On July 30, 2020 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Armstea, Jermaine, Berquist, Jill, Bhagat, Nasreen, Bicana, Margarita, Black, Lucretsia, Blodgett, Andrea, Bumbera, Jacklyn, Carias, Anna, Carrington, N'Daisha, Cayetano, Kara, C., Gillian, Charity, Brenda, Chavez, Grace, Chery, Francesse, Christensen, Michelle, Clark, Ethan, Crabb, Cinnamon, Darin, Caroline, Demus, Chiann, Diaz, Kia, Ditrani, Marianne, Dobson, Amy, Doe 104, Jane, Doe 10, Jane, Doe 114, Jane, Doe 11, Jane, Doe 125, Jane, Doe 128, Jane, Doe 129, Jane, Doe 12, Jane, Doe 133, Jane, Doe 137, Jane, Doe 13, Jane, Doe 147, Jane, Doe 14 - Lsa, Jane, Doe 155, Jane, Doe 157, Jane, Doe 159, Jane, Doe 15, Jane, Doe 166, Jane, Doe 16 - Lsa, Jane, Doe 171, Jane, Doe 174, Jane, Doe 177, Jane, Doe 178, Jane, Doe 17 - Lsa, Jane, Doe 181, Jane, Doe 196, Jane, Doe 1, Jane, Doe 20, Jane, Doe 212, Jane, Doe 215, Jane, Doe 216, Jane, Doe 22, Jane, Doe 24, Jane, Doe 27, Jane, Doe 28, Jane, Doe 30, Jane, Doe 31, Jane, Doe 32, Jane, Doe 33, Jane, Doe 346, Jane, Doe 350, Jane, Doe 352, Jane, Doe 353, Jane, Doe 358, Jane, Doe 35, Jane, Doe 362, Jane, Doe 367, Jane, Doe 36, Jane, Doe 383, Jane, Doe 386, Jane, Doe 387, Jane, Doe 390, Jane, Doe 396, Jane, Doe 39, Jane, Doe 3, Jane, Doe 41, Jane, Doe 43, Jane, Doe 44, Jane, Doe 46, Jane, Doe 47, Jane, Doe 4, Jane, Doe 50, Jane, Doe 51, Jane, Doe 53, Jane, Doe 54, Jane, Doe 59, Jane, Doe 5, Jane, Doe 60, Jane, Doe 62, Jane, Doe 63, Jane, Doe 6, Jane, Doe 77, Jane, Doe 79, Jane, Doe 7, Jane, Doe 81, Jane, Doe 83, Jane, Doe 8, Jane, Doe 98, Jane, Doe 9, Jane, Doe Cl 10, Jane, Doe Cl 11, Jane, Doe Cl 12, Jane, Doe Cl 13, Jane, Doe Cl 14, Jane, Doe Cl 16, Jane, Doe Cl 1, Jane, Doe Cl 22, Jane, Doe Cl 3, Jane, Doe Cl 4, Jane, Doe Cl 5, Jane, Doe Cl 6, Jane, Doe Cl 7, Jane, Doe Cl 8, Jane, Doe Cl 9, Jane, Doe Eb 2, Jane, Doe Eb 30, Jane, Doe Eb 31, Jane, Doe Eb 32, Jane, Doe Eb 33, Jane, Doe Eb 34, Jane, Doe Eb 35, Jane, Doe Eb 38, Jane, Doe Eb 3, John, Doe Eb 40, Jane, Doe Eb 42, Jane, Doe Eb 43, Jane, Doe Eb 44, Jane, Doe Eb 45, Jane, Doe Eb 46, Jane, Doe Eb 47, Jane, Doe Eb 49, Jane, Doe Eb 4, John, Doe Eb 50, Jane, Doe Eb 51, Jane, Doe Eb 52, Jane, Doe Eb 53, Jane, Doe Eb 54, Jane, Doe Eb 55, Jane, Doe Eb 56, Jane, Doe Eb 57, Jane, Doe Eb 58, Jane, Doe Eb 59, Jane, Doe Eb 60, Jane, Doe Eb 61, Jane, Doe Eb 62, Jane, Doe Eb 63, Jane, Doe Eb 64, Jane, Doe Eb 65, Jane, Doe Eb 66, Jane, Doe Eb 67, Jane, Doe Eb 68, Jane, Doe Eb 70, Jane, Doe Eb 71, Jane, Doe Eb 72, Jane, Doe Eb 73, Jane, Doe Eb 74, Jane, Doe Eb 75, Jane, Doe Eb 76, Jane, Doe Eb 77, Jane, Doe Eb 78, Jane, Doe Eb 79, Jane, Doe Eb 80, Jane, Doe Eb 81, Jane, Doe Eb 82, Jane, Doe Eb 83, Jane, Doe Eb 84, Jane, Doe Eb 85, Jane, Doe Eb 86, Jane, Doe Eb 87, Jane, Doe Eb 88, Jane, Doe Eb 89, Jane, Doe Eb 90, Jane, Doe, Jane, Doe Lsa 102, Jane, Doe Lsa 103, Jane, Doe Lsa 119, Jane, Doe Lsa 122, Jane, Doe Lsa 129, Jane, Doe Lsa 131, Jane, Doe Lsa 135, Jane, Doe Lsa 139, Jane, Doe Lsa 140, Jane, Doe Lsa 144, Jane, Doe Lsa 156, Jane, Doe Lsa 168, Jane, Doe Lsa 181, Jane, Doe Lsa 182, Jane, Doe Lsa 184, Jane, Doe Lsa 18, Jane, Doe Lsa 190, Jane, Doe Lsa 199, Jane, Doe Lsa 19, Jane, Doe Lsa 20, Jane, Doe Lsa 210, Jane, Doe Lsa 213, John, Doe Lsa 214, Jane, Doe Lsa 225, Jane, Doe Lsa 233, Jane, Doe Lsa 25, Jane, Doe Lsa 342, Jane, Doe Lsa 349, Jane, Doe Lsa 34, Jane, Doe Lsa 363, Jane, Doe Lsa 366, Jane, Doe Lsa 37, Jane, Doe Lsa 397, Jane, Doe Lsa 45, Jane, Doe Lsa 49, Jane, Doe Lsa 58, Jane, Doe Lsa 64, Jane, Doe Lsa 69, Jane, Doe Lsa 70, Jane, Doe Lsa 78, Jane, Doe Lsa 82, Jane, Doe Lsa 88, Jane, Doe Wh 100, Jane, Doe Wh 104, Jane, Doe Wh 1062, Jane, Doe Wh 1063, Jane, Doe Wh 1068, Jane, Doe Wh 1070, Jane, Doe Wh 1074, Jane, Doe Wh1075, Jane, Doe Wh 1078, Jane, Doe Wh 107, Jane, Doe Wh1085, Jane, Doe Wh 108, Jane, Doe Wh 1090, Jane, Doe Wh 1096, Jane, Doe Wh 1098, Jane, Doe Wh 1100, Jane, Doe Wh 1109, Jane, Doe Wh 1113, Jane, Doe Wh 1114, Jane, Doe Wh 1150, Jane, Doe Wh 1153, Jane, Doe Wh 1159, Jane, Doe Wh 1161, Jane, Doe Wh 1163, Jane, Doe Wh 1167, Jane, Doe Wh 116, Jane, Doe Wh 1180, Jane, Doe Wh 1182, Jane, Doe Wh 1184, Jane, Doe Wh 1186, Jane, Doe Wh 118, Jane, Doe Wh 1195, Jane, Doe Wh 1198, Jane, Doe Wh 1202, Jane, Doe Wh 1204, Jane, Doe Wh 120, Jane, Doe Wh 1214, Jane, Doe Wh 1216, Jane, Doe Wh 1224, Jane, Doe Wh 1225, Jane, Doe Wh 1226, Jane, Doe Wh 122, Jane, Doe Wh 1232, Jane, Doe Wh 1236, Jane, Doe Wh 1245, Jane, Doe Wh 1249, Jane, Doe Wh 1252, Jane, Doe Wh 1257, Jane, Doe Wh 1259, Jane, Doe Wh 126, Jane, Doe Wh 133, Jane, Doe Wh 1357, Jane, Doe Wh 1358, Jane, Doe Wh 1361, Jane, Doe Wh 1362, Jane, Doe Wh 1363, Jane, Doe Wh 1364, Jane, Doe Wh 1369, Jane, Doe Wh 136, Jane, Doe Wh 1373, Jane, Doe Wh 1374, Jane, Doe Wh 1377, Jane, Doe Wh 138, Jane, Doe Wh 140, Jane, Doe Wh 144, Jane, Doe Wh 149, Jane, Doe Wh 14, Jane, Doe Wh 1501, Jane, Doe Wh 1503, Jane, Doe Wh 1508, Jane, Doe Wh 1570, Jane, Doe Wh 15, Jane, Doe Wh 1625, Jane, Doe Wh 162, Jane, Doe Wh 16, Jane, Doe Wh 1710, Jane, Doe Wh 1744, Jane, Doe Wh 174, Jane, Doe Wh 1824, Jane, Doe Wh 18, Jane, Doe Wh 20, Jane, Doe Wh 212, Jane, Doe Wh 213, Jane, Doe Wh 215, Jane, Doe