Motion for Forum Non Conveniens in INDIA MATHESON VS. LYFT, INC. ET AL| Trellis.Law

On August 01, 2019 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Matheson, India, and Does 1 To 50 Inclusive, Lyft, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, for PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
1 WARREN METLITZKY (CA Bar No. 220758)
ELLEN M. RICHMOND (CA Bar No. 277266)
2 ELECTRONICALLY
WILLIAM J. COOPER (CA Bar No. 304524)
COURTNEY C. AASEN (CA Bar No. 307404) F I L E D
3 CONRAD & METLITZKY LLP Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
4 San Francisco, CA 94111 09/04/2019
Tel: (415) 343-7100 Clerk of the Court
BY: MADONNA CARANTO
5 Fax: (415) 343-7101 Deputy Clerk
Email: wmetlitzky@conradmetlitzky.com
6 Email: erichmond@conradmetlitzky.com
Email: wcooper@conradmetlitzky.com
7 Email: caasen@conradmetlitzky.com
8 Attorneys for Defendant LYFT, INC.
9

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

11 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

12 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

14 INDIA MATHESON, an individual, CASE NO. CGC-19-578123
15 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF WARREN
METLITZKY IN SUPPORT OF LYFT’S
16 v. MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY
BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS
17 LYFT, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Date: October 2, 2019
18 Time: 9:30 a.m.
Place: 400 McAllister Street
19 Defendants. Dept. 302
San Francisco, CA 94102
20
Reservation #: 009041002-03
21
Action Filed: August 1, 2019
22

CASE NO. CGC-19-578123 DECLARATION OF WARREN METLITZKY
1 I, Warren Metlitzky, declare as follows:

2 1. I am an attorney in good standing licensed to practice in the State of California and am

3 over the age of 18. I am counsel for defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) in this action. Except as otherwise

4 indicated, the following facts are known to me personally, and if called upon as a witness, I could testify

5 to them competently.

6 2. Lyft is a transportation network company that runs a software platform connecting people

7 offering rides to those seeking them. Drivers who wish to use Lyft’s platform must (among other

8 things) register with Lyft, pass background checks, and agree to Lyft’s Terms of Service. Once

9 approved to drive on the Lyft platform, drivers may use the platform to offer rides, or not, whenever and

10 wherever they choose.

11 3. Attached as Exhibit A to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Complaint in

12 this action.

13 4. If this case is dismissed in favor of litigation in the State of Washington or another

14 appropriate venue agreed upon by the parties, Lyft will agree to toll the applicable statutes of limitations

15 for the time this action is pending against Lyft in California and, if necessary, for 30 days after dismissal

16 of this currently pending San Francisco Superior Court action in order to provide Plaintiff a reasonable

17 opportunity to re-file in the jurisdiction where the incident occurred.

18 5. The following information relates to the identity and residence of persons known to be

19 parties to this action or otherwise percipient witnesses to the matters raised by the Complaint in this

20 action and a description of the matters upon which they are anticipated to testify:

21 a. Plaintiff resides in Seattle, Washington. (See Compl. ¶ 49.) Plaintiff is expected to

22 testify about the alleged incident described in the Complaint, as well as the events

23 leading up to it and the damages she claims to have sustained as a result.

24 b. Saed Elmi is the driver who Plaintiff alleges assaulted her. He is a Washington

25 resident. My office’s investigation confirms Plaintiff’s allegation that Elmi was

26 charged with criminal conduct related to the alleged incident by the State of

27 Washington. (See Compl. ¶ 44.) He is expected to testify about the ride and

28 subsequent events that Plaintiff alleges culminated in the alleged incident.
-2-
CASE NO. CGC-19-578123 DECLARATION OF WARREN METLITZKY
1 c. Plaintiff’s Complaint describes friends who accompanied her on the night of the

2 alleged incident giving rise to her claims in this action. (See Compl. ¶ 37.) Upon

3 information and belief, these friends reside in Washington. They and other percipient

4 witnesses who interacted with Plaintiff on the night of the alleged incident are

5 expected to testify about the events preceding it.

