A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 SAN FRANCISCO, FRANCISCO, andCIT OF SAN ATTORNEY AS CITY acting byandthroughDENNISJ.HERRERA OFCALIFORNIA, OF THESTATE PEOPLE TURO INC., TURO INC. Attorneys forDefendantandCross-Complainant (415)693-2222 Facsimile: (415)693-2000 Telephone: San Francisco,CA94111-5800 101 CaliforniaStr ([email protected]) MAX A.BERNSTEIN(305722) ([email protected]) AARTI G.REDDY(274889) ([email protected]) BENJAMIN H.KLEINE(257225) ([email protected]) MATTHEW D.BROWN(196972) ([email protected]) MICHAEL G.R COOLEY LLP TURO INC.,andDOE FRANCISCO, OF SAN ATTORNEY AS CITY acting byandthroughDENNISJ.HERRERA OFCALIFORNIA, OF THESTATE PEOPLE
v. v. T URO HODES (116127) I eet, 5thFloor NC Cross-Defendants. Cross-Complainant, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFCALIFORNIA THE STATE COURT OF SUPERIOR .’ S S 1-100,inclusive, Y ANDCOUNTYOF C ROSS -C OMPLAINT FOR OMPLAINT FOR COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO COUNTY UNLIMITED JURISDICTION UNLIMITED JURISDICTION C ASE N O D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY
THROUGH THROUGH ra ae Not YetSet 01/24/2018 Trial Date: Hon.TeriL.Jackson Action Filed: 206 Judge: Dept.: C A R D C N OF ITY AND ITY AND TTORNEYOF ELIEF ECLARATORY ROSS O . C
CGC-18-563803 ALIFORNIA
J -C UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT A OMPLAINT OF GAINST C D OUNTY OF ENNIS ENNIS S , J AN ACTING BY AND
UDGMENT AND UDGMENT P J. EOPLE OF THE THE OF EOPLE F O
H RANCISCO THER S ERRERA AS T AN URO R F ELIEF RANCISCO I NC , AND O
. S THER FOR C TATE TATE ITY ITY
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 rvtl-we cr o Tr, i Turo, on cars privately-owned 2 1 from distinct and separate entity, of kind new a as program[s]” rec to Code Insurance California the amending by cars for model this embraced legislature California The companies. car rental at often experience, user superior a with cars ac privately-owned them gives it because Turo love turn, in Consumers, income. ret to students from owners, car of range a helps Turo result. owner throughTuro’sonlineplatform.Theusersthenmeet att to wants she that car a identifies user a If location. desired Tur use car a of need in Those terms. what under and available website a provides company. make California of laws It the As does cars. share not to platform own a users orrent a fleet ofcars. Instead,Tu peer car sharing and to clarify to and sharing car peer sense toapplythesechargesTuro. connection in that, asserts SFO (“ Airport International the outside place taking sometimes Francisco San near or at cars exchange §§ 742.585–742.600;Wash. Rev.Code§§48.175.005–48.175.900. for designed charges pay to have Code §11580.24.
Turo’swebsitecanbefound athttps://turo.com/. California is not alone: Oregon and Washington have enacted si enacted have Washington and Oregon alone: not is California 2. 1. Cross-Complainant TuroInc.( 3.
T URO Turo’s technology has revolutioni has technology Turo’s provides that company technology Francisco-based San a is Turo oe uo sr codnt wt ec ohr hog te uo pla Turo the through other each with coordinate users Turo Some I NC 1 .’ ad oiedvc ap o is omnt o ues Onr list Owners users. of community its for app mobile-device and S C ROSS -C responsibilities in connection in responsibilities OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT with these exchanges at or near or at exchanges these with dctn clna availability, calendar ndicating P rental car companies that oper that companies car rental terminal, in a parking lot, parking a in terminal, RELIMINARY RELIMINARY C “Turo”) alleges as follows: ASE N O D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 2. zed short-term car use and ben and use car short-term zed S TATEMENT
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT with its operation. operation. its with use, she can book the car with the with car the book can she use, or at other locations at or near SFO. near or at locations other at or irees, turn idle cars into a source of source a into cars idle turn irees,
he time theyselected. o to search for available cars in a in cars available for search to o rental car companies. car rental ro is a technology company that company technology a is ro n saig hte dlvr is delivery whether stating and the airport, Turo’s users should users Turo’s airport, the ognize “personal vehicle sharing vehicle “personal ognize innovative “sharing economy” economy” “sharing innovative rcs eo toe hre by charged those below prices la, uo s o a etl car rental a not is Turo clear, ate at the airport. It makes no makes It airport. the at ate milar laws to promote peer-to- promote to laws milar
es o wd slcin of selection wide a to cess SFO”) with the exchange exchange the with SFO”) O THER R See efitted many as a as many efitted its community of of community its ELIEF Or. Rev. Stat. Rev. Or.
2 Cal. Ins. Ins. Cal. fr to tform their their A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 https://sfoconnect.com/sites/def U $5). pay taxis and trip per $3.80 pay also (limousines users compared dollar the on pennies pay yet area, staging a require sim taxis and Limousines area. staging a require that services that given terminal, the outside meeting users Turo as airport s the have and trip per $3.80 pay riders Lyft and Uber manner. prope airport use who Lyft, and Uber as such (“TNCs”) Companies taxe and charges in more times twenty even or ten paying up end Charge). Facilities SFO the plus reservation the of cost total air the SFO, at curbside keys the over hands and trip week-long Turo a if example, For airport. the near or at cars exchanging supposed any or community, its or Turo to provides airport the i is and grab revenue pure a is This Charge”). Receipts “Gross is irrational,unf I means. other any or AirTrain by Center, Car Rental the to go resul a As all. at SFO at presence no with platform technology 4 3 rental carcompanies. count ticket sta facilities, operator cleaning car rental a spaces, parking 5,000 and feet square domestic terminals.” all and Center Car Rental the between movement patron . . . Service AirTrain providing the stating by charges these justifies SFO fact, In § 50474.1. whi companies, car rental to charged be only can fee particular Charge”). Facilities “SFO (the transaction per Fee” Facilities
SFOSummaryofAirportChar The SFO Rental Car Center is a is a five‐level structure cont 5. 4.
3 But Turo does not use the Rental Car Center on SFO’s premises, SFO’s on Center Car Rental the use not does Turo But T URO Worsestill, SFO demands thatTuro’s users pay a 10% tax oneve o tr wt, F dmns ht uos sr py n 1 “Transp $18 an pay users Turo’s that demands SFO with, start To air, andunlawful. I NC .’ S C ROSS -C OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT r pc fr etl a compan car rental for space er ault/files/SFO%20Summary%20of%2 allocable to the rental car in car rental the to allocable ges, FiscalYear2017/2018,at12( C ASE N O D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 3.
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT dustry in conjunction with rental car rental with conjunction in dustry California law makes clear that this this that clear makes law California ilarly meet passengers curbside and curbside passengers meet ilarly y are meant to recoup its “costs of “costs its recoup to meant are y This means that Turo users could users Turo that means This ies, and administrative offices for offices administrative and ies, user shares her car for $500 for a for $500 for car her shares user n no way connected to any service any to connected way no n mposing this charge on Turo users Turo on charge this mposing aining approximately 1.5 million 1.5 approximately aining t, Turo’s users have no reason to reason no have users Turo’s t, ging area, rental car fueling and fueling car rental area, ging nlike Turo, rental car companies car rental Turo, nlike to what SFO would charge Turo charge would SFO what to ch Turo is not. Cal. Gov. Code Gov. Cal. not. is Turo ch br n Lf ae on-demand are Lyft and Uber the of (10% $68 demands port s than Transportation Network Transportation than s available at ame or greater impact on the the on impact greater or ame udn asd y uo users Turo by caused burden 0Charges%20FY2018.pdf.) 0Charges%20FY2018.pdf.) and international Airport Airport international and t i vruly h same the virtually in rty O THER 4 R because Turo is a a is Turo because ELIEF ry booking (the booking ry rain and ortation
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 wiel that companies car rental multi-national with rather, but, manner. SFOhasignoredeachoft u that businesses on imposed those than higher dramatically are its and Turo against discriminating (b) and users; its or Turo b any to related actually not are that taxes or fees exorbitant Cha Receipts o Gross the approved approve to entitled are voters California that tax a but all, Othe fee. the by covered service the of cost the to connection l a amende by charged “fee” any that and requires Constitution, California 2010 in enacted was which Initiative”), Taxes Hidden of kinds these exactly against have voters California But airport. the near or at meeting for impose onTuroanditsusers a patron. cause nomore burdenontheairportthananUberdrivermeeting irrat is amount this of fraction mere a pay to limos and taxis, car rental as fees same the pay to users Turo Forcing Center. in other and lots parking SFO use ril I Scin o te aiona osiuin Tee fed These Constitution. (a) from: SFO prohibit provisions California the of 7 Section I, Article the of clauses protection equal United the of 8 Section I, Article of clause commerce “dormant” try toimpose itonTur
Otherspickupfriendsand famil 5 8. 6. 7.
