Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 156

ORDER re Revised Arbitration Provision and Corrective Cover Letter. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/19/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2016)

EXHIBIT A

● IMPORTANT: This Arbitration Provision will require you to resolve
any claim that you may have against Uber on an individual basis,
except as provided below, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement
unless you choose to opt out of the Arbitration Provision. Except as
provided below, this provision will preclude you from bringing any
class, collective, or representative action (other than actions under
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), California Labor
Code § 2698 et seq. (“PAGA”)) against Uber, and also precludes you
from participating in or recovering relief under any current or future
class, collective, or representative (non-PAGA) action brought against
Uber by someone else.
o Cases have been filed against Uber and may be filed in the
future involving claims by users of Uber Services and
Software, including by drivers. You should assume that there
are now, and may be in the future, lawsuits against Uber
alleging class, collective, and/or representative (non-PAGA)
claims on your behalf, including but not limited to claims for
tips, reimbursement of expenses, and employment status.
Such claims, if successful, could result in some monetary
recovery to you.
o The following putative and certified class actions have been
filed against Uber by drivers, and are currently pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. (Other actions have been filed against Uber in
other jurisdictions; the following list does not include all
actions pending against Uber.)
▪
O’CONNOR V. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.,
CASE NO. CV 13-03826-EMC (N.D. Cal.). In this action,
plaintiffs allege that drivers throughout the country in
California who use Uber should be classified as
employees of Uber and not independent contractors,
and that they are entitled to certain expense
reimbursements and tips. The Court has certified the
following class to pursue the expense reimbursement
claim (as to vehicle-related and phone expenses, but
in California

not other expenses) and the tips claim, which include
the misclassification question (i.e., whether drivers are
employees or independent contractors): “All UberBlack,
UberX, and UberSUV drivers who have driven for Uber
in the state of California from August 16, 2009, up to
and including December 9, 2015, and meet all of the
following requirements: (1) who signed up to drive
directly with Uber or an Uber subsidiary under their
individual name, and (2) are/were paid by Uber or an
Uber subsidiary directly and in their individual name.”
Drivers who do not meet these criteria are not part of
the certified class. This case is scheduled to proceed to
trial on behalf of the certified class. The Court has
ruled that this arbitration provision will not prevent
drivers who are members of the certified class from
participating in this class action. However, unless you
opt out of the arbitration provision within 30 days from
accepting this agreement, drivers who are not
members of the certified class—including drivers
outside California—may be prevented from
participating in this case if the plaintiffs successfully
appeal the Court’s limitation of the case to California
drivers. The contact information for plaintiffs’ counsel
in the O’Connor matter is as follows: Shannon LissRiordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., 729 Boylston
Street, Suite 2000, Boston, MA 02116, Telephone: (617)
994-5800, Fax: [phone], Email: [e-mail].
▪
YUCESOY ET AL. V. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET
AL., CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00262-EMC (N.D. Cal.). In this
action, plaintiffs allege that drivers who use Uber in
Massachusetts should be classified as employees of
Uber and not independent contractors, and that they
are entitled to tips, expense reimbursements, overtime
pay, and minimum wages. The contact information for
plaintiffs’ counsel in this matter is as follows: Shannon
Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., 729 Boylston

EXHIBIT B

Proposed Corrective Cover Letter
Beginning today, the next time you log onto the Uber app, you will receive a pop-up notification
about a new driver-partner agreement. You will be prompted to accept the new agreement before
you can continue to go online and begin accepting trips. This agreement governs your
Highlighted
relationship with Uber, so it is important that you read it.
sentence must
The new driver-partner agreement contains an updated arbitration provision, among other be bolded.
changes and updates. Arbitration is not a mandatory condition of your contractual relationship
with Uber. If you do not want to be subject to the updated arbitration provision, you may opt out
of the updated arbitration provision within thirty (30) days of the date you execute the new
driver-partner agreement. If you do not opt out of the updated arbitration provision within the 30day period, you and Uber will be bound by the terms of the updated arbitration provision. A
decision not to opt out will prevent you from participating in ongoing class actions.
No action is required if you do not want to opt out of the updated arbitration provision. To opt
out of the updated arbitration provision, follow the instructions contained within the arbitration
provision of the agreement, which can be accessed by clicking on the hyperlink below.
[The hyperlink will bring the driver directly to the opt out portion of the arbitration agreement.]
Best,
Uber Operations

you may e-mail [e-mail] [hyperlink to preaddressed e-mail stating: "My name is _______. I opt out
of the Arbitration Provision in the driver-partner
agreement."].