6 d. Upon information and belief, the police officers or other law enforcement

7 professionals who investigated the alleged incident reside in Washington. (See

8 Compl. ¶¶ 43-44.) Those witnesses are expected to testify about their investigation.

9 e. Because Plaintiff resides in Washington, persons familiar with her daily life since the

10 alleged incident—including her fiancé, Brandon Reed, as well as friends, family,

11 employers, and any medical or psychological professionals who have treated

12 Plaintiff—likely also reside in Washington. Those persons are expected to testify

13 about, and may possess records regarding, Plaintiff’s claimed damages.

14 6. Because no discovery has been conducted, there are likely other witnesses in Washington

15 that have not yet been identified but who may be necessary percipient witnesses on behalf of either

16 party.

17 7. This case is one of multiple cases of alleged assault or sexual misconduct occurring

18 outside of California that Plaintiff’s counsel, Levin Simes Abrams LLP, has filed against Lyft. Most of

19 these cases involve out-of-state incidents allegedly committed by out-of-state drivers against out-of-state

20 plaintiffs.

21 8. Plaintiff’s counsel has filed other complaints against Lyft in the last few weeks. Those

22 include:

23 a. Jane Doe 1 v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578124, filed August 1,

24 2019, based on an alleged incident in Louisiana.

25 b. Jane Doe 2 v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578122, filed August 1,

26 2019, based on an alleged incident in Michigan.

27 c. Jane Doe 3 v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578278, filed August 8,

28 2019, based on an alleged incident in Washington.
-3-
CASE NO. CGC-19-578123 DECLARATION OF WARREN METLITZKY
1 d. Hardin v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-57820, filed August 8, 2019,

2 based on an alleged incident in Virginia.

3 e. Espinosa v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578282, filed August 8,

4 2019, based on an alleged incident in Florida.

5 f. Jane Doe 4 v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578286, filed August 8,

6 2019, based on an alleged incident in California.

7 g. Nan v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578640, filed August 23, 2019,

8 based on an alleged incident in New York.

9 h. Berquist v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578643, filed August 23,

10 2019, based on an alleged incident in Minnesota.

11 i. Bicana v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578645, filed August 23,

12 2019, based on an alleged incident in Wisconsin.

13 j. Kran v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578647, filed August 23, 2019,

14 based on an alleged incident in Ohio.

15 k. Jane Doe 5 v. Lyft, Inc., et al., S.F. Super. Ct. No. CGC-19-578878, filed August 30,

16 2019, based on an alleged incident in California involving a California resident.

17 l. DiTrani v. Lyft, Inc. et al., S.F. Superior Ct. No. CGC-19-578933, filed September 3,

18 2019, based on an alleged incident in California involving a California resident.

19 9. In the above complaints brought on behalf of “Jane Doe” plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ counsel

20 has promised that it will “continue to file numerous” similar cases.

21 10. In media articles regarding the filings of some of the cases identified above, Plaintiffs’

22 counsel, Laurel Simes, is quoted as saying “Right now, we have over 100 cases between Lyft and Uber.

23 We’re getting new cases every day.”

24 11. Attached as Exhibit B to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Judicial Council

25 of California form entitled Commission To Take Deposition Outside California pursuant to Code of

26 Civil Procedure section 2026.010, which the parties would need to file in order to initiate requests for

27 out-of-state discovery if this case were to remain in this Court.

28
-4-
CASE NO. CGC-19-578123 DECLARATION OF WARREN METLITZKY
Exhibit A
\_

1 Laurel L. Simes (SBN #134637)
Rachel Abrams (SBN #209316)
2 Meghan E. McCormick (SBN #283853)
LEVIN SIMES ABRAMS LLP
3 1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 250 �WJ(6; (!)) 1l
2lIDfi9l
San Francisco, California 94111
4 Telephone: (415) 426-3000 Cl����.URT
Facsimile: (415) 426-3001
Email: llsimes(ddevinsimes.com BJr:�4-
5 IDeputjfCletk
Email: rabrams(t:l11evinsimes.corn
6 Email: mrncconnick(q),levinsimes.com