Wh 217, Jane, Doe Wh 21, Jane, Doe Wh 230, Jane, Doe Wh 233, Jane, Doe Wh 235, Jane, Doe Wh 238, Jane, Doe Wh 239, Jane, Doe Wh 241, Jane, Doe Wh 250, Jane, Doe Wh 252, Jane, Doe Wh 256, Jane, Doe Wh 25, Jane, Doe Wh 260, Jane, Doe Wh 261, Jane, Doe Wh 265, Jane, Doe Wh 266, Jane, Doe Wh 268, Jane, Doe Wh 269, Jane, Doe Wh 270, Jane, Doe Wh 273, Jane, Doe Wh 279, Jane, Doe Wh 27, Jane, Doe Wh 280, Jane, Doe Wh 283, Jane, Doe Wh 284, Jane, Doe Wh 285, Jane, Doe Wh 290, Jane, Doe Wh 42, Jane, Doe Wh 43, Jane, Doe Wh 45, Jane, Doe Wh 46, Jane, Doe Wh 47, Jane, Doe Wh 48, Jane, Doe Wh 4, Jane, Doe Wh 50, Jane, Doe Wh 51, Jane, Doe Wh 52, Jane, Doe Wh 541, Jane, Doe Wh 542, Jane, Doe Wh 543, Jane, Doe Wh 544, Jane, Doe Wh 553, Jane, Doe Wh 557, Jane, Doe Wh 569, Jane, Doe Wh 580, Jane, Doe Wh 585, Jane, Doe Wh 586, Jane, Doe Wh 5, Jane, Doe Wh 6, Jane, Doe Wh6, Jane, Doe Wh 710, Jane, Doe Wh 711, Jane, Doe Wh 712, Jane, Doe Wh 715, Jane, Doe Wh 716, Jane, Doe Wh 721, Jane, Doe Wh 724, Jane, Doe Wh 725, Jane, Doe Wh 726, Jane, Doe Wh 728, Jane, Doe Wh 732, Jane, Doe Wh 739, Jane, Doe Wh 73, Jane, Doe Wh 742, Jane, Doe Wh 744, Jane, Doe Wh 74, Jane, Doe Wh 766, Jane, Doe Wh 778, Jane, Doe Wh 789, Jane, Doe Wh 791, Jane, Doe Wh 798, Jane, Doe Wh 799, Jane, Doe Wh 806, Jane, Doe Wh 814, Jane, Doe Wh 81, Jane, Doe Wh 82, Jane, Doe Wh 84, Jane, Doe Wh 85, Jane, Doe Wh 88, Jane, Doe Wh 893, Jane, Doe Wh 894, Jane, Doe Wh 896, Jane, Doe Wh 899, Jane, Doe Wh 89, Jane, Doe Wh 900, Jane, Doe Wh 905, Jane, Doe Wh 908, Jane, Doe Wh 912, Jane, Doe Wh 913, Jane, Doe Wh 914, Jane, Doe Wh 91, Jane, Doe Wh 921, Jane, Doe Wh 957, Jane, Doe Wh 961, Jane, Doe Wh 965, Jane, Doe Wh 968, Jane, Doe Wh 969, Jane, Doe Wh 971, Jane, Doe Wh 97, Jane, Doe Wh 99, Jane, Dunn, Christina, Espinosa, Mary, Ferreira, Ingrid, Fortune, Melissa, Gaston, Yuliya, Green, Racquel, Gregg, Rebecca, Gutierrez, Cheyenne, Halladay, Christina, Hall, Tykaja, Hardin, Jennifer, Hardman, Gyan, Hasem, Farheen, Hendrix, Tyra, Higgins, Michaela, Johnson, Mistle, Jones, Racquel, King, Tajiana, Kiperts, Margrieta L, Koch, Ashley, Kran, Justin, Lagle, Kim, Lim, Esther, Maher, Erin, Maimon, Karen, Mandala, Elizabeth, Marquart, Carrie, Marshall, Erin, Matheson, India, Mcgann, Kelsi, Miller, Caroline, Morrison, Jessica, Nan, Stephanie, Nunez, Rebecca, Osburn, Jessa, Plaintiffs, Policka, Kaleigh, Porter, Sherica, Priemer, Shala, Robinson, Brashiah, Robinson, Minnyone, Roe 10, Jane, Roe 11, Jane, Roe 12, Jane, Roe 13, Jane, Roe 14, Jane, Roe 1, Jane, Roe 3, Jane, Roe 4, Jane, Roe 5, Jane, Roe 6, Jane, Roe 7, Jane, Roe 8, Jane, Roe 9, Jane, Roe, Jane, Roe, John, Ruark, Kylee, Ruiz, Angela, Sanders, Cheryl, Scheer, Patricia, Shively, Carlishia, Sibblis, Shannon, Smith, Jessica, Stokes, Leslie, Swanson, Zeia, Swanson, Zela, Tarr, Hannah, Turkos, Alison, Wells, Hannah, Wheeler, Willow, Whisler, Mary, Whyte, Zarrin-Taj, Wilson, Amber, and Does 1 Through 50, Inclusive, G6 Hospitality Llc, Gp Hospitality Llc, A Delaware Limited Liability, Lyft, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Mahdavi, Matin, Motel 6 Operating Lp, Motel 6 Operating L.P., A Delaware Limited, for COORDINATION in the District Court of San Francisco County.
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Preview
1 JOHN C. MANLY (State Bar No. 149080) jmanly@manlystewart.com 2 JANE E. REILLEY (State Bar No. 314766) ELECTRONICALLY jreilley@manlystewart.com 3 HALEY K. AANESTAD (State Bar No. 334382) F I L E D haanestad@manlystewart.com Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 4 MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 07/12/2022 Clerk of the Court 5 Irvine, CA 92612 BY: ERNALYN BURA Telephone: (949) 252-9990 Deputy Clerk 6 Fax: (949) 252-9991 7 OSCAR GARZA (Stare Bar No. 149790) ogarza@thegarzafirm.com 8 SHARYL B. GARZA (State Bar No. 160907) sgarza@thegarzafirm.com 9 THE GARZA FIRM GARZA & GARZA LLP 10 4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 770 Newport Beach, CA 92660 11 Telephone: (949) 570-8350 MANLY STEWART FINALDI Fax: (949) 570-3031 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff JANE AJ DOE 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 15 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 16 Coordination Proceeding Special Title Case No. CJC-20-005061 (Rule 3.550) 17 JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING NO. 5061 18 IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES Case Assigned to the Honorable Andrew Y.S. 19 Cheng, Dept. 613 20 JANE AJ DOE’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 21 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LYFT INC.’S PETITION TO COORDINATE 22 ADD-ON CASE 23 Judge: Hon. Andrew Y.S. Cheng Dept.: 613 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LYFT’S PETITION TO COORDINATE ADD-ON CASE 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 3 I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................4 4 II. PERTINENT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ....................................6 5 A. POLO—A LYFT DRIVER AND NAMED DEFENDANT—RAPED PLAINTIFF ................................................................................................................6 6 B. LYFT’S FAILURE TO VERIFY DEFENDANT POLO’S IDENTITY— 7 AND HIS USE OF ANOTHER’S IDENTITY TO BECOME AN AUTHORIZED LYFT DRIVER—LED TO PLAINTIFF’S RAPE .........................7 8 C. LYFT HAS ACTIVELY LITIGATED THE OC CASE FOR MANY 9 MONTHS ...................................................................................................................7 10 III. ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................9 11 A. STANDARD FOR COORDINATION ......................................................................9 MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 B. THE C.C.P. § 404.1 FACTORS HEAVILY FAVOR DENYING COORDINATION .....................................................................................................9 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 1. The Issues of Law and Fact Differ Significantly .........................................10 14 (a) The Factual Allegations in The OC Case Are Clearly Not 15 “More of The Same,” But Are Unique, Predominating and Significant ........................................................................................10 16 (b) The Facts of Plaintiff’s Case Present Unique Legal Issues ..............12 17 2. Convenience To the Parties, Witnesses and Counsel Favors Denial 18 of the Petition ...............................................................................................13 19 3. The OC Case Is Substantially Developed, Due to Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Efforts ..........................................................................................14 20 4. Coordination Will Not Result in Efficient Utilization of Resources............15 21 5. Allowing The OC Case to Proceed Poses No Risk of Duplicated 22 Efforts ...........................................................................................................16 23 6. Coordination Will Not Facilitate Settlement ................................................16 24 C. INDEPENDENTLY, LYFT’S RIGHT TO BRING THIS PETITION SHOULD BE DEEMED WAIVED OR LYFT SHOULD BE ESTOPPED 25 FROM SEEKING COORDINATION .....................................................................17 26 D. LIMITED DISCOVERY COORDINATION MAY BE APPROPRIATE..............17 27 IV. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................18 28 -2- PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LYFT’S PETITION TO COORDINATE ADD-ON CASE 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 626 ................................................................................................... passim 5 In re Credit Protection Ass’n 6 (2016) 190 F.Supp. 3d at 1342 (2016) ........................................................................................ 15 7 Mission Imports, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 921 ............................................................................................................. 13, 14 8 Outboard Marine Corp. v. Superior Court 9 (1975) 52 Cal. App. 3d 30 ........................................................................................................... 17 10 Pesses v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 107 Cal.App. 3d 117 .......................................................................................................... 5 11 MANLY STEWART FINALDI Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc. 12 (1992) 2 Cal. App. 4th 884 ........................................................................................................... 17 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LYFT’S PETITION TO COORDINATE ADD-ON CASE 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 Coordinated proceedings are intended to promote efficiency, economy, and the interests of 4 justice. They are not intended—and never should be used—as avenues for a litigant to substantively 5 participate in an individual lawsuit (while fully aware of the coordinated proceeding) when doing 6 so appeared tactically and strategically beneficial, only to petition to add-on that individual case to 7 the coordinated proceeding to escape its discovery obligations (and the imminent threat of discovery 8 sanctions) in that individual case. This is especially true where, as here, such sharp practices would 9 detrimentally prejudice that litigant’s adversary—Plaintiff, a victim of sexual assault and rape. 10 In the instant case, Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) deliberately concealed the existence of this 11 JCCP action—and its intention to move this Court to add Plaintiff’s case 1 to the JCCP action—for MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 over a year, after it formally learned of Plaintiff’s legal claims in May of 2021. During this interim 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 period, Lyft (i) purposefully delayed Plaintiff from filing her Complaint by imploring her to Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 participate in a pre-litigation mediation (that in hindsight, was doomed to fail because Lyft never 15 