objection to uber class action

8/17/2019 Objection to UBER Class Action

1/4


2/4

1OBJECTION BASED ON NEWLY UNREDACTED INFORMATION AND REQUEST TO REMOVE ATTORNEY

SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN AS CLASS COUNSEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMES NOW ATTORNEYS MARK GERAGOS, BRIAN KABATECK,

and CHRISTOPHER HAMNER on behalf of Plaintiffs and Objectors to provide the

Court with newly discovered, and severely disturbing, information regarding this

collusive and disastrous settlement, tantamount to a $1 billion wage theft, betweenUber and out-of-state attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan.

It is apparent that this proposed settlement is designed solely to enrich Ms. Liss-

Riordan and protect Uber at the expense of its drivers.

This proposed settlement, coming on the heels of the rejection of Ms. Liss-

Riordan’s similar sweetheart deal with Lyft in another case ( N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:13-

cv-04065-VC, Dkt No. 200), has broad implications and may single-handedly ruin the

economy for California workers.

It is therefore further requested, that out-of-state attorney Ms. Liss-Riordan be

removed from her role as class counsel as her actions have severely harmed California

employee rights.

OBJECTION BASED ON NEWLY UNREDACTED INFORMATION AND

REQUEST TO REMOVE ATTORNEY SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN AS

CLASS COUNSEL

Plaintiffs and Objectors RICARDO DEL RIO, JOSE VALDIVIA, JOSE

PEREIRA (collectively “ Del Rio Plaintiffs”) hereby submit this objection

supplementing previous filings (Dkt. Nos. 563-564) based upon newly revealed

information.

Following the Court’s May 6, 2016 Order denying the O’Connor Plaintiff’s

request to seal certain documents in support of their Motion For Preliminary Approval

(Dkt. No. 572), attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan filed unredacted versions of her

declaration and the proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release.

Case 3:13-cv-03826-EMC Document 581 Filed 05/11/16 Page 2 of 4


3/4



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

These documents reveal that by Liss-Riordan’s own admission, the total

potential damages in the case are $852 million. (Dkt. No. 575.) The monetary

component of the proposed settlement represents merely 12% of Liss-Riordan’s

estimate of damages. These estimates are limited to claims for Uber ’s failure toreimburse it’s driver ’s expenses and violations of California Labor Code 351

regarding tips/gratuities. The already whopping numbers do not even take into account

additional viable claims for violations wage and employment laws. Even by Uber’s

more conservative estimate of approximately $429 million, this settlement short-

changes the class. It is deeply concerning that the Ms. Liss-Riordan and Uber’s

attorneys would seek to keep information about their own accounting secret.

It should also be noted that attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan entered into a

similar sweetheart deal with Lyft, another ride-sharing company accused of similar

violations, which was rejected by a Federal Court in the strongest of terms. Much like

the settlement proposed here, the Court in Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., et al found that

“using the approach devised by plaintiffs’ counsel themselves, they shortchanged

the drivers at least by half – because a proper estimate of the maximum

reimbursement claim is at least twice the amount plaintiffs’ counsel based the

settlement on.” (N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:13-cv-04065-VC, Dkt No. 200 at p. 14.)

It is shocking for an out-of-state attorney to so blatantly sell out the California

class of drivers, consciously ignoring the California Labor Commission’s ruling that

an Uber driver is an employee and not an independent contractor.

///

///

///



4/4



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, the Del Rio Plaintiffs hereby reiterate their objection and

announce their intention to request removal of Shannon Liss-Riordan as class counsel

and petition for the appropriate leadership team to represent the class of workers. The

class of Uber drivers, consisting of hundreds of thousands of hard working men andwoman, deserve representation by lawyers willing to fight for them and take this case

to trial to uphold the basic principles of employee rights.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 11, 2016 KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP

By: /s/ Brian S. KabateckBrian S. KabateckShant A. Karnikian

Dated: May 11, 2016 GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC

By: /s/ Mark J. Geragos

Mark J. GeragosBenjamin J. Meiselas

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Objectors Ricardo Del Rio, Jose Valdivia, Jose Pereira, and the ro osed class


objection to uber class action

Documents