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF SAN F�.Q 1g-57 i3 12
India Matheson, an individual, Case No. _____
3
1o
11 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND
FOR JURY TRIAL
V.
l. GENERAL NEGLIGENCE
13 LYFT, INC.; a Delaware Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, 2. NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION,
AND SUPERVISION
Defendants. 3. COMMON CARRIER NEGLIGENCE
4. NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN
5. VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR SEXUAL
ASSAULT
6. INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
18 7. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
19 8. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
20
9. BREACH OF CONTRACT
21 10. PUNITIVE DAMAGES

22
23 Plaintiff INDIA MATHESON ("Plaintiff') alleges causes of action against LYFT, INC.
24 ("LYFT"), a corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California, and
25 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, and complains and alleges as follows:
26 FACTUAL OVERVIEW OF ALLEGATIONS
27 1. LYFT is a transportation company headquartered in San Francisco, California and
28 is one of the fastest growing companies in the United States. At least as early as 2015, LYFT

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
/

1 became aware thatLYFT drivers were sexually assaulting and raping female customers. Since
2 2015, sexual predators driving forLYFT have continued to assault and rapeLYFT's female
3 passengers. For four years,LYFT has known of the ongoing sexual assaults and rapes byLYFT
4 drivers uponLYFT customers. Complaints toLYFT by female customers who have been attacked
5 byLYFT drivers, combined with subsequent criminal investigations by law enforcement, clearly
6 establish thatLYFT has been fully aware of these continuing attacks by sexual predators driving
7 forLYFT.
8 2. LYFT's response to this sexual predator crisis amongstLYFT drivers has
9 been appallingly inadequate. LYFT continues to hire drivers without performing adequate
10 background checks. LYFT continues to allow culpable drivers to keep driving forLYFT. And,
11 perhaps most importantly,LYFT has failed to adopt and implement reasonable driver monitoring
12 procedures desi gned to protect the safety of its passengers. As a consequence, LYFT passengers
13 continue to be victims of sexual assaults and rapes byLYFT drivers.
3. On or about June 18, 2017, Plaintiff INDIA MATHESON contracted withLYFT to
15 take her home after a night spent celebrating with friends. The driver thatLYFT sent instead
16 harassed, stalked, and assaulted INDIA MATHESON at her residence. The assault was reported
17 toLYFT and the police. TheLYFT driver was later charged with assault with sexual motivation
18 in September of 2018.
19 4. Unfortunately, there have been many other sexual assaults much worse than the one
20 suffered by Plaintiff where victims have been attacked and traumatized after they simply
21 contracted withLYFT for a safe ride home.
22 5. Passengers payLYFT a fee in exchange for safe passage to their destination.
23 LYFT's public representations state that "safety is our top priority" and "it is our goal to make
24 every ride safe, comfortable and reliable". Sadly, LYFT's priority is not passenger safety. Profits
25 areLYFT's priority. As a result, INDIA MATHESON and other female passengers continue to be
26 attacked by sexual predators driving forLYFT.
27 6. When faced with this sexual predator crisis, there are a number of potential safety
28 procedures that a reasonable transportation company would implement in order to address this

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 dangerous situation. Yet, LYFT corporate management has failed to implement the most obvious
2 and straightforward safety procedures in order to address the growing problem of sexual assault by
3 those LYFT drivers who are sexual predators.
4 7. Corporate decision-making with respect to passenger safety issues is centered at
5 L YFT's corporate headquarters in San Francisco. Decisions with respect to the vetting of LYFT
6 drivers and the supervision of LYFT driver's vis a vis the safety of its passengers are made and
7 implemented in its San Francisco headquarters. L YFT's contract with LYFT customers specifies
8 that the agreement should be governed by California law.
9 INADEQUATE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND INADEQUATE SCREENING
10 8. Even today, the hiring of LYFT drivers occurs without any real screening.

p... 11 Potential drivers merely fill out a form online. There is no interview either in person or through

