arrow left
arrow right
  • IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES COORDINATION document preview
  • IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES COORDINATION document preview
  • IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES COORDINATION document preview
  • IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES COORDINATION document preview
  • IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES COORDINATION document preview
  • IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES COORDINATION document preview
  • IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES COORDINATION document preview
  • IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES COORDINATION document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                John Eddie Williams, Jr.
                                  John Boundas
                   1
                                  Brian Abramson
                   2              Margret Lecocke
                                                                                                                 ELECTRONICALLY
                                  Walt Cubberly (SBN: 325163)
                   3              WILLIAMS HART & BOUNDAS, LLP                                                      F  I  L   E  D
                                                                                                                 Superior Court of California,
                   4              8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 600                                                    County of San Francisco
                                  Houston, TX 77017                                                                  11/04/2022
                   5              E-mail: wcubberly@whlaw.com                                                    Clerk of the Court
                                  Phone: (713) 230-2200                                                            BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
                   6                                                                                                          Deputy Clerk
                                  Fax: (713) 643-6226
                   7
                                  ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
                   8
                   9                              SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                                 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED CIVIL
                   10
                   11             JANE DOE WH6, an Individual,                        CASE NO. CGC-21-589616
                   12
                                                      Plaintiff,                      JCCP NO. 5061
                   13
                                  v.                                                  REPLY      IN  SUPPORT         OF
                   14                                                                 PLAINTIFF         JANE     DOE     WH6’S
                   15             LYFT, INC., a Delaware Corporation;                 MOTION         FOR    LEAVE      TO   AMEND
                                  and DOE ONE,                                        HER     ORIGINAL        COMPLAINT
                   16
                   17                                                                   Judge: Honorable Andrew Y.S. Cheng
                                                     Defendants.                        Date: November 8, 2022
                   18                                                                   Time: 10∶00 AM
                                                                                        Dept: 613
                   19
                   20                                                                   Action filed: Feb. 3, 2021

                   21                                                                   Trial Date: None Set
                   22
                                                                             Introduction
                   23
                                Lyft argues that Ms. Doe’s attempt to add the Motel 6 Defendants is a bad-faith attempt to
                   24
                           manipulate the bellwether pool by her counsel. The truth is far more prosaic.
                   25
                                After the Plaintiffs jointly named Jane Roe 2 as their pick to be the third case, this was the
                   26
                           state of the JCCP: In April 2023, the Court was going to try Ms. Elizabeth Mandala’s case, then a
                   27
                           defense-pick trial (Ms. Espinosa), and then the Court was going to try Jane Roe 2’s case. Ms.
                   28      Doe’s case was stayed. All this was per the Court’s Orders. There was no trial date set for Ms.
                           Doe, but the soonest it could be would be the fifth trial in the JCCP. At this point, Ms. Doe’s

                                                                                  —1—
                                                             Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to Amend
                                                                 Jane Doe WH6 v. Lyft et al.; CGC-21-589616
                           counsel determined that it would be too traumatizing for Ms. Doe to have to try her sexual-assault

                   1       claims twice and that she needed to bring the hotel into this action — even if it wasn’t a perfect fit
                           for the JCCP.
                   2
                                Toward the end of the summer, Lyft and Levin Simes Abrams (LSA) began negotiating a set-
                   3
                           tlement deal for some of LSA’s cases. To be clear, Ms. Doe’s counsel was not involved in these
                   4
                           discussions. Her counsel had no knowledge of the terms being discussed and knew nothing more
                   5
                           than that Lyft and LSA were in talks. LSA represents three of the five plaintiffs in the five-plain-
                   6
                           tiff bellwether pool. The potential settlement would have resolved all three of LSA’s cases —
                   7
                           leaving only Ms. Doe and Ms. Roe 2 (the third bellwether).
                   8            The week after the mediation between Lyft and LSA, Ms. Doe’s counsel learned for the first
                   9       time that a sticking point in the negotiations between Lyft and LSA was what case was going to be
                   10      tried should Ms. Mandala settle. Ms. Doe’s counsel then had a phone call with Lyft’s Counsel, in
                   11      which Lyft’s Counsel stated that Lyft’s position was that Ms. Doe should be the first trial should
                   12      Ms. Mandala settle — as opposed to the case the plaintiffs jointly had already selected, per the
                   13      Court’s orders, to follow Ms. Mandala — and that Ms. Mandala’s case would not settle if that
                   14      were not so. To put it mildly, this was surprising to Ms. Doe’s Counsel — that settlement talks

                   15      they were not involved in and had no substantive knowledge of were contingent upon his client’s