T URO The campaign to misclassify Turo as a rental car company did no did company car rental a as Turo misclassify to campaign The create actually users Turo burden minimal the entirely Ignoring For similar reasons, the arbitrary nature of these fees and tax and fees these of nature arbitrary the reasons, similar For I NC .’ S o anditsusers. C ROSS -C 10% GrossReceiptsChargeandan OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT rirr txs Pooiin 26 Proposition taxes. arbitrary orenh mnmn t te Uni the to Amendment Fourteenth y curbsidewithoutpaying any rge or the SFO Facilities Charge Facilities SFO the or rge imposing an undue burden on i on burden undue an imposing hese constitutional requireme rsrcue icuig h Ai the including frastructure, C ASE N O D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 4.
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT enefit provided to or service used by used service or to provided enefit ional and unjustifiable, as Turo users Turo as unjustifiable, and ional users by charging fees and taxes that taxes and fees charging by users passed ballot initiatives that protect that initiatives ballot passed ocal government bear a reasonable reasonable a bear government ocal rwise, the fee is not really a fee at (commonly known as the “Stop “Stop the as known (commonly companies while allowing TNCs, allowing while companies rjc. u vtr hv never have voters But reject. r fees atall. nts entirely. d enormous political power and and power political enormous d ariderorlimousine pickingupa nterstate commerce by charging by commerce nterstate se airport property in the same Tan n SOs etl Car Rental SFO’s and Train r $18 SFO Facilities Charge just $18SFOFacilitiesChargejust , and it is unlawful for SFO to SFO for unlawful is it and , rl n sae constitutional state and eral tts osiuin ad the and Constitution, States e Sae Cnttto and Constitution States ted d Article XIII C of the the of C XIII Article d O THER es also violates the the violates also es R ELIEF t start with SFO, with start t SO would SFO ,
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 its interests at the federal, s federal, the at interests its committee,millionsspendingdollarsaction ofpolitical bu own political expansive lobbyists, paid of hundreds through America cease-and-desist sentletter toTuro. of one cc’d airport another of representatives example, brazen from rentalcarcompanies revenues. airport to $37,246,000 contribute transportation car rental and revenues, airport to $14,853,000 rev airport to $53,697,000 contribute compan car rental airport “off” and “on” year, fiscal 2015–2016 market. accoun entities Rental—collectively,these Car National and Car 9 al_car_satisfaction_study.html. archive/2016/11/ente 8 7 https://media.flysfo.com/media/s 6 is Enterprise with collusion SFO’s litigate Turooutofthepeer-to- r use to favorable aims and threat and existential an as loopholes Turo views Enterprise tax lavish secured have companies car users. its and Turo for obstacles lawmak and airports pressured has “Enterprise”), (collectively, a hundredmilliondollarsyear. th taxes and fees Complaint—pay an committees, action political run donations, campaign r sizable These residents. Francisco San and companies Francisco-based including—apparently— influence,
https://www.enterpriseholdings.com/en/press- has it that fact the hide to attempt even not does Enterprise https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00219642/. The SFO 2015–2016 Annual Operating Budget is available at at available is Budget Operating Annual 2015–2016 SFO The 10. 9. 8 Enterprise exerts its market its exerts Enterprise
T URO notntl fr h rsdns f a Facso SO per h appears SFO Francisco, San of residents the for Unfortunately Rent-a Enterprise particular, In I NC .’ rprise_national_and_alamo_brands_earn_top_t S C ROSS outofatotal$852,532,000projec tate, and local levels of govern of levels local and tate, -C peer car-sharingmarket. OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT 6 7 fo/about-sfo/annual-operating-b
The Enterprise parent company now owns both Alamo Rent a a Rent Alamo both owns now company parent Enterprise The at make up over 11% of SFO’s ann SFO’s of 11% over up make at further evidenced by the fac the by evidenced further vr h Ct o Sn Francisco, San of City the over C enues, rental car facility car rental enues, ASE power and influence as the large the as influence and power N O Id D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY . at 17-18, 24, 26. That is $105,796,000 in revenue revenue in $105,796,000 is That 26. 24, 17-18, at . 5. Cr ad t prn Enterprise parent its and -Car,
J ment. UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT and facilities fees were projected to to projected were fees facilities and Enterprise’s external lobbyists on a on lobbyists external Enterprise’s fees were projected to contribute contribute to projected were fees ted operatingrevenue. airports doing its bidding. In one In bidding. its doing airports ying political influence to advance advance to political influence ying d—as the City freely admits in its in admits freely City the d—as t for 37% of the airport car rental car airport the of 37% for t udget-fy1415-fy1516.pdf. In the In udget-fy1415-fy1516.pdf. belief, and information on that, t 9 ers across the country to create create to country the across ers donations, and even through its through even and donations, its influence to regulate, tax, or tax, regulate, to influence its y concessions were projected to projected were concessions y Through these methods, rental methods, these Through hree_spots_in_jd_power_rent ual operating revenue—over operating ual na cr opne make companies car ental o h dtiet f San of detriment the to O gltr environments. egulatory st rental car company in company car rental st THER R ELIEF py o oblige. to appy
Holdings A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 peer car sharing is not stymiedensure to seeks Turo Specifically, users. of community its and the airportandBayArearesident arrangem rational a at arrive to SFO with work to ready is Turo th of use identical almost make that services Lyft—ride-sharing SFO those to akin permit a receive and fees pay to willing than permitti reasonable a find to SFO with work to offered long has than competitor rental car companies[.]” t that stating fact, this echoes conglomerates car rental national of detriment the to and company, dolla taxpayer using is Francisco to is That SFO. at operate that companies car broug rental national has City the that admits openly Complaint o the the Remarkably, not are they fanfare, accompanying and lawsuit Attorney’s company andSFOcannotcircumven sha car peer-to-peer facilitates Tur fees. and taxes company unlawful to car amount what rental users of a community were it if as Turo regulate to regulations th statutes, California relevant who arecurrentlyusingthelet 10 exchanged correspondence gave SFO
https://www.sfcityattorney.org/ 14. 13. 11. 12.
T URO However, given no other choice, T choice, other no given However, Notwithstanding this fact, Turo h Turo fact, this Notwithstanding fo bill the footing are residents Francisco San though even But But contrary to the wishes of Enterprise, SFO does not have aut have not does SFO Enterprise, of wishes the to contrary But I NC .’ S C ROSS -C he lawsuit was brought to stop to brought was lawsuit he ters tolobbyfornewlegislatio e California and United States United and California e OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT by heavy-handed regulations mea regulations heavy-handed by ig mn is omnt o use of community its among ring rs to bring a lawsuit against lawsuit a bring to rs s, ratherthanthoseofthere 2018/01/24/herrera-takes-turo-c San Francisco residents that u that residents Francisco San ie nepie Ide, the Indeed, Enterprise. like C t thelawtotreatitassuch. with Turo’s in-house lawyer t lawyer in-house Turo’s with ASE 10 N
O D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 6. as always preferred dialogue o dialogue preferred always as uro brings this Cross-Complain this brings uro
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT ntal carcompanies. n thatisunfavorabletoTuro. a San Francisco-based employer and employer Francisco-based San a Turo from “charg[ing] lower prices lower “charg[ing] from Turo Constitutions, or its own rules and rules own its or Constitutions, se Turo, to protect the interests of that its new approach to peer-to- to approach new its that ng and fee regime. Turo is more is Turo regime. fee and ng e airport. Even after being sued, being after Even airport. e ent that advances the interests of interests the advances that ent ourt-cheating-competition-sfo/ iy tonys rs release press Attorney’s City nt to protect the status quo and quo status the protect to nt a, h Ct Atre o San of Attorney City the say, s Tr i nt rna car rental a not is Turo rs. has arranged with Uber and and Uber with arranged has o Enterprise and its lobbyists, lobbyists, its and Enterprise o r o hre uo n its and Turo charge to or o is an online platform that that platform online an is o nes who stand to benefit. benefit. to stand who nes t hs asi t protect to lawsuit this ht O THER R ver litigation and litigation ver ELIEF t to protect itselfprotect to t hority under the under hority ter City their r
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 technology platform likeTuro; rental(“User carsharing vehicle personal companies orcomply with a permitregime thatwas ne car short-term for looking are who people with cars spare have mob and website a operates Turo economy, sharing the of pioneer its community ofUsers, includi with comport and reflect that SFO would and City the fight to desire no has Turo innovation. for their userswithout anyra sim from recovers SFO amount the exceed far that taxes and fees agains discriminates unlawfully it because Constitutions States o Turo of facilities; and approximation fair any on based not are and conferred excessi are they that in commerce interstate on burden undue an extr to attempting is SFO that charges the because Constitution California Constitution, Article XIII C; an as unlawful is platform Turo the on made booking each on fee judicial declarationthat: Turo. by them for created opportunity economic the of advantage o to looking residents Francisco nati large the of interests the
16. 15.