intended to seriously participate); (ii) actively participated in the litigation/discovery (bringing a 16 demurrer and motion for a protective order, noticing Plaintiff’s deposition, and subpoenaing 17 Plaintiff’s mental health records); (iii)stonewalled every attempt made by Plaintiff to obtain 18 discovery, forcing Plaintiff to file a Motion to Compel and request monetary sanctions 2; and (iv) 19 benefitted immensely by obtaining highly-sensitive information from Plaintiff’s verified discovery 20 responses. Then, on May 26, 2022—after months of depriving Plaintiff of any discovery 21 whatsoever, facing a sanctions motion, and having obtained substantial discovery from Plaintiff— 22 Lyft decided to “pull the ripcord” on the OC Case by filing the Petition. Of import, Lyft has failed 23 to provide any credible basis why it procrastinated, to Plaintiff’s severe detriment, in bringing this 24 Petition. 3 From Plaintiff’s perspective, the only logical explanation for Lyft’s delay is that Lyft 25 1 26 The case filed by Plaintiff against Defendants Lyft and Polo in the Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2021-01238721-CU-PO-WJC, is referred to herein as the “OC Case.” 2 27 This Motion—currently set for hearing on October 18, 2022 in the OC Case—was filed just hours before Lyft notified Plaintiff of its intention to file the instant petition for coordination (“Petition”). 3 28 Indeed, in its Petition, Lyft makes two contradictory assertions: on one hand, Lyft states that the OC Case is, on its face, “substantively identical” to all of the other cases coordinated in JCCP -4- PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LYFT’S PETITION TO COORDINATE ADD-ON CASE 1 wanted to have it both ways: to use the OC Case to obtain discovery from Plaintiff that it would be 2 barred from obtaining in the JCCP action, and then to petition to add-on Plaintiff’s case to the JCCP 3 action once it realized how devastating Plaintiff’s claims are, and once it faced sanctions for its 4 discovery misconduct. Lyft must not be allowed to improperly use the JCCP action as both a sword 5 and a shield. If Lyft truly believed this case is “substantively identical” to the other coordinated 6 cases, it surely would have filed the Petition many months ago, at the outset of the OC Case. 7 Coordinating the OC Case now—into a proceeding that has been pending for two years, in which 8 bellwether cases have already been selected and the first bellwether trial set to proceed on September 9 12, 2022, while Plaintiff is simultaneously uncovering key facts about her claims through third party 10 discovery—would be extremely prejudicial to Plaintiff and would certainly not “promote the ends 11 of justice.” Pesses v. Sup. Ct., (1980) 107 Cal.App. 3d 117, 126. MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 Fortunately for Plaintiff, even if this Court determines that Lyft did not waive any right it 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 may have had to coordinate the OC Case or, by is tactics, is estopped from seeking same, the factors Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 provided in Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) § 404.1, as discussed in Ford Motor Warranty 15 Cases, (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 626, militate in favor of denying the Petition. In fact, the only true 16 similarities between the OC Case and the cases in JCCP 5061 are that the Plaintiff was sexually 17 abused by a Lyft driver and Lyft is a named defendant. Conversely, there are numerous, significant 18 differences that warrant denial of the Petition. First, the factual foundation of Plaintiff’s Complaint 19 is unique and unlike the cases in JCCP 5061, because it centers on Lyft’s failure to verify the true 20 identity of the Lyft driver that raped Plaintiff. That failure allowed someone with a criminal record 21 to become an authorized Lyft driver under a false name—not necessarily because of Lyft’s lax 22 background checks (as generally asserted in JCCP 5061), but because of Lyft’s failure to detect that 23 the driver applicant was using a false identity. In fact, Plaintiff alleges that had Lyft run a 24 background check (even its faulty one) on the true identity of the Lyft driver who raped Plaintiff, he 25 would not have been hired. Second, the underpinnings for Plaintiff’s negligence-based legal claims 26 27 5061; on the other hand, it states that its inordinate delay in bringing the Petition was due to its 28 failure to fully grasp the allegations in the OC Case. These incongruous claims simply are not believable and should not be credited by this Court. -5- PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LYFT’S PETITION TO COORDINATE ADD-ON CASE 1 are that Lyft failed to verify the true identity of a driver applicant (who was applying under someone 2 else’s identity) and if it had not been negligent in failing to verify and detect the false identity, 3 Plaintiff would not have been raped. Third, the OC Case currently includes one named individual 4 defendant (the authorized Lyft driver who raped Plaintiff), and Plaintiff intends to name another 5 individual defendant (an apparent relative of the Lyft driver, whose identity was used to circumvent 6 Lyft’s background check). As far as can be discerned from the cases in JCCP 5061, very few even 7 include an individual named defendant, and certainly none will be asserting claims against 8 individual defendants for the scheme which allowed them to circumvent Lyft’s background check. 