[/)
0
"'
N=8
-
.E
12 online Skype. There is no adequate background check and no biometric fingerprinting. Almost
::E
� ·2:;;:
so- <'"I

i:Q
: -� �
% 0
�
-
13 all online applicants become drivers. Once a LYFT applicant becomes a driver, LYFT fails to
Ti
c. 15 the camera running during the entire ride and that the driver remains on course to the passenger's
r.1)1:§8
�at:�
z O C -0 16 destination. LYFT does not have a zero-tolerance policy for sexual misconduct and has allowed
H
p,--"
O O
V)
N
"'
"":
:;;:
.....:l 17 drivers who have been reported for misconduct to continue driving. LYFT does not require non
18 harassment training, nor does it adequately investigate customer complaints of sexually
19 inappropriate behavior or serious sexual assaults. Shockingly, a chatroom of rideshare drivers
20 exists where they openly discuss and brag about the access that they have to "hot" young women.
21 Notwithstanding LYFT's history of hiring sexual predators who have assaulted LYFT passengers,
22 and notwithstanding the obvious and open subculture of LYFT drivers who harbor a sexual
23 motivation for driving young female passengers, LYFT does nothing to warn its female
24 passengers about this very serious and real danger.
25 LYFT'S FINANCIAL MODEL
26 9. The key to LYFT' s business model is getting as many new LYFT drivers on the
27 road as possible. The more drivers, the more rides, the more money LYFT makes. Unfortunately,
28 more careful screening and supervision would result in fewer drivers and lower profits.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
\

1 giving honest negative feedback could negatively impact their passenger star rating - or result in
2 retaliation from the driver.
3 NO MONITORING OF RIDES
4 19. Given LYFT' s knowledge of the sexual assaults and rapes of its customers by
5 LYFT drivers, the company should have implemented a monitoring system in order to protect its
6 passengers. As a technology company with access to a state-of-the-art in-app tracking system, as
7 well as a camera within the required mobile device, LYFT could take the following steps towards
8 the elimination of the sexual assaults by LYFT drivers:
9 • Adopt a zero-tolerance policy for improper conduct and inform all drivers
10 of the policy;

p... 11 • Maintain a surveillance camera and rules requiring its continuing operation
,-.:i
�= 8
,-.:i .E
during all rides;
- .... 12
0
VJ
� (I) -
.
(")

·5 0,.
V) 0 �
....13 • Inform all drivers that if they turn off the surveillance system during a
i=Q
i "Eu-;
-
�
(I)0
--.:-
�
V)0
c:-U
•
14 LYFT ride, they will never drive for LYFT again;
VJ ID

� � ci §
� 0
0>
� .c::
Ti n. 15 • Inform drivers that they may not leave the car and accompany a passenger
C § 8
z
(/)
���
0
o
C
O
-,0
N 16 to their home or to any other location outside the vehicle, other than to
r--. V')
-..r:
� ....17 provide temporary and time-limited assistance to a passenger;
....:i
18 • Modify the functionality of the app so that LYFT can determine
19 immediately if a driver deviates from these protocols;
20 20. The ongoing sexual attacks by LYFT drivers are and have long been known to
21 LYFT. Prior to Plaintiffs assault, LYFT has known that a consequence of its business model has
22 been exposing women, who are using the business for a safe ride home after a night of drinking, to
23 drivers that may take advantage of their vulnerable position. Despite being a company that holds
24 itself out to the public as being engaged in the safe transportation of its customers from place to
25 place for compensation, LYFT has failed to take any reasonable precautions to attempt to prevent
26 harm to its passengers.
27 21. At the time of the actions alleged in this complaint LYFT was aware of the
28 established occurrence of sexual assault of its female passengers by its drivers but failed to take

5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 any reasonable action to protect its passengers from these assaults and violations.
2 MISREPRESENTATIONS AS TO SAFETY
3 22. In addition to inadequate background check procedures, LYFT affirmatively induces
4 passengers, particularly young, unaccompanied, intoxicated, and/or vulnerable women, to use its
5 services with the expectation of safety, while LYFT simultaneously knows that sexual abuse of its
6 passengers has been prevalent.
7 23. In February 2015, LYFT's website posted a blog post announcing it had partnered
8 with It's On Us, an anti-sexual assault initiative, and offered free ride credits for new Lyft
9 passengers during the Spring Break season, "making it easier to get a safe ride home even if
10 you're in a new city." In November 2016, L YFT's website posted a blog post entitled "Get Home
11 Safely with Lyft," again touting its partnership with It's On Us and offering college students free
� X