T URO (b) uo n. frel kon s eaRds Ic, s Dlwr co Delaware a is Inc., RelayRides, as known formerly Inc., Turo in here thrived has that company Francisco-based San a is Turo (d) (c) (a) I
NC .’ S SFO’s attempttoimpose anarbit SFO has violated the equal protect equal the violated has SFO St United the of clause commerce “dormant” the violated has SFO th users its and Turo company, car rental a not is Turo Because C ROSS tional basisfordoingso. -C onal car rental companies, to th to companies, rental car onal OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT ng from arbitrar s”) cannot be compelled by SFO t SFO by compelled be cannot s”) how Turo actually works. But works. actually Turo how fe te ih ot f a owne car of cost high the ffset C ASE N O P D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ARTIES ECLARATORY ECLARATORY y, unfair,andu 7.
rary andunreason ion clauses of the California the of clauses ion
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT happily ask its Users to pay fees to nlawful feesandtaxes. e detriment of entrepreneurial San entrepreneurial of detriment e t Turo and its Users by charging by Users its and Turo t act from Turo and its Users pose Users its and Turo from act Turo is committed to protectingcommittedto is Turo unauthorized tax in violation of violation in tax unauthorized ile apps that match people who people match that apps ile hrn b te a, ek or week, day, the by sharing o pay fees that only apply to apply only that fees pay o e n eain o h benefits the to relation in ve ilarly-situated companies and and companies ilarly-situated uo ss h Cut o a for Court the asks Turo si i te iy y taking by city the in rship is sr’ s o SFO’s of use Users’ its r e itne t cvr a cover to intended ver O able 10% tax a THER R ELIEF the global center global the rporation. A A rporation. at engage in engage at and United and
nd an$18 ates ates A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Procedure §395. of CivilProcedure. 5 sections to pursuant relief injunctive grant to and Procedure declarator grant to authorized 12 11 School studentnamed Shelby Clark: longer. TuroisbasedinSanF Code section17200etseq. ac an brought Herrera, J. Dennis Complaint, theterms “City”a Francisc San the and department Airport International Francisco a owns City The Area. Francisco Bay San the in located county
http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/ Turodidnotoperatein Calif 21. 20. 22. 19. 17. 18.
Turo BringsShort-TermPersonalCarSharingtotheEcon and technologies, and surveyed the marketplace to see if there there if see to marketplace the surveyed and technologies, and t after just planning began Clark I ‘Wait aminute! Ishouldbet on. went bulb light the when was that and weeks, for driven car. g to snow Boston through miles 1/2 2 bike to had I and snowing, 2008, in Day Thanksgiving was It T URO 12 eu i Sn rnic Cut i aporae ne Clfri C California under appropriate is County Francisco San in Venue This Courthaspersonaljurisdic Turo (formerly RelayRides) was founded in April 2009 April in founded was RelayRides) (formerly Turo law. California of matter a on rule to Court the asks case This Calif of State the of People The h Ct ad ony f a Franc San of County and City The “I passed hundreds of cars on the road that had clearly not b not clearly had that road the on cars of hundreds passed “I I NC .’ S C ROSS -C nd “SFO” willbeused interchangea rle prun t scin 1060 section to pursuant relief y A ornia beforeDecember2010. rancisco andemploys over110p OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT DDITIONAL DDITIONAL tion against Turo pursuant to C pursuant to Turo against tion J URISDICTION AND URISDICTION C ASE 12/05/qa-shelby-clark-executiv aking oneofthosecars!’” N O S D . a icdn. e eerhd i researched He incident. hat
TATEMENT OF OF TATEMENT CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY and I needed to rent a Zipcar. a rent to needed I and tion overtheCross-Defendants. ornia, by and through San Franc San through and by ornia, 8. so te Ct” i a consolid a is “City”) (the isco V ENUE
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT F ACTS
25 and 526 of the California Code California the of 526 and 25 alifornia Business and Professions Professions and alifornia Business eople initsheadquarters. f h Clfri Cd o Civil of Code California the of nd operates SFO through the San the through SFO operates nd bly. o Airport Commission. In this In Commission. Airport o
e-director-of-peers/. 11 O by a Harvard Business Harvard a by THER were other were nsurance thought: Itwas
et to a to et isco City Attorney City isco R ELIEF een hs or is Court This omy td iy and city ated d o Civil of ode
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 for thepurchaseandsaleof bail-outs subsidies, direct the (including government state and gene of because profitable immensely are and buses, shuttle and run vehicles, of fleets vast own that companies rental car from mo business This users. its to support customer emergency hour $ generous scree a Turo Additionally, Mutual. Liberty from policy liability by covered is States United the in owner car every in those with owners car matching service: basic one provides ow car dormant carswithwould-bedriv allows Turo waste. this to solution elegant an provides 14 13 h main Turo’s on menu search the into location desired a typing guidelines foruse,includinga Owners availability. indicating ma the describing by Turo on cars lifetim their of 95% over for parked remain cars American fact, o thousands of hundreds day, Every them. use to pay to willing s have who people pair would that platform a of conceived Clark
http://fortune.com/2016/03/13/cars https://www.shareable.net/bl 23. 25. 24.
individual carownerst GO, andothers—whichmaintain the City Car services—Zipcar, fleet-based Unlike service….sharing founded RelayRi Clark 2009, April In open be would cars—and their doing sowithcomplete strangers. share to need and want who people T URO uo tef os o on n fet f as Rte, t s vi a is it Rather, cars. of fleet any own not does itself Turo sr, n un as st p rfls n cn erh uos webs Turo’s search can and profiles up set also turn, in Users, the list and profile a up set Turo on vehicles list that Owners I NC .’ S C ROSS cars, andthepass-throughofregi -C vailability, price,andterms of og/would-you-share-your-car-with-a OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT ers for reasonable fees. a as ipt oe eald d detailed more input also may o supplythevehicles.… C -parked-95-percent-of-time/. e mdl lcto ad specia and location model, ke, ASE N O D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY ir ownvehicles,RelayRidesre 9. des, the first person-to-pe first the des, 13
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT
delivery. stration andlicensingfees). ns each traveler and provides a 24- a provides and traveler each ns , the waiver of capital gains taxes gains capital of waiver the , private networks of airport vans vans airport of networks private need of a car while ensuring that ensuring while car a of need f cars sit unused in America. In America. in unused sit cars f rous tax breaks from the federal the from breaks tax rous
escriptions of the cars and set set and cars the of escriptions pare cars with people who are who people with cars pare del is fundamentally different fundamentally is del -stranger. mpg; n (i iptig a inputting (ii) and omepage; es o hr ter otherwise their share to ners e. 1 million commercial auto auto commercial million 1 faue o te a, and car, the of features l 14 O Te hrn economy sharing The THER rson car- rson Share, I- lies on rtual platform that that platform rtual r privately-owned ir R t o ap y (i) by: app or ite ELIEF to
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 aig f suet loans, student off paying helping toreduceenvironmental 18 17 16 15 a and cars their sell to likely have Transportation L of needed. Department as options transportation their supplement to sharing pu use to cars own otherwise would that individuals encouraging driving, reducing by lifestyles underus from sources revenue new create can Turo like platforms h Berkeley California of University the at researchers fact, In cars. hou American of 90% Americans—over of swath wide a to income of the has Turo future. their for save debt, or reduce payments, payments. coordinate and budget their and th pick can users Turo owner. car local a from want they color ca rental with and—unlike models, desired time frame usingadrop- story,amp.html. fix on seniors helps power earning supplemental This platform. arrange topickupthecarfrom
See http://www.baltimoresun.com/busin https://studentloanhero.com/featured/turo-review/. http://www.miamiherald.com/living/article89813702.html. 18 https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/pub
27. 26. 17
Ide, h mjrt o tee a onr rpr uig hs e these using report owners car these of majority the Indeed, T URO uo es hs hueod realiz households these lets Turo n vrg, a onr wo s Tr er aot 300 e year per $3,000 about earn Turo use who owners car average, On I NC .’ S C ROSS 16 ad a onr ta ne hl mkn at-on n insurance and auto-loan making help need that owners car and -C od uig nw a bcue of because car new a buying void OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT a pre-determined location. directly with car owners to eit down menu.down Theseusersthenga n rdc te eaie environ negative the reduce and impacts byeventually decreasin r companies—drivers can pick t pick can companies—drivers r bevd ht ebr o car of members that observed C lications/passe ess/bs-bz-turo-ride-sharing-g ASE N O D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 10. e income on an otherwise idle idle otherwise an on income e nger_travel_2015
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT potential to provide this extra source extra this to provide potential her have a car delivered to them or them to delivered car a have her v on ht“hrd mobility” “shared that found ave g thenumberof e exact car that fits the occasion the fits that car exact e in access toove blic transit and then turn to car car to turn then and transit blic a saig rdcin i car in reductions sharing; car etl mat o diig by driving of impacts mental rowth-20170318- ed resources, support healthy support resources, ed he specific make, model, and and model, make, specific he kws, eerhr fr the for researchers ikewise, d incomes, ed hrn porm ae more are programs sharing /chapter2/fig2_8. seholds own one or more or one own seholds O THER rig t mk car make to arnings R ELIEF 15 carson theroad. r 800 makes and r 800 se, l while all asset, yug people young hog the through
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16022/fhwahop16022 Guiding Principles, https://cloudfront.escholarship.o 19 grown substantiallyinthe peer-to-peer successful most and diminis is create, they waste environmental massive the mention ove expensive require which cars, rental dedicated for need the well asreducedparkingdemand. associat turn, in are, ownership g; U StubHub distributor, memorabilia Ex and Kayak as Just them. “rent” cannot it so cars, of fleets craigslist isnotasecondhandgoods esnl eil saig rgas ee itnt rm etl car rental from alternative setoflawsapply) distinct were programs sharing vehicle Californi personal the law, this enacting In §11580.24. Code Insurance fo framework the created law The vehicle, commercial a as classified be 11580.1 or11580.2shall poli a to pursuant owner its by insured vehicle motor passenger co not are Turo like Program Sharing Vehicle Personal a through § 11580.24(b)(2) Code Ins. Cal. state.” the within individuals facilitating of business the in such asTuro,follows:“alegalentityqualifiedtodobusin
As theCaliforniaLegislaturehasRecognized, Turo’sCar-Sharin
See, e.g. NITED 29. 28. 30.