9 Accordingly, and as set forth in detail herein, Lyft’s Petition must be denied. 10 II. PERTINENT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 11 A. POLO—A LYFT DRIVER AND NAMED DEFENDANT—RAPED PLAINTIFF MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 This case arises from the rape suffered by Plaintiff at the hands of her Lyft driver. In August 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 of 2019, Plaintiff—who had just recently turned twenty-one years old—spent the evening with her Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 friends in Costa Mesa, California and became too intoxicated to safely drive herself home. First 15 Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ 1-2, 20-21, see Exhibit 1 to Metlitzky Declaration. As a result, 16 Plaintiff's friends opened the Lyft application on Plaintiff’s cell phone and, using Plaintiff’s Lyft 17 profile, requested a ride from Lyft to drive Plaintiff to her parents’ home. Id. The driver whom Lyft 18 assigned to transport Plaintiff was identified to Plaintiff by the first name “Raymond.” 19 Instead of taking Plaintiff to her parents' home, “Raymond” kidnapped Plaintiff and drove 20 her to his own home (approximately 25 miles away) in Fountain Valley, where he raped her in her 21 unconscious state. Id. When Plaintiff regained consciousness, she was distraught and terrified to 22 realize that she did not know where she was, that a man whom she did not recognize was lying next 23 to her, and that she was no longer wearing her clothes or underwear. Id. at ¶ 22. 24 Later that same day, after escaping from where she awakened, Plaintiff opened her Lyft 25 application to view her ride history, and immediately upon seeing the photograph of “Raymond,” 26 she recognized him as the man who was lying next to her in bed that morning. Id. To Plaintiff’s 27 horror, she then realized that, instead of driving her home, her Lyft driver had kidnapped and 28 sexually assaulted her. Id. Plaintiff immediately reported “Raymond” to the Fountain Valley Police -6- PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LYFT’S PETITION TO COORDINATE ADD-ON CASE 1 Department (“FVPD”) in Orange County, California, and to Lyft shortly thereafter. Id. at ¶¶ 24-25. 2 While conducting its criminal investigation, the FVPD made the disturbing discovery that Plaintiff’s 3 Lyft driver was not, in fact, named “Raymond,” as represented on the Lyft application. Instead, the 4 Lyft driver who kidnapped and raped Plaintiff is Rudy Ruiz Polo (“Polo”)—who is now a named 5 defendant in the OC Case. Id. at ¶ 8, 26. Further, Plaintiff has very recently learned (after the filing 6 of the FAC) that the DNA sample taken from Plaintiff during the FVPD’s rape kit examination 7 matched that of Polo. Declaration of Haley K. Aanestad (“Aanestad Decl.”) ¶ 14. 8 B. LYFT’S FAILURE TO VERIFY DEFENDANT POLO’S IDENTITY—AND HIS USE OF ANOTHER’S IDENTITY TO BECOME AN AUTHORIZED LYFT DRIVER— 9 LED TO PLAINTIFF’S RAPE 10 Plaintiff alleges that Lyft was so negligent in its vetting, hiring and supervision of Polo that 11 it entrusted its passengers to a man with a documented criminal history, who was lying about his MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 identity—a fact which Lyft failed to detect until after Plaintiff reported her sexual assault to Lyft. 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Polo applied to drive for Lyft under the false name “Raymond” Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 (whom Plaintiff believes is a relative of Polo – Raymond Alvarez-Gonzalez) because if he had 15 applied using his true name, Lyft would have deemed Polo unfit to serve as a Lyft driver and rejected 16 his application, due to Polo’s prior criminal convictions. FAC at ¶ 9. Prior to the night that he raped 17 Plaintiff, Polo already had a lengthy criminal history. 4 Plaintiff further alleges that, despite his 18 unfitness, Polo was authorized by Lyft to drive under the false name “Raymond,” because Lyft was 19 so derelict in its duty to evaluate driver applicants, and supervise its drivers, that it failed to verify 20 Polo’s identity and discover that he was lying about his true identity. Id. at ¶ 10. 21 C. LYFT HAS ACTIVELY LITIGATED THE OC CASE FOR MANY MONTHS 22 On May 25, 2021, Plaintiff formally notified Lyft, Inc. of her legal claims. Aanestad Decl. 23 ¶ 2. This notification included the allegation of rape against Lyft driver “Raymond,” the use of the 24 Lyft application to summon her Lyft driver and the occurrence of all of the factual events in Orange 25 County, in an effort to resolve her claims without the need to file a formal complaint against Lyft. 26 4 Since the time she filed her FAC, through third-party discovery, Plaintiff has learned that Polo 27 had several criminal convictions on his record at the time he applied to drive for Lyft under a false 28 name. -7- PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LYFT’S PETITION TO COORDINATE ADD-ON CASE 1 Id. Lyft responded with a request for mediation, and there was substantial delay in holding the 2 mediation because Lyft demanded that the parties use its mediator of choice. Id. at ¶ 3. 