1 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR., SBN 132099 2 [email protected] DEBRA WONG YANG, SBN 123289 3 [email protected] MARCELLUS A. MCRAE, SBN 140308 4 [email protected] THEANE D. EVANGELIS, SBN 243570 5 [email protected] DHANANJAY S. MANTHRIPRAGADA, SBN 254433 6 [email protected] BRANDON J. STOKER, SBN 277325 7 [email protected] 333 South GraNd AveNue 8 Los ANgeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: 213.229.7000 9 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 10 JOSHUA S. LIPSHUTZ, SBN 242557 [email protected] 11 KEVIN J. RING-DOWELL, SBN 278289 [email protected] 12 555 MissioN Street, Suite 3000 SaN FraNcisco, CA 94105-0921 13 Telephone: 415.393.8200 Facsimile: 415.393.8306 14 Attorneys for Defendant 15 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 DOUGLAS O’CONNOR, THOMAS COLOPY, MATTHEW MANAHAN, and Case No. CV 13-03826-EMC 20 ELIE GURFINKEL, iNdividually aNd oN behalf of all others similarly situated, DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 21 MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 22 Plaintiffs, v. Hearing Date: August 6, 2015 23 Time: 1:30 p.m. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Place: Courtroom 5 24 Judge: HoN. Edward M. CheN Defendant. 25 26 27 28 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION CV 13-03826-EMC 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 3 4 A. Uber’s Business Model .................................................................................................... 3 5 B. Drivers’ Onboarding Experiences .................................................................................... 5 6 C. Licensing Agreements ...................................................................................................... 6 D. Drivers’ Star RatiNgs/Pro Tips/Suggestions .................................................................... 6 7 E. Third Party EmploymeNt ANd Drivers’ Use Of Other Lead GeNeratioN 8 Applications ..................................................................................................................... 7 9 F. Expenses And Reimbursement ........................................................................................ 7 G. Gratuities .......................................................................................................................... 8 10 H. Proposed Class Representatives ....................................................................................... 9 11 1. Plaintiff Thomas Colopy ...................................................................................... 9 12 2. Plaintiff Elie Gurfinkel ......................................................................................... 9 13 3. Plaintiff Matthew Manahan ............................................................................... 10 14 III. LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................. 10 IV. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 11 15 A. Plaintiffs Have Failed To Prove That They Satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)’s Commonality 16 Requirement Or Rule 23(b)(3)’s More Demanding Predominance Requirement ......... 11 17 1. Plaintiffs’ Misclassification Claims Require Individualized Inquiries Into Each Transportation Provider’s Relationship With Uber .................................. 11 18 a. Right To CoNtrol The MaNNer ANd MeaNs Of PerformaNce .............. 13 19 (i) Right To Terminate ................................................................. 16 (ii) Control Over Schedules And Routes ...................................... 19 20 (iii) Use Of Third-Party Apps ........................................................ 20 21 b. Secondary Indicia ................................................................................ 20 22 (i) Whether Drivers Believe They Are Employees ...................... 22 (ii) Length Of Time Worked And Method Of Payment ............... 22 23 (iii) Opportunity For Profit Or Loss ............................................... 23 24 (iv) Negotiation Of Rates ............................................................... 24 25 (v) Engagement In A Distinct Occupation Or Business And “Employment Of Helpers” ...................................................... 24 26 (vi) Provision Of The Instrumentalities And Tools Of Work ........ 25 27 2. Plaintiffs’ Tipping Claims Turn On INdividualized INquiries ............................ 25 28 3. Plaintiffs’ Claim For Expense Reimbursement Under Labor Code Section 2802 Depends On A Host Of Individualized Inquiries ...................................... 27 Gibson, Dunn & i Crutcher LLP DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION CV 13-03826-EMC 1 B. PlaiNtiffs Have Failed To Satisfy The Typicality RequiremeNt Of Rule 23(a)(3) Or The Adequacy Requirement Of Rule 23(a)(4) .......................................................... 30 2 1. The Named Plaintiffs Are Not Adequate Class RepreseNtatives UNder 3 Rule 23(a)(4) Because They Seek A Remedy That MaNy Class Members Oppose And That Could Subject Class Members To Legal Liability ............... 30 4 2. The Claims Of The Named Plaintiffs Are Atypical Under Rule 23(a)(3) 5 And The Named Plaintiffs Are Inadequate Class Representatives Under Rule 23(a)(4) Because They Are Subject To Unique Defenses ......................... 32 6 3. The Named PlaiNtiffs Are Not Typical Of The Putative Class Because 7 There Is No Typical Uber Driver ....................................................................... 35 8 C. That Some Members Are Subject To AN Arbitration Clause Raises Individual Issues That Preclude Certification Under Rule 23(b)(3) ................................................ 38 9 D. PlaiNtiffs’ Proposed PAGA Claim Fails To Satisfy The Requirements Of Rule 23 ...... 39 10 V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 40 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Gibson, Dunn & ii Crutcher LLP DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION CV 13-03826-EMC 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Adashunas v. Negley, 626 F.2d 600 (7th Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................... 26 5 Air Couriers Int’l v. Emp’t Dev. Dep’t, 6 150 Cal. App. 4th 923 (2007) .............................................................................................. 1, 20 7 Alatraqchi v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 11-42020 CT (Cal. Labor Comm. Aug. 1, 2012) .............................................................. 12 8 Alberghetti v. Corbis Corp., 9 263 F.R.D. 571 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) ................................................................................ 31 Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., 10 765 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................... 19 11 Ali v. U.S.A. Cab Ltd., 176 Cal. App. 4th 1333 (2009) .............................................................................. 13, 16, 20, 24 12 Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, L.P., 13 247 F.R.D. 156 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ............................................................................................. 31 14 Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013) ............................................................................................................. 10 15 Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, 16 46 Cal. 4th 993 (Cal. 2009) ...................................................................................................... 40 Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 17 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ................................................................................................................. 11 18 Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal. 4th 969 (2009) ............................................................................................................. 40 19 Arnold v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 20 202 Cal. App. 4th 580 (2011) ................................................................................ 16, 19, 24, 37 21 Avilez v. Pinkerton Govt. Serv. Master Global Holding, Inc., 596 F. App’x 579 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2015) .............................................................................. 38 22 Ayala v. Antelope Valley Newspapers, Inc., 23 59 Cal. 4th 522 (2014) ....................................................................................................... 15, 16 Beaumont-Jacques v. Farmers Grp., Inc., 24 217 Cal. App. 4th 1138 (2013) .......................................................................................... 13, 16 25 Beauperthuy v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ................................................................................... 30 26 Bemis v. People, 27 109 Cal. App. 2d 253 (1952) .............................................................................................. 15, 19 28 Berger v. Home Depot