, S T TATES URO As noted, Turo is a matchmaking website and app. Turo does not does Turo app. and website matchmaking a is Turo noted, As Turo’s model makes senseforownersanddrivers.Asthesharin California law is in accord. I accord. in is law California I NC D available at EPARTMENT OF .’ S C ROSS pastseveralyears. . Specifically, thislawdefines from theRentalCarCompanyModel -C the sharing of private passenge private of sharing the OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT ed with increased public transi public increased with ed rg/dist/prd/con 19 a saig ltom provider platform sharing car
r personal vehicle sharing prog sharing vehicle personal r s o a ikt elr Skype seller, ticket a not is retailer,Turoisnotare T C RANSPORTATION ASE N O D .
n 2010, the California legislatu California the 2010, n CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY tent/qt8w77044h 11. , SharedMobility:Current Practicesand
J a“personalvehiclesharingprogram,” UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT ntal carcompany. ess intheStateofCaliforniaengaged r vehicles for noncommercial use by use noncommercial for vehicles r pedia are not airlines, eBay is not a a not is eBay airlines, not are pedia . The law explains that cars shared t ridership, walking, and biking as biking and walking, ridership, t /qt8w77044h.pdf?t=p2q24m&v=l rhead to maintain and rent, not to not rent, and maintain to rhead cy of insurance subject to Section subject insurance of cy for-hire vehicle, permissive use permissive vehicle, for-hire s o a eeo cmay and company, telecom a not is hing. Turo is by far the largest the far by is Turo hing. mmercial vehicles: “No private “No vehicles: mmercial n h Uie Sae ad t has it and States United the in rams by establishing California establishing by rams lgsaue eonzd that recognized legislature a .pdf g ModelisLegallyDistinct companies (to which an O THER re passed AB 1871. AB passed re R g economy grows, ELIEF own or lease or own
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 public inCalifornia.”Cal.Veh.Code§11752(e). r of business the in entity or person a is ‘rental carcompany’ California lawalsomake plain de these within fall not does and rent, to vehicles of fleet no public.” Cal.Ins.Code§1758.89. bus the in person any means carcompany’“‘Rental manner: same public.” Cal.Civ.Code§1939.01(a). r of business the in entity or person a means company’ “’Rental of carsharingprograms likeTur environme the touted groups these of Many law. this of passage Attorneys Consumer the and Asthma, Prevent to Action Community Asso Planning American the Sacramento, of City the Club, Sierra the owner. cove would that insurance additional expensive secure to having § 11580. Id. shared. being is it while vehicle the covers that ens for responsible are Turo like companies law, new this under it Internet; the over use” noncommercial for vehicles passenger Cal. Ins.Code§11580.24(a). use be to it allows owner its because solely livery or vehicle,
34. 33. 32. 31.
T URO (b) (a) Turo is not in the business of renting passenger vehicles to th to vehicles passenger renting of business the in not is Turo (c) oth law, insurance California of provision this with Consistent Defen Environmental the Council, Defense Resources National The the “facilit[ates] Turo program, sharing vehicle personal a As I
NC .’ S h Clfri Cvl oe eie a etl a cmay s follo as company car rental a defines Code Civil California The fol as company car rental a defines Code Vehicle California The The California Insurance code def code Insurance California The C ROSS -C that Turo couldnotbearental OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT o asthebasisfortheirsuppor C ASE N O D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 12. ines a rental car company in n in company car rental a ines
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT 24(c)(1). This relieves the owner of owner the relieves This 24(c)(1). t. d for personal vehicle sharing. . . .” car company: iiin. uo s nta i the in instead is Turo finitions. nig asne vhce t the to vehicles passenger enting ntal or consumer-choice benefits consumer-choice or ntal enting passenger vehicles to the the to vehicles passenger enting does not rent cars. Moreover, Moreover, cars. rent not does uring auto insurance is in place in is insurance auto uring r the car so it can be shared by shared be can it so car the r iness of renting vehicles to the to vehicles renting of iness ito, aiona Chapter, California ciation, of California supported the supported California of O THER e public, as it owns it as public, e R sharing of private of sharing ELIEF r set of aspects er se Fund, the the Fund, se
lows: “A lows: early the early ws: ws: A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 21 20 50474.21. e See, companies. car rental not are that entities upon forced “off-airpor including companies, rental “off-airport an for apply Washington passedsimilar carshar more appealingalternative o based is model business its Indeed, company. car rental a of does Turo such, As use.” noncommercial for vehicles passenger “fa that platform a Legislature, California the of words the in pro sharing vehicle personal a that and customers to cars rents people whowanttousethem. who people allows that platform online an providing of business udn Principles, a separatecategoryfrom“Car Rental”). https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16022/fhwahop16022 Guiding § 11580.24toearnincome from anothe such taxes. per a such for apply to app, and website a Turo, require cannot tha programs aredistinctfromrentalcarcompanies. observed has Transportation of Department States United the not is Turo because users Turo to coverage such deny regularly th providers insurance personal
Turo’s Users are also not rental car companies. They are inst are They companies. car rental not also are Users Turo’s U NITED 37. 36. 35. 38.
S T TATES URO Consistent with the will of the rental car companies, SFO has d has SFO companies, car rental the of will the with Consistent Oreg example, For agree. actors private and governmental Other c make provisions statutory These h Clfri Gvrmn Cd a Code Government California The I NC D SFO CannotTreatTuroLikeaRentalCarCompany .’ PRMN OF EPARTMENT S C ROSS torentalcarcompanies. -C 20 car permit” and pay off-airpor pay and permit” car OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT
at offer protections to users th users to protections offer at t rental car companies.” Criti companies.” car rental t ing lawstoCa C T ASE RANSPORTATION rwise idlea N O D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 13. 21 lear that a rental car company car rental a that lear lifornia’s. Si
sset without lw arot t cag fe t fees charge to airports llows , Shared Mobility: Current Practices and and Practices Current Mobility: Shared ,
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT t rental car fees and taxes. But SFO milarly, creditcardcompanies,and gram is something distinct—again, something is gram at rent from rental car companies, car rental from rent at mit, charge such fees, or establish or fees, such charge mit, available at operating ascommercial entities. n providing consumers with a far a with consumers providing n cally, these provisions cannot be be cannot provisions these cally, a rental car company. Moreover, Moreover, company. car rental a g, a. o. oe §§50474.1; Code Gov. Cal. .g., iia[s te hrn o private of sharing the cilitat[es] have spare cars to connect with connect to cars spare have not meet the statutory definition statutory the meet not ead individuals empowered by by empowered individuals ead pf dfnn crhrn as carsharing (defining .pdf “ert-er carsharing” “peer-to-peer t O THER emanded that Turo that emanded R is a company that company a is ELIEF rna car rental o
n and on A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 keep rentalcarcompanies inbusiness. se no makes two—it the connect to needed infrastructure transit counte car rental for need the with away done has Turo unjust. benefit never they infrastructure financing be will Users those the AirTraintogetandfro Re SFO use the not do Users of community its and Turo Moreover, stat the such, as and, sharing, car other purpose.”). providi of costs reasonable the Gov. C Cal. transit costs. Facilities Chargeasfollows: in part:
43. 42. 41. tran rail on-airport rental light or system an terminal the between passengers busing of movement the for operated use common airport-mandated an a the of behalf on c customers its rental from fee a a collect to require writing, may county and city a by operated airport An a Center Car Rental the between allocable totherentalcarindus as (debt the Service of AirTrain recovery providing partial a represents and contract asse is car fee rental The Airport. the to monthly remitted proceeds with ren the by collected is Fee Facility and Transportation SFO The 39. 40. terminals.