5 The 3 mediation was held on December 15, 2021. Id. at ¶ 3. Prior to mediation, Plaintiff provided Lyft 4 with information regarding Plaintiff’s claims, in a good faith effort to reach resolution. Id. at ¶ 5. In 5 stark contrast—and, in retrospect, what was the beginning of Lyft’s delay and bad faith litigation 6 tactics—Lyft refused to provide Plaintiff with any factual information either prior to or at the 7 mediation, including that Polo was driving for Lyft using the false identify of Raymond. Id. The 8 mediation failed, and Plaintiff filed her complaint on December 30, 2021. Id. at ¶ 6. Subsequent to 9 this filing, Plaintiff and Lyft began meet and confer efforts regarding the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Id. 10 at ¶ 7. Following these efforts, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint. Id. Lyft then filed a 11 Demurrer, which Plaintiff opposed. Id. at ¶ 8. In the interim, both Plaintiff and Defendant Lyft MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 propounded and responded to written discovery requests, Plaintiff noticed multiple depositions, and 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 Lyft noticed the deposition of Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 9-11. As a result of Lyft’s deficient discovery Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 responses and objections to deposition notices, Plaintiff engaged in extensive meet and confer 15 efforts and ultimately filed a Motion to Compel and request for monetary sanctions. Id. at ¶ 10. Lyft 16 subpoenaed the Plaintiff’s mental health records and filed a Motion for Protective Order. Id. at ¶¶ 17 9,12. Although Lyft has stonewalled all of Plaintiff’s efforts at discovery—refusing to produce even 18 a single document and failing to produce a PMQ deponent—Lyft was able to obtain written 19 discovery and document production from Plaintiff in the OC Case—discovery that it would have 20 been barred from obtaining, had Plaintiff’s case been added to the JCCP at the outset. Id. at ¶ 11. 21 Finally, on May 26, 2022—the same day that Plaintiff served her aforementioned Motion to 22 Compel and request for monetary sanctions—Lyft (for the very first time) stated its intent file the 23 instant Petition. Id. at ¶ 14. Three weeks later, on June 13, 2022, Lyft filed the Petition. Id. 24 Importantly, while Lyft was “slow rolling” Plaintiff into a failed mediation and then actively 25 participating in the OC Case with Plaintiff—wherein it stonewalled all of Plaintiff’s discovery 26 27 5 In fact, Plaintiff was required to obtain a tolling agreement from Lyft because of this delay to 28 retain her rights to file all claims if the mediation was unsuccessful. Aanestad Decl. ¶ 4. -8- PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LYFT’S PETITION TO COORDINATE ADD-ON CASE 1 requests—the JCCP was proceeding forward, both procedurally (choosing bellwether protocols and 2 actual bellwether cases) and in discovery (deposition and actual document production by Lyft), all 3 without Plaintiff benefitting from, or having any opportunity to participate in, such discovery. 4 Given these facts, and to prevent significant prejudice to Plaintiff, Lyft’s Petition must fail. 5 III. ARGUMENT 6 A. STANDARD FOR COORDINATION 7 Coordination is only proper where it will “promote the ends of justice,” taking into account 8 the following criteria: (1) whether the “common question” of fact or law is predominating and 9 significant to the litigation; (2) the convenience of the parties, witnesses and counsel; (3) the relative 10 development of the actions and the work product of counsel; (4) the efficient utilization of judicial 11 faculties and manpower; (5) the calendar of the respective courts; (6) the disadvantages of MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders or judgments; and (7) the likelihood of settlement of the 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 actions without further litigation should coordination be denied. C.C.P. § 404.1 (emphasis added). Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 As noted below, here, the analysis of each factor weighs in favor of denying coordination of 15 the OC Case or, at best, is neutral to the decision. In fact, applying the factors to the OC Case 16 demonstrates that granting the Petition would fall far short of “promot[ing] the ends of justice” as 17 required by the statute, and would instead achieve the opposite - extreme prejudice to Plaintiff. 