Cotter v. Lyft, Inc.
ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING. Signed by Hon. Vince Chhabria on 6/6/2016. (vclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2016)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PATRICK COTTER, et al.,
Case No. 13-cv-04065-VC
ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER
The parties and the proposed intervenors, Alex Zamora and Rayshon Clark, are directed
to file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 10 pages, addressing the following questions:
Assuming that Lyft is correct that it stopped calling its Prime Time premiums
"Prime Time Tips" and began instead calling them "Prime Time" in August 2014,
not August 2015, such that there was no "Phase Two" as described in the
complaint in Zamora v. Lyft, Inc., No. 16-cv-02558-VC, analyze the strength of
the Zamora plaintiffs' claim for restitution of gratuities under Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code § 17200 and Cal. Labor Code § 351.
Again assuming that there was no "Phase Two," but assuming the Zamora
plaintiffs were nonetheless to prevail on their claim for restitution of gratuities
under the UCL and section 351, how should the value of this claim be measured?
What is its maximum potential value?
Is Lyft correct as a factual matter that there was, essentially, no "Phase Two"?
What effect would the proposed release have on the common law claims in the
The supplemental letter briefs are due no later than Monday, June 13, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 6, 2016
United States District Judge
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?