T URO ht en ta i SO eurs uo sr t py h SO Facil SFO the pay to Users Turo requires SFO if that means That But Turo is not a rental car company—it is a website that facil The statutegoesontostrictlylimit thisfeetotheamount ne the defined SFO Charges,” Airport of “Summary 2017/2018 its In This specific fee is authori is fee specific This I NC .’ S C carfacility. ROSS ode §§ 50474.1(a)(4) (“Revenues coll §§ 50474.1(a)(4)(“Revenues ode m the RentalCarCenter. -C ng the busing and light transit transit light and busing the ng OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT t pany os o authori not does plainly ute C ASE try inconjunctionwithrental zed by Cal. Gov. Code § 50474.1. T § 50474.1. Code Gov. Cal. by zed N evc, aneac & operati & maintenance service, O d l dmsi ad internationa and domestic all nd D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 14.
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT service and shall not be used for any for used be not shall and service ected from the fee may not exceed may fee the from ected from or use. That is manifestly e F t cag Tr ti fee. this Turo charge to SFO ze nse to force Turo Users to pay to to pay to Users Turo force to nse rs and expensive car lots and the and lots car expensive and rs ntal Car Center and do not usenot do and Center Car ntal carpatronmovement irport for the use of use the for irport tal car companies car tal oitd ot of costs sociated O d a consolidated a d sd e signed per ssed r opn, in company, ar THER cessary torecoupthese g expenses) ng hat provision reads, hat i system sit R itates peer-to-peer itates Airport l ELIEF te Charge, ities
1 SFO $18 A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 http://media.flysfo.com.s3.amazonaws.com/media/sfo/about-sfo/sf 22 or elsewhere. to applyforapermit ortorequi defined term. SeeSFORule1.T va Shared-ride (e) [] operators herein. SeeSFORule3.1. oe 18.4a. s uh SO ant euae uo sr a c as Users Turo regulate T That all. at SFO cannot at “operate” not does itself Turo Moreover, SFO such, As 11580.24(a). Code b in use, commercial for cars their share not Turo) (like program” cars their sharing users that requires 11580.24 section Code added). (emphasis 4.0 Rule SFO transportation.” commercial in i premises, Airport on business conducting . . . vehicles motor fi that fiat fiat—and by mismatch per car rental “off-airport an with comply Turo that insistence Turo require that or permit a get to platform, online an Turo, Limou (c) shuttles Courtesy (b) buses Charter “(a) as: Permits” 4.7 Rule SFO Specifically, airport. the with permits for apply Rules”). program sharing vehicle personal airport, butrather,onlyonlin
h cret F Rls n Rgltos a b fud at found be can Regulations and Rules SFO current The 49. 47. 46. 44. 48. 45. 22 Tee ue icroae applic incorporate Rules These
T URO Furthermore, SFO Rules state that they are to be applied to the to applied be to are they that state Rules SFO Furthermore, No other SFO Rule serves as a basis for SFO’s claimed authority Opera Transportation “Ground of types the specify Rules SFO The aut statute California other No That means that SFO has never promulgated any rules or regulati or rules any promulgated never has SFO that means That own its of Regulations” and “Rules of set a publishes also SFO I NC .’ SFO’s Own Regulations D S C ROSS e, topayfeestheairport. -C ns and (f) Transportation Networ Transportation (f) and ns OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT re thatTuropayfeestoSFO. nds no basis in the Airport Co Airport the in basis no nds uro doesnotfallwithinthed like Turo, or requires such en such requires or Turo, like C ASE N O be aiona ttts inclu statutes, California able D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY oie a arot o euae o regulate to airport an horizes 15. o Not Suggest Otherwise o NotSuggestOtherwise
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT
ncluding . . . all businesses engaged businesses all . . . ncluding efinition ofanyt lists “Modes Requiring [] Airport Airport [] Requiring “Modes lists uro Users sometimes meet at SFO at meet sometimes Users uro Users to pay any charges. SFO’s mmission Charter, the SFO Rules, SFO the Charter, mmission ut only for personal use. Cal. Ins. Cal. use. personal for only ut mit” regime is nothing more than than more nothing is regime mit” sines (d) Scheduled (d) sines k Companies.” Each of these is a is these of Each Companies.” k tities, who do not operate at the at operate not do who tities, However, California Insurance Insurance California However, o_rules_regulations_2017.pdf. “esnl eil sharing vehicle “Personal a O THER ig hs referenced those ding meca operators. ommercial r charge fees to a a to fees charge r R “operation of all all of “operation ELIEF to require Turo require to ons that require that ons hese categories. tors” that must that tors” transportation transportation design (“SFO (“SFO design
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 lawsuit intendsjustthatforTuro. property SFO on met users Match.com two if trespass misdemeanor users their wherever “operate” ju analysis, this change not does provides asfollows: Gross ReceiptsChargeor SFOFacilitiesCharge because Turois SFO FacilitiesChargeof$18tosupplement SFO’sbudget. amoun total the of 10% of Charge Receipts Gross a pay Users its section, labeled “Findings and D and “Findings labeled section, Stop HiddenTaxesProposition). taxpaye strengthen to and abuse requi not did reframi that “assessments” by requirement this bypass to learned governments local approval voter get to governments Proposition 218 andamended byProposition26. C the of C XIII Article of violation a is Users its and Turo to
oenet cn icmet these circumvent can governments t limitations, constitutional lo and these state for ‘tax’ a defines of effectiveness taxe the of imposition taxes ensure the actually to applicable are limitations program the to permitting subject or licensing any of part pro new a for revenue raise to imposed simply are or regulation but ‘regulatory’ as couched Fees 52. 51. 50. defining neworexpanded taxesas‘fees.’ 54. 53.
T SFO’s DemandsViolateSectionXIII Cofthe California Constitu URO Moreover, the application of the of application the Moreover, r this pay to made be cannot Users its and Turo above, noted As SFO demands thatTuroapplyforan California voters stated their purpose in the first section of section first the in purpose their stated voters California requir which 218, Proposition passed voters California 1996, In I NC .’ S C ROSS -C OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT et I wud e osnia to nonsensical be would It meet. r protections, passing Propositi passing protections, r re voter approval. California’ approval. voter re eclarations of Purpose of the P the of Purpose of eclarations t s risit r Match.com or craigslist as st before enacting any new taxes new any enacting before C cal purposes so that neitherth that sopurposes cal ASE N hc ece te esnbe co reasonable the exceed which O D . etitos n nraig tax increasing on restrictions
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY Gross Receipts Charge and SFO and Charge Receipts Gross 16. off-airport rentalcarpermi
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT s voters took action to combat this combat to action took voters s on 26 in 2010 (also known as the as known (also 2010 in 26 on alifornia Constitution, enacted by enacted Constitution, alifornia eople of the State of California,” of State the of eople not arentalcarcompany. a oln dtn ap d not do app) dating online (an e Legislature nor local local nor Legislature e . Over the next two decades, two next the Over . t of each reservation plus an plus reservation each of t od ac.o lal for liable Match.com hold g e txs s fe” or “fees” as taxes new ng . ] n re to order In [] s. i maue also measure his yt h Ct Attorney’s City the yet , gram and are not are and gram O THER n sol be should and es by simply simply by es Proposition 26. That 26. Proposition sts of actual actual of sts t andthatTuro R ental car company car ental ELIEF Facilities Charge Facilities tion
ed local local ed A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 airport. Charge woulddemand ofT airport the to burden or cost additional without comes that SFO clearly runsafoulofthe its and Turo on Charge Receipts Gross the levy to attempt SFO’s bur payor’s the to relationship pa a to allocated are costs those which in manner the “that (2) cost reasonable the cover to necessary than more “no (1) is fee charge a fee for a “benefit,” “p 23 provides toTurooritsUsers. be any of approximation fair or reasonable a not also is Charge ge to buses shuttle or AirTrain counter or signage, Center, Car Rental expensive an require not sup to airport the by incurred cost any to connected reasonably incurs asa result of TuroUsers meeting at the airport. Inf within anyofthesevenexceptions is ataxmust besubmitted toavoteof thepeople. applies. exception an prove to authority taxing the of burden abili voters’ expanded significantly e defined narrowly seven of one within falls it unless tax a as other charges). R Gross in $50 demands SFO days, ten for day per $50 of payment
For example, if a Turo host delivers a car to a disembarking p disembarking a to car a delivers host Turo a if example, For 23 59. 58. 57. 56. 55.