� � ;:: � 12 LYFT rides so that they "don't need to worry about finding a safe ride after going out." The
;:s 2:;;:"l
� � '.g � 13 insinuation of these articles is that LYFT prevents, and does not create, the risk of sexual assault.
� �

H
- :;;:.,;
"V
t--.. u,

j 17 attacked, stalked, raped or worse by LYFT's drivers.
18 24. Further, LYFT does not report statistics about sexual harassment or sexual assault
19 by its drivers. LYFT does not disclose its policies or procedures on dealing with sexual assault by
20 its drivers. LYFT does not properly train its customer service representatives on how to deal with
21 serious allegations of driver misconduct. As a result, passengers who report sexual abuse by a
22 driver have been later matched with the same driver, and dangerous drivers continue to drive with
23 LYFT and assault passengers while LYFT profits from their actions. At the time of Plaintiffs
24 attack, L YFT's guidelines for their drivers made no mention of sexual harassment or assault
25 guidelines.
26 25. In short, LYFT fails to follow reasonable safety procedures and intentionally
27 induces customers to use LYFT's services while in a vulnerable state. As a result, Plaintiff and
28 women like her are sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by LYFT's drivers.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
\

1 LYFT'S BACKGROUND CHECKS
2 26. LYFT relies on a quick, name-based background check process to screen its
3 applicant drivers and has continuously refused to adopt an industry-standard, fingerprint-based
4 background check qualification process.
5 27. LYFT's background check process requires drivers to submit personal identifiers
6 (driver's license and social security number) through an online webpage. LYFT, in tum, provides
7 this information to third party vendors to perform a basic, name-based background check.
8 28. Neither LYFT nor the third-party vendors it uses for background checks verifies
9 that the information provided by applicants is accurate or complete. The turnaround time for a
10 LYFT background check is typically between 3-5 days.
11 29. The difference between name-based background checks and fingerprint-based
12 background checks is significant. While a name-based background check searches the applicant's
reported name against various databases and compares records that have the same name, a
14 fingerprint-based background check (or biometric check) uses the fingerprints of the individual to
15 match against a law enforcement database, comparing records that have the same print, even if the
16 names are different.
30. For example, most prospective taxi drivers are required by the taxicab companies to
18 undergo criminal background checks that require the driver to submit fingerprints through a
19 technology called "Live Scan." The fingerprint images are used to automatically search against all
20 other fingerprint images in government criminal record databases, including databases maintained
21 by state law enforcement and the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation (FBI). The FBI's database
22 includes criminal record information from all 50 states, including sex offender registries. If a
23 person has a criminal history anywhere in the U.S., it will register as a match.
24 31. Fingerprints are not only a highly accurate way to confirm an individual's identity,
25 they are also universally used among state and federal government agencies. This allows for the
26 highest levels of information-sharing among all relevant agencies - an element that is lacking
27 when fingerprints are not used to verify identities.
28 32. Because of the unique identifying characteristics of fingerprints, the Live Scan