18 B. THE C.C.P. § 404.1 FACTORS HEAVILY FAVOR DENYING COORDINATION 19 Lyft’s broad brush, one-size-fits-all Petition overlooks and/or intentionally ignores the 20 specific factual allegations of the OC Case while merely repeating its simplistic mantra that 21 Plaintiff’s case is merely “more of the same.” See Lyft’s Petition to Coordinate (“Pet.”) at 2. Lyft’s 22 Petition must be denied based on the particular and distinguishing features between the OC Case 23 and the JCCP which makes the OC Case unsuitable for coordination. Put simply, the OC Case is 24 significantly different from all the other cases in the JCCP. Independently, denial is required 25 because of Lyft’s intentional actions (a) prejudicially delaying the filing of the Petition combined 26 with (b) its active and substantive participation in the OC Case – resulted in Lyft waiving any right 27 it may have had to coordinate it or, at minimum, being legally estopped from seeking coordination. 28 -9- PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LYFT’S PETITION TO COORDINATE ADD-ON CASE 1 1. The Issues of Law and Fact Differ Significantly 2 At its core, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendant Polo applied to drive for Lyft under 3 a false identity and Lyft failed to discover his use of a false identity. Lyft’s culpability and 4 negligence in failing to verify and prevent this use of a false identity and the subsequent assault of 5 Plaintiff is therefore a novel issue not shared by any action in the JCCP. While Plaintiff has not had 6 the opportunity to thoroughly review each complaint that comprises the JCCP, Plaintiff has 7 reviewed each of the scheduled bellwether cases scheduled for trial and, in addition, has not been 8 made aware of a single complaint that alleges a similar element of Lyft’s failure to verify the true 9 identity of a driver applicant, that driver’s false identity allowing someone with a criminal 10 background to become an authorized Lyft driver, and that Lyft driver going on to commit a rape 11 while transporting a member of the general public. Plaintiff is entitled to discover the facts MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 surrounding how Defendant Polo came to become an authorized driver for Lyft, and she should not 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 be deprived of this opportunity by being merged into the JCCP – where no other case will address Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 the fundamental issues raised in her case. Due to the novel issue of Polo’s use of a false identity 15 while driving for Lyft, the questions of law and fact are far beyond the mere “scope and extent of 16 Lyft’s duty to its passengers” and the causes of action in the Plaintiff FAC are not merely more of 17 the same. 18 (a) The Factual Allegations in The OC Case Are Clearly Not “More of The Same,” But Are Unique, Predominating and Significant 19 In order to grant Lyft’s Petition, this Court must determine, amongst other things, that the 20 Plaintiff’s case is simply “more of the same.” Based on the unique issues of fact present in Plaintiff’s 21 case, this Court cannot and should not make such a determination. In Ford Motors Warranty Cases, 22 the court ruled in favor of the defendant’s petition because the add-on cases were “substantively no 23 different than those in the original coordination order.” 11 Cal.App.5th at 638. 24 Here, there are clear differences that make clear that the OC Case does not include factual 25 allegations that are more of the same but rather contain novel issues of fact that weigh heavily 26 against coordination. The Honorable Judge Freeman outlined the common questions of fact 27 contained in this JCCP broadly as whether Lyft adequately addressed the ongoing sexual assault 28 -10- PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LYFT’S PETITION TO COORDINATE ADD-ON CASE 1 problem posed by sexual predators driving for Lyft. This would include facts surrounding Lyft’s 2 hiring practices, Lyft’s handling of drivers who act inappropriately and its driver monitoring and 3 surveillance. Court’s Ruling and Order Re: Petition for Coordination, p.6 (January 17, 2020). 4 While these facts are interesting and generally relevant to the OC Case, they are not the crux 5 of the Plaintiff’s claims. Rather, the predominating and significant facts alleged in the OC Case 6 actually distinguish it from all the other cases in the JCCP: 7 (i) Lyft Failed to Verify the Driver’s Identity and Ran Its Background Check On The Wrong Person—Not Polo 8 First, Plaintiff is alleging that her rapist, Defendant Polo, was able to circumvent Lyft’s 9 background check by simply applying to be a Lyft driver under someone else’s identity (Raymond 10 Alvarez Gonzalez). Importantly, and distinguishing the OC Case from the other coordinated cases 11 MANLY STEWART FINALDI which allege that Lyft’s background checks are generally faulty, (which they are), Plaintiff is 12 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 alleging that if Lyft had simply run its faulty background check on the correct person, Defendant 13 Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 Polo would not have been hired in the first instance and Plaintiff would not have been raped. 