T URO Rather, the Gross Receipts Charge would simply be a new stream new a be simply would Charge Receipts Gross the Rather, t exceed far would Charge Receipts Gross the because so is This needs actor government local a matter, present the to Relevant User its and Turo to applied is it as Charge Receipts Gross The e or charge, “levy, any language, constitutional new this Under I NC .’ S C se requirements. ROSS uro Usersexorbitantchargesmerely for -C t to expansive car lots. For t lots. car to expansive t OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT es n o bnft rcie fr received benefits or on, dens rivilege,” “serv rivilege,” enumerated inArticleXIIIC y o eo rirr taxes. arbitrary veto to ty C ASE N O D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 17. ice,” or “produ or ice,”
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT hese same reasons, the Gross Receipts reasons, theGross same hese act, the Gross Receipts Charge is not is Charge Receipts Gross the act, s of the governmentalactivity”and the of s ct” unless that actor can prove the the prove can actor that unless ct” Any means of raising revenue that that revenue raising of means Any Under Proposition 26, it is the the is it 26, Proposition Under . Remarkably, the Gross Receipts Gross the Remarkably, . , Section1(e). xceptions. This new regime has has regime new This xceptions. port Turo Users. Turo Users do Users Turo Users. Turo port m te government the om, nefit, service, or good that SFO that good or service, nefit, o ba[] fi o reasonable or fair a bear[s] yor , n d nt ed o s the use to need not do and s, the right tomeet ator near the eceipts Charges (in addition to addition (in Charges eceipts Users without voter approval voter without Users assenger at SFO and requests and SFO at assenger O THER R xaction” is treated is xaction” voter approval to approval voter ELIEF s does not fall fall not does s of revenue for revenue of e ot SFO costs he al activity.” activity.” al
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 20 2, November limitations ofArticleXIIIC,Sec after only place took acts these Because tax. a methodol in change a constitute also may and tax, a of increase a constitutes Charge, Receipts Gross accompanying the including 2, 2010. Program Sharing Vehicle Personal online platform likeTuroorits particula discrepancy, w of fraction small a paying are SFO. Taxis, that are charged $5 tha Users Turo to much that fold twenty to ten charge would SFO L and Uber an each time$3.80 pay riders Lyft and Uber example, orders are Lyft, and Uber like Companies Network Transportation o cnutd ay nlss justify analysis any conducted, not T 26. Proposition postdates that of theseairportresources. tracks that booth ticketing a and pickup, passenger coordinate assessing the costs allegedly costs the assessing for thesetaxes. SFO.
64. 63. 62. 60. 61. 65.
T URO SFO hasnotprovidedtoTuro,a Off-Airpor the of application The h SFO belief, and information On entit similar other of demands SFO that payments the Meanwhile, Applying the Gross Receipts Charge to Turo and its Users would Users its and Turo to Charge Receipts Gross the Applying received or sought not has Francisco San of County and City The I NC .’ S la dedicated require taxis that given rly C ROSS -C incurred in connection with Turo with connection in incurred Usersataxofthiskindthat OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT tion 2oftheCaliforniaCons per trip,andlimousines,that here is no ordinance, regulati ordinance, no is here hat SFO would charge Turo Users Turo charge would SFO hat s, or any other kind of car sha car of kind other any or s, C n apiain f h Gross the of application ing ASE N O D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY nd oninformation andbeliefTur 18. t Rental Car permit regime to s o apid h Gos Receip Gross the applied not as
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT predates November2,2010. nes, staging areas, SFO personnel to personnel SFO areas, staging nes, arecharged$3.80pe titution. on, or SFO practice of charging an charging of practice SFO or on, rides. Turo and its Users use none use Users its and Turo rides. ogy with regard to the charging of charging the to regard with ogy Users exchanging cars at or near or at cars exchanging Users ring programs, before November before programs, ring yft driver pulls up to SFO. Yet, SFO. up to pulls driver yft eeps hre o uo or Turo to Charge Receipts t pose no additional burden to burden additional no pose t . There is no r no is There . ipsto, xeso, or extension, imposition, n 0 te ae ujc t the to subject are they 10, of magnitude lower. For For lower. magnitude of O THER Turo and its Users, R o allegesSFOhas ELIEF create a new tax new a create voter approval approval voter r trip,similarly eason for this for eason ies, including including ies, s hre to Charge ts
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 24 Section 2,SFO’s applicationofthe Gross ReceiptsCharge to Tu law because it isnot reasonabl AirTrain system that hasnoconn Section 2,SFO’s applicationofthe SFO FacilitiesChargeto Tu for thistax. Vehicle SharingPrograms likeTuro. j analysis any conducted, not has 20 2, November limitations ofArticleXIIIC,Sec after only place took acts these Because tax. a methodol in change a constitute also may and tax, a of increase a constitutes Charge, Facilities SFO accompanying the including kind ofcarsharingprograms, November 2,2010. before S Vehicle Personal to Charge Facilities SFO the applied not has that SFOprovidestoT n does charge The Constitution. California the of 1(e) Section except seven the of any within fall not does also Users its and Proposition 218 andamended byProposition26. violates also Charge Facilities
If the Gross Receipts Charge could be termed a fee, it would s would it fee, a termed be could Charge Receipts Gross the If 66. 73. 72. 71. 70. 69. 68. 67.
T URO eas SO a fie t aie y h poeue rqie b A by required procedures the by abide to failed has SFO Because eas SO a fie t aie y h poeue rqie b A by required procedures the by abide to failed has SFO Because received or sought not has Francisco San of County and City The Tu belief, and information on and Turo, to provided not has SFO Off-Airpor the of application The information on and, year every set is Charge Facilities SFO The it as Charge Facilities SFO the Charge, Receipts Gross the Like violating to addition in Second, I NC .’ S uro, andwouldrequire C ROSS -C e, fair, or proportional. OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT tion 2oftheCaliforniaCons ection totheTuroUserexperie ustifying application of the S the of application ustifying ril XI C f h Californi the of C XIII Article C ASE N O D .
TuroanditsUsers CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 19. t Rental Car permit regime to h Clfri Gvrmn Code Government California the
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT titution. ions enumerated in Article XIII C, XIII Article in enumerated ions ogy with regard to the charging of charging the to regard with ogy ro anditsUsersisunlawful. nce. FO Facilities Charge to Personal to Charge Facilities FO ro anditsUsersisunlawful. ot cover any service or privilege or service any cover ot topay$18per-tra till be unlawful under California under unlawful be till haring Programs, or any other other any or Programs, haring Cnttto, nce by enacted Constitution, a ipsto, xeso, or extension, imposition, n 0 te ae ujc t the to subject are they 10, O THER Turo and its Users, is applied to Turo R ELIEF and belief, SFO belief, and voter approval approval voter ro alleges SFO alleges ro nsaction foran tce II C, XIII rticle tce II C, XIII rticle
te SFO the , 24
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 upon afairapproximation ofuse in against discriminates (i) it: if clause commerce dormant the (iv) isnotfairlyrelatedto t discrim (iii) apportioned; fairly not is (ii) state; taxing the to applied not is (i) it: if unconstitutional is analysis this user. the on conferred benefits 25 neither TuronoritsUsersbene const and companies car rental benefit to designed specifically be any of approximation fair a not tax. or fee a as characterized are they whether SFO FacilitiesChargeandGrossR prio booking Turo their pre-arranged have and out-of-state from Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§1983. Article violate charges these Thus, SFO. by Users its or Turo in are excessive facilities and or services SFO’s ofuse Users’ a fair any on based not are they because commerce interstate on hi rgt t fi ad qa tetet ne te qa protec equal the under treatment equal and fair to rights their clause. commerc interstate on burden undue Rec Gross and Charge Facilities SFO the disproportionate andexcessive. that confirms only Turo in property airport use that companies limousine and companies,
A charge that is characterized as a “fee” for purposes of a co a of purposes for “fee” a as characterized is that charge A The SFOFacilitiesandGrossRece The SFOFacilitiesandGrossReceiptsCharges ViolatetheEqual 76. 75. 74. 78. 77.