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 process provides assurance that the person whose criminal history has been run is, in fact, the
2 applicant. This would ensure that a convicted rapist or sexual predator could not use a false
3 identification to become a L YFT driver.
4 33. Name-based background checks, on the other hand, are limited and not easily
5 shared among the appropriate authorities. These name-based criminal background checks are
6 performed on publicly available databases and records from county courthouses, which are not
7 linked to each other and typically do not go back past seven years. Because the FBI database is not
8 accessed, there is no true national search performed, making these searches incomplete, limited
9 and inaccurate.
10 34. Name-based background checks present systematic, fundamental problems. First,
11 there is no way to positively identify a person via a biometric indicator, increasing the likelihood
12 of fraud. Likewise, because names, addresses and birthdays are not unique, the likelihood of false
13 positives (a person linked in error with another's record) and false negatives (someone getting
14 cleared when they should not) are greatly increased. For example, if an individual changes her
15 name, or for some other reason has a criminal history under a different name, the name-based
16 checks can miss the individual's criminal history.
35. L YFT has refused to adopt fingerprint-based biometric checks and has in fact spent
18 millions of dollars lobbying against local regulations requiring these checks.
19 36. Despite advertising to passengers that "Your safety is important" and "Safety is our
20 top priority," L YFT's background check process is designed for speed, not safety. In refusing to
21 adopt reasonable safety procedures, LYFT makes clear that its priority is profit, not passenger
22 safety.
23 THE ATTACK UPON PLAINTIFF
24 37. On the evening of June 18, 2017, Plaintiff INDIA MATHESON went out with
25 friends. She ordered a ride home using the LYFT app in order to get her safely home.
26 38. The L YFT application assigned the ride to "Saed" ("LYFT DRIVER").
27 39. Almost immediately upon entering the car, LYFT DRIVER began acting in an
28 inappropriate and harassing manner. He had a box of condoms in the back of his car and

8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
\

1 repeatedly offered them to Plaintiff despite her telling him she did not want them. LYFT
2 DRIVER's disturbing and harassing conduct continued for the duration of the ride.
3 40. When they finally arrived at Plaintiffs home, LYFT DRIVER exited the car and
4 began following Plaintiff up the walkway and the stairs to her apartment. Plaintiff immediately
5 and repeatedly told him to leave while waving him away, continuously yelling, "NO!" and "Go
6 back to your car!" The driver continued to pursue Plaintiff as she arrived at her front door, forcing
7 Plaintiff to resort to physical shoves in an attempt to keep him away from her. Unfortunately, this
8 did not deter LYFT DRIVER, and only resulted in him repeatedly grabbing her hands and arms as
9 he refused to leave her doorstep. There, LYFT DRIVER continued behaving suggestively and
10 grabbing his genitalia, saying, "See this? Want to suck this?" His conduct placed Plaintiff in great
11 fear for her safety.
41. Plaintiff attempted to enter her home and, only after continuing to fight him off and
13 eventually invoking her roommate, was she finally able to get LYFT DRIVER to leave. Before he
14 left, however, he intentionally and forcefully hit Plaintiff on her buttocks without her consent,
15 violating her personal sense of safety and dignity.
42. Plaintiff quickly entered her home and locked the door. LYFT DRIVER later
17 returned to Plaintiffs home at around 3 :00 in the morning, trying the front door to see if it was
18 unlocked, knocking on the door and waiting around outside.
19 43. Upon reviewing her Nest doorbell camera footage the next morning and learning
20 that LYFT DRIVER had returned to her home, Plaintiff reported the assault to LYFT and the
21 police.
22 44. L YFT DRIVER was criminally charged with and convicted of assault with sexual
23 motivation based on the events described herein.
24 45. Defendant LYFT collected and retained a fee for Plaintiffs LYFT trip that resulted
25 in her being sexually harassed, assaulted and stalked.
26 46. By failing to take reasonable steps to confront the problem of multiple rapes and
27 sexual assaults of LYFT passengers by LYFT drivers, LYFT has acted in conscious disregard of
28 the safety of its passengers, including Plaintiff, and has breached its duty of reasonable care and

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
:::1
\

1 has breached the implied and express covenants arising from its contract with its passengers.
2 47. LYFT is legally responsible for the harm to Plaintiff under a number of legal
3 theories including vicarious liability for the intentional acts of its employees (battery and assault)
4 basic negligence for failing to act with reasonable care when faced with multiple and ongoing
5 attacks by its drivers, breach of the non-delegable duty of a transportation company to provide safe
6 passage to its passengers, punitive damages for the conscious disregard of the safety of its female
7 passengers, intentional and negligent misrepresentations and breaches of contract, and express and
8 implied covenants arising out of its commercial contracts with its passengers, including Plaintiff.
9 PARTIES
10 48. Defendant LYFT is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business at
11 185 Berry Street, San Francisco, California. San Francisco is the center of Corporate decision-