                   16      case being tried next. Jane Roe 2’s counsel was not a party to these discussion either and consis-
                           tently has maintained that Jane Roe 2’s case is next in line. Within days of this phone call, Ms.
                   17
                           Doe’s counsel called Lyft’s counsel and informed him that Ms. Doe was going to add the Motel
                   18
                           Defendants. Ms. Doe’s counsel then prepared and filed the First Amended Complaint and the
                   19
                           motion for leave. Lyft now objects to that amendment, claiming it is gamesmanship and an at-
                   20
                           tempt to manipulate the bellwether pool.
                   21
                                                                              Background
                   22
                                Early in the morning on July 8, 2017, Ms. Doe was impaired. She ordered a Lyft and passed
                   23      out in the Lyft. As discussed in the Motion for Leave to Amend, the Lyft driver got Ms. Doe’s
                   24      room keys from the desk clerk at the hotel and carried Ms. Doe through the hotel lobby before
                   25      raping her in the hotel room. Ms. Doe was unconscious, and she was not in the hotel lobby when
                   26      the Desk Clerk was giving the Lyft driver the keys to Ms. Doe’s room.
                   27           On February 3, 2021, Ms. Doe filed her Original Complaint against just Lyft. About three
                   28      weeks later, on February 24, 2021, the Court signed the order coordinating her into the JCCP.
                                On March 1, 2021, her counsel did a records request on the San Leandro Police Department.

                                                                                  —2—
                                                             Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to Amend
                                                                 Jane Doe WH6 v. Lyft et al.; CGC-21-589616
                           Eight days later, the San Leandro Police Department responded with police records that included

                   1       a report from the San Diego Police Department. While the report described video taken by the
                           hotel, the San Leandro Police Department did not include the video. Before this records request,
                   2
                           Ms. Doe did not have the police report. On March 16, 2021, Ms. Doe subpoenaed the SDPD for
                   3
                           its records and the video.
                   4
                                On April 2, 2021, Plaintiffs put Ms. Doe in the 15-plaintiff bellwether pool. On May 4, 2021,
                   5
                           SDPD responded to the subpoena with just the police report — not the video. On May 10, 2021,
                   6
                           Ms. Doe submitted a fact sheet to Lyft that included the police report. The next day, Plaintiffs
                   7
                           subpoenaed the Motel 6 Defendants, seeking the video from a different source. Three days later,
                   8       Ms. Doe sent the SDPD another subpoena, again seeking the video. On May 17, 2021, Plaintiffs
                   9       picked Ms. Doe to go into the pool of six cases.
                   10           After a rejection of another subpoena, the SDPD finally produced the video surveillance of
                   11      the hotel on August 31, 2021. This was the first time Ms. Doe or her counsel ever saw or obtained
                   12      the video. By this point, Ms. Doe was already in the six-plaintiff pool.
                   13           Shortly after receiving it, Ms. Doe produced the subpoenaed video to Lyft. Ms. Doe was
                   14      lucky she was able to obtain the video from the SDPD. The Motel 6 Defendants were never able

                   15      to produce it because they claim they destroyed it.

                   16           On December 2, 2021, Plaintiffs jointly chose not to remove Ms. Doe from the bellwether
                           pool, but to remove another plaintiff. Four days later — presumably because Lyft realized it could
                   17
                           argue the jury should apportion liability to the Motel 6 Defendants — Lyft deselected all but Ms.
                   18
                           Doe and Ms. Mandala. Two days later, via coin flip, the Court selected Ms. Mandala as the first
                   19
                           bellwether.
                   20
                                At a March 30, 2022 CMC hearing, the Plaintiffs advocated that the Parties and the Court
                   21
                           should determine who was going to be the third case (second plaintiffs’ pick). Ms. Doe’s counsel
                   22
                           argued that the third bellwether should be Ms. Doe. Lyft argued that the Parties should not select
                   23      a third and fourth case at all and that the Court should defer that decision.
                   24           The Court rejected both Lyft’s argument and Ms. Doe’s Counsel’s argument. In its March
                   25      30, 2022 Order, the Court ruled that the parties were to select the third and fourth bellwether
                   26      plaintiffs. “Plaintiffs should select the third bellwether trial from the remaining pool of Plaintiffs
                   27      bellwether cases. The pool for cases includes the cases which were deselected by Lyft on Decem-
                   28      ber 6, 2021 and the case that was not selected pursuant to the Court’s coin flip.” After this Order,
                           the Plaintiffs — including LSA — met and jointly decided to select Jane Roe 2 as the case next in

                                                                                  —3—
                                                             Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to Amend
                                                                 Jane Doe WH6 v. Lyft et al.; CGC-21-589616
                           line behind Ms. Mandala.