14 Upon review of the complaints for four cases currently selected as bellwether cases, it is 15 clear on their face that none of these four Plaintiffs are alleging that the Lyft driver who committed 16 the assault was able to circumvent Lyft’s background check system by simply pretending to be 17 someone else. Plaintiff has already begun propounding significant discovery in the OC Case on this 18 particular, and novel, question of fact. To aggregate Plaintiff’s claims with this coordinated 19 proceeding under the guise that they are “more of the same,” would be ignoring these important and 20 meaningful differences. 21 (ii) The OC Case Includes Individual Named Defendant(s) 22 Second, based on the information Plaintiff was able to obtain from the coordinated 23 proceedings, it appears that the vast majority of the coordinated cases name Lyft as the sole named 24 defendant. Not one of the selected bellwether cases names a defendant other than Lyft. Currently, 25 the OC Case includes individual claims against her perpetrator, Defendant Polo. In addition, 26 Plaintiff intends to add Polo’s alleged relative, Raymond Alvarez-Gonzales as an additional 27 individual defendant. Further, Plaintiff intends to propound fact specific discovery on the individual 28 -11- PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LYFT’S PETITION TO COORDINATE ADD-ON CASE 1 defendants to better understand Lyft’s failures and negligence in failing to verify the identity of Polo 2 during his application process. The fact that Defendant Polo is a named defendant in the Plaintiff’s 3 case alone is a complicating fact and differentiates the OC case from the JCCP. 4 (b) The Facts of Plaintiff’s Case Present Unique Legal Issues 5 In addition to describing the common factual issues amongst all cases in the coordination, 6 Judge Freeman outlined the common legal questions by stating: 7 An overriding issue in these cases will be whether the Lyft drivers are independent contractors or employees. This issue will likely require significant time to resolve at trial. 8 Other issues will involve the technological feasibility of implementing additional safety features, causation, and challenges to the basis for vicarious liability for the intentional torts 9 of Lyft drivers. 10 Ruling and Order Re Petition for Coordination at 4. While those legal questions may be somewhat 11 related to those alleged in the OC Case, they do not predominate over the distinguishing element MANLY STEWART FINALDI 12 that permeates every one of Plaintiff’s causes of action: false identity. In fact, it appears that 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 13 Plaintiff’s allegation that had Lyft run a background check (using its current technology) on the true Telephone (949) 252-9990 Irvine, California 92612 14 identity of the Lyft driver who raped Plaintiff, he would not been hired is actually in contrast to the 15 common legal questions listed in the coordination order (“other issues . . . involve the technological 16 feasibility of implementing additional safety features"). In support of the claim that Plaintiff’s FAC 17 contains overlapping allegations, identical legal theories, and the same causes of action as the JCCP 18 cases, Lyft provides a compilation of four separately filed complaints by plaintiffs who have already 19 been coordinated in this JCCP, claiming that each one of Plaintiff’s causes of action is accounted 20 for across the four complaints. See Pet. at 2, 4; see also Metlitzky Dec., Ex. 2. Plaintiff alleges eleven 21 separate causes of action against Lyft, including claims of Negligent Undertaking and Unfair 22 Business Practices. Of course, there is some natural overlap considering the nature of all of these 23 cases involve a sexual assault by a Lyft driver, but there is nowhere near a “perfect overlap” as 24 suggested in Lyft’s Petition. See Pet. at 4. Significantly, none of the complaints cited by Lyft 25 specifically allege Negligent Undertaking or Unfair Business Practices. More importantly, not a 26 single complaint cited by Lyft alleges the distinct element of false identity that is the crux of 27 Plaintiff’s Complaint. The fact is that the allegation of Polo driving under the false identity of 28 “Raymond” is included in every one of the Plaintiff’s causes of action. Therefore, this is an inherent -12- PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LYFT’S PETITION TO COORDINATE ADD-ON CASE 1 and distinctive legal issue in the OC Case compared to the JCCP. 2 Indeed, it is important to note that even if there is some overlap in legal issues, this Court 3 may stilldeny coordination/add-on when the similarities between the cases – as here – do not 4 predominate. As noted in Ford Motors, a court may reject an add-on petition when there is a 5 “distinguishing feature.” Conveniently, but not surprisingly, Lyft’s Petition completely refuses to 6 acknowledge/admit the many distinguishing features (both factual and legal) in the OC Case, 7 including the distinct legal issue of false identity. See Ford Motors, 11 Cal.App.5th at 646. 8 2. Convenience To the Parties, Witnesses and Counsel Favors Denial of the Petition 9 Plaintiff is entitled to bring her action against Lyft in the county where the liability arose. 10