T URO oevr ta SO ead ol a rcinl mut rm TNCs, from amount fractional a only demands SFO that Moreover, own car Turo a meet to arrange who Users Turo’s of majority The a pose also Charge Receipts Gross and Charge Facilities SFO The SFO’s demands that Turo and its Users pay exorbitant taxes and and taxes exorbitant pay Users its and Turo that demands SFO’s Charge Receipts Gross and Facilities SFO the reasons, these For I NC .’ S C ROSS he servicesprovidedby the Stat -C Similarly, a charge that is ch is that charge a Similarly, fit fromoruseinanyfashion. OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT eceipts Charge areunlawfulan the facilities, or(iii)is the e and are unconstitutional pu unconstitutional are and e C ei, od o srie used service or good, nefit, ASE ipts ChargesViolatetheDorma N O D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 25 20. As discussed in detail above, these charges are charges these above, detail in discussed As an activity with a substantial nexus with nexus substantial a with activity an excessiveinrelationto the government
J e. inates against interstate commerce; or commerce; interstate against inates UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT aracterized as a “tax” for purposes of purposes for “tax” a as aracterized relation to the benefits conferred on benefits conferred to the relation terstate commerce, (ii) is not based not is (ii) commerce, terstate I, Section 8 of the United States United the of 8 Section I, r to their arrival. Moreover, the Moreover, arrival. their to r mmerce clause analysis violates analysis clause mmerce ut n miti fclte that facilities maintain and ruct rsuant to the dormant commerce commerce dormant the to rsuant d unconstitutional, regardless of in lue o te Fourteenth the of clauses tion by Turo or its Users, but are are but Users, its or Turo by virtually the same manner as manner same the virtually poiain f uos r its or Turo’s of pproximation O nt Commerce Clause ProtectionClause THER it Cag are Charge eipts R ELIEF fees also violate also fees er at SFO arrive SFO at er n undue burden undue n cnttt an constitute s
taxi
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 infras SFO on burden greater substantially a impose users their (lim Users its and Turo charge dol the on pennies pay yet area, staging a require and taxis curbside above, described As users. their and companies limousine in far are that charges levying recover fromTuroanditsUsers. Receipt Gross 10% and Charge Facilities SFO $18 the of fraction and Uber to trip per $3.80 charges only SFO similarities, these 27 26 we and mobile via premises airport near or on drop-offs and ups Turo, thesecompanies arealso AirTr the like services and facilities airport other on rely or char levying intentionally by law c these violates and SFO Turo treating intentionally Constitution. California the of 7 Section U.S 42 to (pursuant Constitution States United the to Amendment rvr a te a o a utn) https://www.uber.com/airports SFO”); https://www.lyft.com/airports/sfo (similar). button”); a of tap the at drivers Califor in operating form, other corporation, a whether organization, “an as TNC a of definition users—like Turo—onlyuseSFOprope such Companies Network Transportation from demands it that fees their userswithout ara rvr uig hi proa vhce. SO ue ad Regulati and Rules SFO vehicles.” sfo/SFO_Rules_and_Re personal their http://media.flysfo.com.s3.amazonaws.com/media/sfo/about- using drivers platf or (app) application online-enabled an using compensation
SOs ue ad euain (ue .) dp te aiona Pu California the adopt 1.0) (Rule Regulations and Rules SFO’s hts/wwlf.o/iissnfacsoc (Te yt p ma app Lyft (“The https://www.lyft.com/cities/san-francisco-ca 80. 79.
T URO ieie SO lo ilts uos n is sr’ ih t equa to right Users’ its and Turo’s violates also SFO Likewise, Specifically, SFO violates Turo’s and its Users’ right to equal to right Users’ its and Turo’s violates SFO Specifically, I NC .’ S tional basisfordoingso. C gulations_10-21-17.pdf. ROSS -C ousines also pay $3.80 per trip a trip per $3.80 pay also ousines OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT online matchmakingonline platformstha its Users differently than othe than differently Users its ges on Turo and its Users that Users its and Turo on ges xes f h txs n fe th fees and taxes the of excess i ta poie peragd t prearranged provides that nia C ASE rty foruserpick-upsanddro N O D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 21.
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT ain and Rental Car Center. Car Rental and ain r similarly situated companies and and companies situated similarly r nd taxis pay $5). Indeed, taxis and taxis Indeed, $5). pay taxis nd tructure than Turo or its Users, as Users, its or Turo than tructure lar compared to what SFO would SFO what to compared lar are far in excessof the taxes and so (Hw o eus Ue at Uber request to (“How /sfo/ orm to connect passengers with passengers connect to orm t allowuserstocoordinate pick- partnership, sole proprietor, or proprietor, sole partnership, b-based applications. b-based yt n ter sr— mere users—a their and Lyft t t ead fo txs and taxis from demands it at ce yu ih redy local friendly with you tches p-offs anddonotbenefitfrom n lmuie me users meet limousines and s Charge that SFO seeks to to seeks SFO that Charge s ntttoa poiin by provisions onstitutional lc tlte Commission’s Utilities blic C § 93 ad ril I, Article and 1983) § .C. ransportation services for for services ransportation as Uber and Lyft, whose whose Lyft, and Uber as O THER protection under the under protection ons R ELIEF poeto by protection l available at
27 Despite 26 Like A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 its Usersviolatestheirstate coordi apparent its given suspect Moreover, 37.) ¶ (Compl. companies. those than prices” lower “has Turo because companies car rental multi-national large of which in Complaint, own its in bare laid are motivations SFO’s S with permit sharing car appropriate more a negotiate to vain, p Turo the of relation working Users its prizes Turo by because cooperated voluntarily airport the of use on based Turo against or regime, permitting SFO’s with comply to Turo compel lawfully as then, agree not did Turo negot sharing. car to for regime permitting sought Turo while permit a seek it that requests SFO’s that permitting instead regime. demanding faith, good in negotiate to refused has cro a of form the (in now so does Turo airport. an sued before soluti a devise so to cooperatively always has Turo programs. sharing vehicle personal of model permitting constitutional new a at arrive to SFO with cooperate fact, this Despite so. do to attempted has SFO that manner the dispute, describedabove. pickup, andaticketingbootht per SFO areas, staging lanes, dedicated with taxis provides SFO n eaf f wes n uig th using and owners of behalf on terminated since has it that model business a with experimented
84. 83. 82. 81.
T URO In the past, Turo has chosen c chosen has Turo past, the In requirem permitting and taxes, fees, impose lawfully cannot SFO t and fees disparate these impose to attempt SFO’s Accordingly, treatment. disparate this for basis rational no offer can SFO I NC .’ S C ROSS Turo’s WillingnesstoCooperatewith SFO andfederalconstitutionalright -C hat tracksrides. on that works for its new innov new its for works that on OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT ain ih obit a Enter at lobbyists with nation sute evcs f htl n hotel a of services shuttle e C ASE N O D . For litigation. over ooperation CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 22.
J s toequalprotectionunderthelaw. UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT ative business model and has never has and model business ative FO, but its efforts were rebuffed at at rebuffed were efforts its but FO, regime appropriate for the unique unique the for appropriate regime , which involved Turo listing cars listing Turo involved which , it does not now, that SFO could could SFO that now, not does it been able to advertise and charge and advertise to able been it purports to protect the interests interests the protect to purports it ship with SFO. Turo sought, in sought, Turo SFO. with ship ss-complaint) only because SFO because only ss-complaint) SFO’s intentions are particularly are intentions SFO’s a SO Tr coeae with cooperated Turo SFO, ear rs cnenn Tr ad this and Turo concerning prise Turo has long been willing to willing been long has Turo sonnel to coordinate passenger coordinate to sonnel uo umt o n unlawful an to submit Turo take any enforcement action enforcement any take iate for a more appropriate appropriate more a for iate ught to work with airports airports with work to ught afr. oee, Turo However, latform. O THER example, when Turo when example, R axes on Turo and and Turo on axes On the contrary, contrary, the On ELIEF ents on Turo in in Turo on ents
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 submit toSFO’s“off-airport car rental” permitting scheme ort section 1060oftheCaliforniaC n SO ocrig hte SOs tep t lv te rs Rece Gross the levy Facilities Charge,tothe exten to attempt SFO’s whether concerning SFO and T company andtochargeTuroi treat and regulate to SFO of authority the concerning SFO and as ifsaidallegationsw as ifsaidallegationsw airport rentalcarpermit withSFO.” com and execute must “Turo that demanded SFO namely resolution, cooperati at attempts continued soluti possible discuss to City way ofahotelshuttle. discontin and SFO, with permit related its and experiment pilot wou cooperation no that realizing ultimately Turo, turn. every
91. 90. 89. 88. 87. 93. 86. 92. 85.
T URO uo ek a elrtr jdmn ajdctn ti controversy this adjudicating judgment declaratory a seeks Turo This issueisproperlyresolve regulator or statutory no has SFO Turo’s Usersarenotrentalcar As alleged herein, an actual and actual an herein, alleged As As alleged herein, an actual and actual an herein, alleged As allegation foregoing every and each realleges and repeats Turo Turo repeats and realleges each and every foregoing allegation foregoing every and each realleges and repeats Turo litiga avoid to effort final a In I NC S .’ F ECOND ECOND S ere setforthinfull. ere setforthinfull. IRST IRST C ROSS C -C C t the latter isapplicable toTu AUSE OF AUSE ons. The meeting took place on place took meeting The ons. AUSE OF OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT ode ofCivilProcedure. n ta meig ne gi fail again once meeting that on, ts Usersfeesandtaxesthatap C (Declaratory Relief) (Declaratory Relief) ASE A A CTION CTION N CTION O d byadeclarationfrom this Cour D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 tion, Turo reques Turo tion, companies underCalifornialaw. ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 23. A justiciable controversy now ex now controversy justiciable ex now controversy justiciable A GAINST bss o cmeln Tr an Turo compelling for basis y GAINST A
J A ro orTuro’sUsersatall, isunlawfulin LL UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT LL D o paytheassociatedfeesandtaxes. ted an in-per an ted D ply onlytorental ued its use of airport premises by premises airport of use its ued October 4, 2017. Despite Turo’s Turo’s Despite 2017. 4, October EFENDANTS ld be forthcoming, cancelled the the cancelled forthcoming, be ld EFENDANTS d o eut n n acceptable an in result to ed ply with the terms of an off- an of terms the with ply r’ Ues s rna car rental a as Users uro’s O THER ps hre n SFO and Charge ipts
son meeting with the the with meeting son t.
