Cotter v. Lyft, Inc.
Filing
172
ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING AND CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Signed by Hon. Vince Chhabria on 2/11/16. (vclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2016)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PATRICK COTTER, et al.,
Case No. 13-cv-04065-VC
Plaintiffs,
v.
LYFT, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER
BRIEFING AND CONTINUING
HEARING ON MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 169
The hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of their proposed class
action settlement agreement with Lyft is continued to March 10, 2016. The parties are ordered to
file supplemental briefs addressing the following questions:
If counsel for the plaintiffs are awarded the $3.675 million they are requesting in
fees and costs, how much money will each proposed class member be eligible to
recover, on average? Please provide a figure for the proposed class members
overall, and then break it down into the two groups of class members created by
the settlement agreement – those who drove more than 30 hours per week and
those who drove less.
How many of the proposed class members are in the group of people who drove
more than 30 hours per week, and how many are in the group of people who
drove less?
On average, how many total hours did the proposed class members in each group
drive during the class period?
If this case went to trial as a class action and the plaintiffs prevailed fully on their
claim for reimbursement of expenses, how much would each class member be
eligible to recover for that claim, on average, assuming use of the Internal
Revenue Service's standard mileage reimbursement rate? See O'Connor v. Uber
Techs., Inc., No. 13-CV-03826-EMC, 2015 WL 8292006, at *18 (N.D. Cal. Dec.
9, 2015). Please provide a figure for the proposed class members overall, and
then break it down into the two groups.
In identifying the risks the plaintiffs would face in continuing to litigate the case,
the motion for preliminary approval places significant weight on Lyft's arbitration
provision. But at different points in this case, counsel for Lyft has stated on the
record that Lyft was waiving its right to assert its arbitration provision. How do
these statements affect the likelihood that Lyft could assert its arbitration
provision to defeat class certification? Cf. In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust
Litig., No. M 07-1827 SI, 2011 WL 1753784, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011).
One form of prospective relief identified by the motion for preliminary approval
is the agreement to remove the "at-will termination" provision of the Driver
Agreement and replace it with a provision permitting Lyft to deactivate drivers
only for specific reasons, such as poor ratings from customers, safety concerns, or
too many ride cancelations. What is the practical impact of this change? What is
the evidence that Lyft previously terminated people for reasons other than those
for which Lyft will be permitted to terminate them under the new language?
This lawsuit seeks to have Lyft drivers declared "employees" rather than
"independent contractors" under California law. It appears the proposed
settlement would move the drivers closer to independent contractor status. If that
is correct, is this aspect of the settlement agreement contrary to the original goal
of the lawsuit? Is there case law discussing whether a court may approve a
settlement agreement that might be deemed contrary to the original goal of the
2
lawsuit?
Are there other companies in the so-called "sharing economy" that classify their
workers as employees? If so, are there any factors specific to Lyft's business
model that preclude it from classifying drivers as employees, or from providing
drivers with some of the protections employees receive under California law?
If the settlement agreement is preliminarily approved, why should drivers have to
submit claim forms?
The plaintiffs' supplemental brief, not to exceed 20 pages, is due February 25, 2016.
Lyft's supplemental brief, not to exceed 20 pages, is due March 3, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 11, 2016
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?