable to Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed Class. 27

28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 40 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO Case 2:18-cv-10049-PA-RAO Document 62 Filed 04/12/19 Page 42 of 42 Page ID #:907

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2 WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against Bird as follows: 3 A. Determining that the instant action may be maintained as a class 4 action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and certifying Plaintiff as the 5 Class representative; 6 B. Enjoining Bird from continuing the wrongful acts and practices 7 alleged; 8 C. Awarding Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonable 9 attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, including expert witness fees; and 10 D. Awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just 11 and proper. 12 JURY DEMAND 13 Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. 14 15 Dated: April 12, 2019 GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP

16 By: s/ Robert V. Prongay 17 Robert V. Prongay Jonathan M. Rotter 18 Jennifer M. Leinbach 19 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90067 20 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 21 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: [email protected] 22

23 Attorneys for Plaintiff and 24 the Proposed Class 25 26 27 28 SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 41 Case No. 2:18-CV-10049-PA-RAO