R ists between Turo between ists Turo between ists contained herein, contained contained herein, contained ELIEF car companies. is sr to Users its d usat to pursuant
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and SFO concerning whether SFO has violated Turo’s and its User its and Turo’s violated has SFO whether concerning SFO and Code ofCivilProcedure. to pursuant controversy this adjudicating judgment declaratory burden oninterstatecommerce. conferred uponthem bySFO. exces are and Users its or Turo by used facilities and services based not are they because commerce interstate on burden undue from recover to seeks SFO that Charge Facilities SFO or and Charge 1983), § U.S.C. 42 to (pursuant Constitution States United Ar in embodied clause commerce “dormant” the concerning SFO and as ifsaidallegationsw as ifsaidallegationsw voters. consti Charge Facilities SFO and Charge Receipts Gross the that section 1060oftheCaliforniaC
100. 99. 98. 102. 97. 101. 96. 95. 94.
T URO hs su i poel rsle b a elrto fo ti Cour this from declaration a by resolved properly is issue This that fees unconstitutional Users its or Turo charge cannot SFO and actual an herein, alleged As As alleged herein, an actual and actual an herein, alleged As allegation foregoing every and each realleges and repeats Turo Turo repeats and realleges each and every foregoing allegation foregoing every and each realleges and repeats Turo controversy this adjudicating judgment declaratory a seeks Turo This issueisproperlyresolve SFO cannotchargeTurooritsUse I NC F .’ T OURTH OURTH S ere setforthinfull. ere setforthinfull. HIRD C ROSS C -C C AUSE OF OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT AUSE OF ode ofCivilProcedure. C (Declaratory Relief) (Declaratory Relief) ASE A A CTION N CTION O d byadeclarationfrom this Cour D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 24. A justiciable controversy now ex now controversy justiciable ex now controversy justiciable A rs thesetaxes GAINST GAINST GAINST A
J A UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT LL LL D withoutvotera D EFENDANTS EFENDANTS sive in relation to the benefits benefits the to relation in sive section 1060 of the California California the of 1060 section Turo or its Users constitute an constitute Users its or Turo on a fair approximation of the the of approximation fair a on hte te rs Receipts Gross the whether ue ae nt prvd by approved not taxes tute s’ rights to equal protection equal to rights s’ O ticle I, Section 8 of the the of 8 Section I, ticle THER
t.
pproval. R ists between Turo between ists Turo between ists contained herein, contained contained herein, contained ELIEF pose an undue undue an pose t.Turo seeks a usat to pursuant
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 clause oftheUnitedS viol thus and commerce interstate on burden undue an constitute to rentalpertinentCharge ca Facilities SFO or Charge Receipts Turo oritsUserswouldconstitute Turo oritsUserswouldconstitute pay feesandtaxesasoff-airp can further and companies” car rental “off-airport as permitted com car rental to pertinent taxes without anyrationalbasisfordoingso. c limousine and taxi Companies, Network Transportation situated Code§50474.1and50474.21; Government under Californialaw; without anyrationalbasisfordoingso. ove purposefully or intentionally a 1983) § U.S.C. 42 to (pursuant under theequalprotec section 1060oftheCaliforniaC
6. 5. 4. 103. 3. 2. 1. WHEREFORE 105. 104.
T URO Issue a declaratory judgment that neither Turo nor its Users ne Users its nor Turo neither that judgment declaratory a Issue Issue a declaratory judgment that the imposition of the SFO Fac SFO the of imposition the that judgment declaratory a Issue Issue a declaratory judgment that the imposition of a Gross Rec Gross a of imposition the that judgment declaratory a Issue F cno itninly r upsfly ujc Tr t dispar to Turo subject purposefully or intentionally cannot SFO su a elrtr jdmn ta SO ant opl uo n it and Turo compel cannot SFO that judgment declaratory a Issue tha judgment declaratory a Issue re not are Users its and Turo that judgment declaratory a Issue controversy this adjudicating judgment declaratory a seeks Turo This issueisproperlyresolve I NC .’ S tates Constitution; tion clausesoftheF C , Turorespectfullyreque ROSS -C ort rentalcarcompanies; OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT ode ofCivilProcedure. panies, including but not limi not but including panies, cagn Tr ad t Ues a Users its and Turo rcharging ataxthatisunlawfulwitho ataxthatisunlawfulwitho nd Article I, Section 7 of the the of 7 Section I, Article nd C P ASE RAYER FOR FOR RAYER N ourteenth Amendment O d byadeclarationfrom this Cour D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 25. t Turo and its Users cannot be cannot Users its and Turo t sts thatthiscourt: R ELIEF
J UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT
ut voterapproval; ut voterapproval; ted to those identified in California in identified those to ted r companies because these charges these becausecompanies r not compel Turo and its Users to to Users its and Turo compel not to theUnited States Constitution cmae t ohr similarly- other to compared s ate the “dormant” commerce commerce “dormant” the ate aiona osiuin by Constitution California mais ad hi users their and ompanies, O THER t. ed to pay the Gross the pay to ed made to pay fees or fees pay to made ntal car companies companies car ntal R ELIEF ilities Charge on Charge ilities eipts Charge on Charge eipts Ues o be to Users s t treatment ate usat to pursuant
A TTORNEYS TTORNEYS S C AN AN OOLEY F RANCISCO A LLP LLP T L AW
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Dated: February22,2018 violate theequalprotectioncla to rentalpertinentCharge ca Facilities SFO or Charge Receipts precluding SFO from compelling T
10. 7. 9. 8.
T URO Grant suchotherandfurtherre ne Users its nor Turo neither that judgment declaratory a Issue Award Turoitsfeesandcost but including relief, injunctive appropriate all and any Grant I NC .’ S C ROSS -C uses oftheFederalandCalifor OMPLAINT FOR FOR OMPLAINT uro toapply foran“off-airpor C ASE N O s incurredhe D .
CGC-18-563803 CGC-18-563803 lief asthisCourtshouldfindj COOLEY LLP TURO INC. TURO INC. Attorneys forDefendantandCross-Complainant By: ECLARATORY ECLARATORY 26. Matthew D.Brown rein; and
J /s/ Matthew D.Brown UDGMENT AND AND UDGMENT nia Constitutions; r companies because these charges these becausecompanies r t rentalcarcompany permit”; O THER ust andproper. ed to pay the Gross the pay to ed R ELIEF
o lmtd to limited not
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California. I am
3 employed in San Francisco County, State of California, in the office of a member of the bar of
4 this Court, at' whose direction the service was made. I am over the age of l 8 years. My business
5 address is Cooley LLP, 101 California Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-5800.
6 My e-mail address is [email protected]. On February 22, 2018, I served the following
7 document on the parties listed below in the manner indicated:
8 ~ CROSS-COMPLAINT OF TURD INC. FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND OTHER RELIEF AGAINST PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY 9 AND THROUGH DENNIS .T. HERRERA AS CITY ATTORNEY OF SAN FRANCISCO, AND CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; 10 • SUMMONS ON CROSS-COMPLAINT l l a (BY MESSENGER SERVICE — CCP § 1011) I consigned the documents) to an server for hand delivery on rebruary 23, 2018. 12 authorized courier and/or process (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL — CCP § 1010.6(a)(6)) Pursuant to Local Rule 2.11(P), 13 I caused such documents described herein to be sent to the persons at the e-mail and using one of the Court-Approved E-Filing Service 14 addresses listed below Providers. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any 15 electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
16 Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney Yvonne R. Mere, Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation 17 Natalie M. Orr, Deputy City Attorney Jaime M. Ruling Delaye, Deputy City Attorney 18 Office of the City Attorney of San Francisco Fox Plaza 19 1390 Maxket Street, 6"r Floor San Francisco, CA 94102-5408 20 Tele: (415) 554-3849 Facsimile: (41S)437-4644 21 E-Mail: [email protected] 22 Counselfor^ Plaintiffand Cross-Defendant People ofthe State~of California 23 California that the above 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
25 is true and correct.
26 Executed on Febraury 22, 2018, at San Francisco, California.
27
28 nm A. artin 27. Coo~ev LLP A TTOItNE1'S Ai Lath' TIlRO I\'C.'S CROSS-COMPLAINT ['OR DECLAf2A"TORY JUDGbIGNT AND OTHER RELIEF rN rkn Ncisco s C,~sE No. CGC-18-563803