                   1            After this Order, Ms. Doe’s counsel worked with the other Plaintiffs to get Ms. Mandala and
                           the other cases ready for trial. Ms. Doe’s case was stayed and would not be tried until — at the
                   2
                           earliest — this Court tried Ms. Mandala, Ms. Espinosa, Ms. Roe 2, and another defense pick.
                   3
                           While working up these cases and learning more about the trauma to sexual-assault victims, Ms.
                   4
                           Doe’s counsel decided it was in Ms. Doe’s best interest to have her case tried whole — against
                   5
                           both Lyft and the Motel 6 Defendants at the same time — so that she would only have to bear the
                   6
                           hardship of one trial.
                   7
                                At no point before Lyft’s mediation with LSA, had Lyft or LSA ever once argued or suggested
                   8       to the Parties or the Court that Ms. Doe should be the next case in line should Ms. Mandala set-
                   9       tle.
                   10           Ms. Doe and Ms. Roe 2’s counsel were not involved in the settlement discussions between
                   11      LSA and Lyft that brokered the potential settlement of Ms. Mandala’s case. Ms. Doe’s counsel
                   12      had no idea that this settlement might hinge upon her case being the first tried until after Lyft and
                   13      LSA’s mediation. Shortly after learning of Lyft’s position, Ms. Doe’s counsel informed Lyft she
                   14      was going to add the Motel 6 Defendants.

                   15                                                Arguments & Authorities

                   16           Lyft argues that Ms. Doe’s attempted amendment is gamesmanship and manipulation of the
                           bellwether pool because it is an attempt to make Lyft try Ms. Roe 2’s case next. First, this argu-
                   17
                           ment depends on it even being an option that Ms. Doe’s case would be tried next. Jane Roe 2 was
                   18
                           the third bellwether case selected per the Court’s orders and, as such, is next in line of the cases.
                   19
                                Over Lyft’s objections, this Court ordered the Plaintiffs to select the case to take the plain-
                   20
                           tiff’s-pick slot after Ms. Mandala. The Plaintiffs did so and jointly selected Ms. Roe 2. Lyft was
                   21
                           fully aware of this when it conditionally entered this potential settlement. If this Court refuses to
                   22
                           abrogate the order of cases established by the Court and the Parties at the time Lyft and LSA
                   23      were negotiating, there is nothing to manipulate. Ms. Roe 2 is next in line, regardless of whether
                   24      the Motel 6 Defendants are added.
                   25           Lyft may argue that Court should disturb the simple math of three follows one and two be-
                   26      cause the Court chose the deselection process so that Lyft wouldn’t have to try Plaintiffs’ best
                   27      case first. The Court’s didn’t select the deselection process to save Lyft from having to try a bul-
                   28      letproof case. It selected the deselection process so the first case out of the box would be repre-
                           sentative. Between Ms. Roe 2 and Ms. Doe, Ms. Roe 2’s case is arguably more representative be-

                                                                                  —4—
                                                             Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to Amend
                                                                 Jane Doe WH6 v. Lyft et al.; CGC-21-589616
                           cause another defendant doesn’t get a line on the jury charge. And that is exactly why Lyft wants

                   1       to try Ms. Doe’s case next — not because it isn’t a good case — but because Lyft will get to argue
                           the Motel 6 Defendants are liable, not itself. It should be noted that Ms. Roe 2’s case and Ms.
                   2
                           Mandala’s case are factually quite similar, and since this JJCP has been established, even more
                   3
                           cases having similar facts have been filed.
                   4
                                To the extent Lyft says that upsetting the current order and swapping Ms. Doe for Ms. Roe
                   5
                           would somehow be in line with the Court’s intention behind the original coin flip, it should be
                   6
                           noted that if Lyft settles the first bellwether trial, it is doing so by choice — with full knowledge of
                   7
                           the current order. And, as such, Lyft got the benefit of the Court’s case-selection process and
                   8       elected to settle that case rather than try it. And so, Lyft has benefited from the deselection
                   9       process already. It has potentially settled two of the three cases that it deselected, in addition to
                   10      Ms. Mandala, without having to try those cases and without those two cases having the leverage
                   11      of impending trial dates. Moreover, as of now and as of the time Ms. Doe sought to add the Motel
                   12      Defendants, the state of affairs is and has been that Ms. Roe 2 is next in line.
                   13           Finally, there is nothing manipulative about the timing of the amendment. This is not a trap
                   14      Ms. Doe’s counsel sprung on Lyft. Her counsel had no idea this was even an issue Lyft and LSA

                   15      were negotiating. And as soon as her counsel learned it was something they were negotiating

                   16      without her counsel’s involvement, her counsel informed Lyft they were going to add the motel.
                                Two different actors badly injured Ms. Doe. She deserves her day in Court, and she is not
                   17
                           ducking this fight. She has a strong case and is eager to try it. But she deserves to try her case
                   18
                           whole — if nothing else so that she doesn’t have to endure two trials. Her amendment is intended
                   19
                           to expedite that day in court. And she would like to try her case as soon as the Motel 6 Defen-
                   20
                           dants can get ready (and Plaintiffs can finish getting the discovery they need from Lyft).
                   21
                   22
                   23       DATED: November 4, 2022
                   24
                                                                             WILLIAMS HART & BOUNDAS, LLP
                   25
                   26
                   27
                   28                                                        Walt Cubberly

                                                                             COUNSEL FOR JANE DOE WH6

                                                                                  —5—
                                                             Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to Amend
                                                                 Jane Doe WH6 v. Lyft et al.; CGC-21-589616