�=8
J2
Cf)
0
12 making with respect to the hiring and supervision of LYFT drivers, safety precautions, passenger
� 2 �
·so--"1
�
....: ·c
V) 0 "'
l.()
13 safety, as well as decision-making with respect to LYFT's response to the ongoing sexual attacks
(1)0 ,-
���
�u
0
14 upon LYFT passengers.
w
QJ
QJ
E c5C:
0
U
� 0 �
0) u
- C:
0
..c:
15 49. INDIA MATHESON, an adult woman and resident of the state of Washington, was
C:0 D

z ���
0
o
C
O
'{}
N
t--.. U')
�
16 a LYFT passenger who was sexually harassed, assaulted and stalked by the LYFT driver who
w 17 drove her home in Seattle on the night of June 18, 2017 .
18 50. The true names and capacities, whether individual, plural, corporate, partnership,
19 associate, or otherwise, of DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore
20 sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. The full extent of the facts linking such fictitiously
21 sued Defendants is unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges,
22 that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE was, and is, negligent, or in some other
23 actionable manner, responsible for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby
24 negligently, or in some other actionable manner, legally caused the hereinafter described injuries
25 and damages to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will hereafter seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint
26 to show the Defendants' true names and capacities after the same have been ascertained.
27 51. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times herein
28 mentioned, each of the defendants herein was the agent, servant, licensee, employee, assistant,

10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
/

1 consultant, or alter ego, of each of the remaining defendants, and was at all times herein

2 mentioned acting within the course and scope of said relationship when Plaintiff was injured as set

3 forth herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each and every defendant, when acting as a

4 principal, was negligent in the selection, hiring, supervision or retention of each and every other

5 defendant as an agent, servant, employee, assistant, or consultant. Plaintiff is further informed and

6 believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned, each business, public entity or

7 corporate employer, through its officers, directors, supervisors and managing agents, and each

8 individual defendant, had advance knowledge of the wrongful conduct, psychological profile, and

9 behavior propensity of said agents, servants, licensees, employees, assistants, consultants, and

10 alter egos, and allowed said wrongful conduct to occur and continue to occur, thereby ratifying

P.. 11 said wrongful conduct, and, after becoming aware of their wrongful conduct, each public entity,
H
.E
� � - 0 12 and corporate defendant by and through its officers, directors, supervisors and managing agents,
� 2 � �
� :i
i:o
�
�.§:;;:
13 and each individual defendant, authorized and ratified the wrongful conduct herein alleged.
v; 0
--IC§g r
(/) �il:g
Z g § � 16 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
:> -
>--1
r-..... V') "'q'
cti

j :;;:17 53. The San Francisco Superior Court has jurisdiction over LYFT because it is a
18 corporation with its principal place of business is located in San Francisco, in the State of
19 California, L YFT is authorized to do business in the State of California and registered with the

20 California Secretary of State. LYFT has its primary place of business in San Francisco and

21 intentionally avails itself of the benefits and protection of California law such that the exercise of

22 jurisdiction over it by the California courts is consistent with traditional notions of fair play and

23 substantial justice. And, LYFT's user agreement states, "this Agreement shall be governed by the

24 laws of the State of California ... " Damages in this case exceed $25,000.
25 54. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §395

26 in that Defendant LYFT resides in and maintains its principal place of business in San Francisco,

Case Info

Judge

Garrett L. Wong Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

September 04, 2019

Case Filing Date

August 01, 2019

County

Parties

DOES 1 TO 50 INCLUSIVE Defendant
LYFT, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION Defendant
MATHESON, INDIA Plaintiff
METLITZKY, WARREN Attorney for the Defendant
SIMES, LAUREL LISA Attorney for the Plaintiff
Gabriela Kipnis Attorneys for Defendants
William Cooper Attorneys for Defendants
Rachel Abrams Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Meghan McCormick Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ellen Richmond Attorneys for Defendants
Brett Stewart Attorneys for Defendants
Antonia Reyes Attorneys for Defendants
Jennifer Huber Attorneys for Defendants
Nicholas Marais Attorneys for Defendants
Gavin Thole Attorneys for Defendants
Courtney Aasen Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: INDIA MATHESON VS. LYFT, INC. ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties