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

                                1 WARREN METLITZKY (CA Bar No. 220758)
   GABRIELA KIPNIS (CA Bar No. 284965)
 2 CONRAD | METLITZKY | KANE LLP                                              ELECTRONICALLY
   Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400                                            FILED
 3 San Francisco, CA 94111                                                    Superior Court of California,
                                                                               County of San Francisco
   Telephone: (415) 343-7100
 4 Facsimile:    (415) 343-7101                                                   02/27/2023
   Email: wmetlitzky@conmetkane.com                                            Clerk of the Court
 5 Email: gkipnis@conmetkane.com                                                 BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
                                                                                            Deputy Clerk

 6 HEIDI K. HUBBARD (pro hac vice)
   BETH A. STEWART (pro hac vice)
 7 DAVID RANDALL J. RISKIN (pro hac vice)
   WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
 8 680 Maine Avenue, S.W.
   Washington, DC 20024
 9 Telephone: (202) 434-5000
   Facsimile:    (202) 434-5029
10 Email: hhubbard@wc.com
   Email: bstewart@wc.com
11 Email: driskin@wc.com

12 Attorneys for Lyft, Inc.

13                            SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14                                     COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
15   Coordination Proceeding                   Case No. CJC-20-005061
     Special Title (Rule 3.550)
16                                             JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION
                                               PROCEEDING NO. 5061
17
     IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES                Case Assigned to the Honorable Andrew Y.S. Cheng,
18                                             Dept. 613
19                                             REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT
     This document applies to:                 OF LYFT, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
20
                                               ADJUDICATION
     Jane Doe v. Lyft, Inc.,
21   No. 20STCV24962 (Super. Ct., L.A. Cty.)
                                               (Filed concurrently with Lyft’s Notice of Motion
22                                             and Motion for Summary Adjudication and
                                               Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
23                                             Support, Separate Statement of Undisputed
                                               Material Facts, Declaration of Cavale Scott,
24                                             Declaration of Warren Metlitzky, and Notice of
                                               Conditional Lodging Under Seal)
25
                                               Judge:   Hon. Andrew Y.S. Cheng
26                                             Dept.:   613
                                               Date:    April 13, 2023
27                                             Time:    9:00 a.m.

28

     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)                      REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO LYFT’S MSA
 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

 2           Lyft, Inc. requests, under California Evidence Code §§ 452 and 453 and California Rules of

 3 Court 3.1113(l) and 3.1306(c), that the Court take judicial notice of the following court opinions and

 4 orders:

 5           •   Notice of Ruling and Minute Order, Polanco v. Lyft, Inc., No. 30-2019-01065850-CU-PA-

 6               CJC (Sup. Ct., Orange Cty. May 13, 2021) (Exhibit A).

 7           •   Order Sustaining Demurrer Without Leave to Amend, Jane Doe No. 1 v. Uber Technologies,

 8               Inc., No. 19STCV11874 (Sup. Ct., L.A. Cty. Nov. 30, 2020) (Exhibit B).

 9           •   Minute Order, Flores v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 19STCV24988 (Sup. Ct., L.A. Cty.

10               Mar. 22, 2022) (Exhibit C).

11           •   Minute Order, Lopez v. Desilva Gates Construction L.P., No. 21CV376012 (Sup. Ct., Santa

12               Clara Cty. Nov. 23, 2021) (Exhibit D).

13           •   Tentative Order Sustaining Demurrer to Complaint Without Leave to Amend, Toral v. Bazzi,

14               No. 20STCV02030 (Sup. Ct., L.A. Cty. Apr. 13, 2021) (Exhibit E).

15           •   Notice of Ruling Re: Defendants Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, and Uber Technologies,

16               Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Toral v. Bazzi, No. 20STCV02030 (Sup. Ct., L.A.

17               Cty. Apr. 14, 2021) (Exhibit F) (noting the Court adopted as final the Tentative Order at

18               Exhibit E).

19           •   Tentative Order, Shannon v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 21STCV42029 (Sup. Ct., L.A.

20               Cty. Apr. 6, 2022) (Exhibit G).

21           •   Notice of Ruling, Shannon v. Uber Technologies., Inc., No. 21STCV42029 (Sup. Ct., L.A.

22               Cty. Apr. 15, 2022) (Exhibit H) (noting the Court “indicated that the Court would sustain the

23               demurrer without leave to amend,” which “aligned with the prior tentative issued by the

24               Court” at Exhibit G).

25           •   Lyft, Inc’s Transportation Network Company Permit, issued March 25, 2020, by the

26               California Public Utilities Commission, available at https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-

27               website/files/uploadedfiles/cpucwebsite/content/licensing/transportation_network_companies

28               /permittradedress/lyft-permit.pdf (Exhibit I).
                                                          2
     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)                            REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO LYFT’S MSA
 1                                                     * * * * *

 2          Courts take judicial notice of any matter specified in Evidence Code § 452 if a party meets the

 3 following criteria: the party requests it, provides the opposing party with notice of the request, and

 4 provides the court with information enabling it to take such judicial notice. Cal. Evid. Code § 453.

 5          1.        The “[r]ecords” of a California court are proper matters for judicial notice, id. § 452(d),

 6 and California courts routinely take judicial notice of them, Kimco Staffing Servs., Inc. v. State, 236 Cal.

 7 App. 4th 875, 881 & n.6 (2015) (complaint in California court); AL Holding Co. v. O’Brien & Hicks,

 8 Inc., 75 Cal. App. 4th 1310, 1313 n.2 (1999) (same). Judicial decisions, like the six Superior Court

 9 rulings finding the Uber app not to be a product for products-liability purposes, fall within § 452 as

10 “[r]ecords” of California courts. Lyft recognizes that under California Rule of Court 8.1115(a), an

11 unpublished “opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division … must not be

12 cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action,” subject to the exceptions in subsection (b).

13 Although none of the subsection (b) exceptions applies here, none of the orders of which Lyft asks the

14 Court to take notice are opinions of the Court of Appeal or appellate division. The Court of Appeal, to

15 be sure, appears to have read into the Rule a limitation on citing Superior Court rulings as well, see, e.g.,

16 San Diego Cnty. Emps. Retirement Ass’n v. County of San Diego, 151 Cal. App. 4th 1163, 1184 (2007),

17 notwithstanding the Rule’s plain language.

18          If the Court concludes this threshold issue is not an impediment to judicial notice, the six

19 decisions are directly on point. Each addressed products-liability causes of action like the ones Plaintiff

20 brings here, and each held that the similar Uber application was not a product for products-liability

21 purposes—as a matter of law. The orders are not precedential, and Lyft does not cite them for that

22 purpose (indeed, Lyft’s argument that the Lyft application is not a product for products-liability

23 purposes stands irrespective of the orders); but the existence of six similar holdings when faced with

24 analogous products-liability claims to those Plaintiff asserts is a fact of which Lyft asks the Court to take

25 judicial notice.

26          2.        That Lyft has an active Transportation Network Company Permit issued by the California

27 Public Utilities Commission likewise is subject to judicial notice, as this is a “[f]act ... not reasonably

28 subject to dispute and ... capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of
                                                        3
     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)                               REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO LYFT’S MSA
 1 reasonably indisputable accuracy.” Cal. Evid. Code § 452(h). Lyft’s permit is publicly available on the

 2 CPUC’s website at https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-

 3 website/files/uploadedfiles/cpucwebsite/content/licensing/transportation_network_companies/permittrad

 4 edress/lyft-permit.pdf.

 5

 6 DATED: February 27, 2023                            Respectfully submitted,

 7                                                     CONRAD | METLITZKY | KANE LLP
 8

 9
                                                       WARREN METLITZKY
10
                                                       GABRIELA KIPNIS
11

12                                                     WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP

13                                                     HEIDI K. HUBBARD
                                                       BETH A. STEWART
14                                                     DAVID RANDALL J. RISKIN
15
                                                       Attorneys for Lyft, Inc.
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
                                                       4
     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)                         REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO LYFT’S MSA
Exhibit
  A
 1   Nanette G. Reed (SBN 243552)
       nanette.reed@wilsonelser.com
 2   Ashley E. Pickard (SBN 297864)
       ashley.pickard@wilsonelser.com
 3
     WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ
 4   EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
     555 South Flower Street, Suite 2900
 5   Los Angeles, California 90071-2407
     Telephone: (213) 443-5100
 6   Facsimile: (213) 443-5101
 7
     Attorneys for Defendants, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
 8   RASIER-CA, LLC, and RASIER, LLC

 9                     SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10                                     COUNTY OF ORANGE
11

12   SARA POLANCO,                                 Case No.: 30-2019-01065850-CU-PA-CJC

13                  Plaintiff,                     (Related cases: 30-2019-01073186-CU-PA-CJC;
                                                   30-2019-01105050-CU-PA-CJC; 30-2020-
14           V.                                    01151351-CU-PA-CJC; 30-2021-01181662-CU-
                                                   PA-CJC)
15
     L YFT, INC.; CHRISTOPHER SOLIS,
     HECTOR MANUEL QUIROZ; JOSEPH                  Honorable Judge Peter Wilson
16
     LORENZO WILLIAMSON; UBER                      Deparment CX102
17   TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AND DOES 1-100,
     INCL.                                         NOTICE OF RULING
18
                    Defendants.                    Hearing: May 13, 2021 at 2:00PM
19

20
                                                   Complaint Filed: April 24, 2019
21                                                 FAC Filed: June 6, 2019

22

23   NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES and ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

24           On May 13, 2021, this court made a ruling of the Demurrer filed by UBER

25   TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC AND RASIER-CA, LLC to the First Amended

26   Complaint filed by Plaintiff CHRISTINE NAVARRO, seeking dismissal of the Strict Product

27   Liability claim. The court published a tentative ruling which sustained the Demurrer without

28   leave to amend.     The Parties submitted on the tentative and no oral argument was held.
                                                   1
                                           NOTICE OF RULING
     254101478v.l
 1   Defendants were ordered to give notice.

 2           Attached to this Notice of Ruling, please find the court's Minute Order and tentative

 3   ruling. Defendants will proceed to file their answers to the subject First Amended Complaint

 4   with the Strict Product Liability cause of action deleted.

 5
 6   Dated: May 18, 2021                                   WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ
                                                           EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
 7
 8
 9
                                                            -----¥/U
                                                           -//4A      71'
                                                   By:------------
                                                     Nanette G. Reed
10
                                                     Ashley E. Pickard
11                                                   Attorneys for Defendants,
                                                     UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RASIER-
12                                                   CA, LLC; and RASIER, LLC

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
                                                      2
                                             NOTICE OF RULING

     254101478v.l
 1                                        PROOF OF SERVICE
                                           Code Civ. Proc.,§ 1013b
 2             Sarah Polanco v. Lyft, Inc., et al. - Case No. 30-2019-01065850-CU-PA-CJC
                                     WEMED Matter No. 18422.00829
 3

 4                     STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
            I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
 5
     18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 555 South Flower Street, Suite 2900,
 6   Los     Angeles,      California    90071.     My      electronic    service    address     is
     cora.hernandez@wilsonelser.com.
 7
            On May 18, 2021, I caused the foregoing document, entitled "NOTICE OF RULING,"
 8   to be served on the person(s) identified in the attached Service List, at their respective
 9
     [residential/ business / electronic service] address( es), by the below-indicated means:

10   []      (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I electronically served the foregoing document in
             PDF format on behalf of Defendants, Uber Technologies, Inc.; Rasier- CA, LLC; and
11           Rasier, LLC.
12   [XX]    (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) I am readily familiar with the business' practice for
13           filing electronically. I caused the foregoing document to be electronically served on
             May 18, 2021, in the ordinary course of business following ordinary business practices
14           on behalf of Defendants, Uber Technologies, Inc.; Rasier- CA, LLC; and Rasier, LLC.

15   []      (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) - Based upon a court order or an agreement of the
             parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to
16
             the persons at the electronic notification addresses as listed on the electronic service list
17           maintained by NAME OF SERVICE.

18   []      (BY U.S. MAIL) I enclosed [] a true copy [] the original(s) documents in a sealed
             envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in the attached Service
19           List and (specify one):
20
             []     Deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the
21           postage fully prepaid.

22           []      Placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business
             practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and
23           processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed
             for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the
24
             United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid.
25
             I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or
26           package was placed in the mail at Los Angeles, California.

27   []      (BY FACSIMILE) Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax
             transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed in the
28
                                                       3
                                              NOTICE OF RULING

     254101478v.l
 1             attached Service List. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of
               the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached.
 2
       []      (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package
 3
               provided by an overnight delivery carrier, or other packaging, and addressed to the
 4             person(s) at the address(es) in the attached Service List. I am readily familiar with this
               business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for overnight delivery.
 5             On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and delivery, it is given in
               the ordinary course of business to the overnight delivery carrier.
 6
       []      (BY EXPRESS MAIL) I caused said document(s) to be deposited with the U.S. Postal
 7
               Service for Express Mail delivery to the offices of the address( es) listed on the Service
 8             List.

 9     []      (MESSENGER SERVICE) I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or
               package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the attached Service List and
10             providing them to a professional messenger service for service.
11
       []      (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) Said documents were personally/physically
12             delivered to the addressees as noted on the Service List

13     []      (BY CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED) I caused such
               envelope(s) fully prepaid to be placed in the United States Mail at Los Angeles,
14
               California by Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested. I am "readily familiar" with
15 ,           the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence or mailing. Under that
               practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with
16             postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of
               business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if
17             postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit
               for mailing in affidavit.
18
19              I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
       is true and correct.
20
               Executed on May 18, 2021, at Los Angeles, California.
21

22
                                                     Cora Hernandez
23

24

25

26
27
28
                                                        4
                                               NOTICE OF RULING

       254101478v.l
 1                                            SERVICE LIST
                                      Sara Polanco v. Lyft, Inc, et al.
 2                  Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2019-01065850-CU-PA-CJC
                                     WEMED Matter No. 18422.00829
 3

 4             POLANCO v. LYFT, INC., CASE NO. 30-2019-01065850-CU-PA-CJC
      Eric J. Dubin, Esq.                          Attorneys for Plaintiff SARA POLANCO
 5    DUBIN LAW FIRM
      19200 Von Karman A venue, Sixth Floor
 6
      Irvine, California 92612
 7    T: (949) 477-8040                            Email: edubin@dubinlaw.com
      Annee Della Donna, Esq.                      Co-Counsel for Plaintiff SARA POLANCO
 8    LAW OFFICE OF ANNEE DELLA DONNA
      301 Forrest Avenue
 9    Laguna Beach, California 92651
      T: (949) 376-5730 / F: (949) 497-5627        Email: delladonnalaw@cox.net
10
      Jerry C. Popvich, Esq./Ryan M. Sellers, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant, L YFT, INC.
11    SELMAN BREITMAN LLP
      6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 1100
12    Santa Ana, California 92707                  Email: i12o12ovich@selmanlaw.com
      T: (714) 647-2527                            rsellers@selmanlaw.com
13
      Rory D. Leos, Esq.                           Attorneys for Defendant, CHRISTOPHER
14    MCDONALD & CODY                              SOLIS
      28 Executive Park, Third Floor
15    Irvine, CA 92614
      T: (714) 831-1713 / F: (714) 823-3229        Email: rleos@macdonaldcody.com
16
     Daniel L. Ferguson, Esq.                      Attorneys for Defendant, HECTOR
17   BORTON PETRINI, LLP                           MANUEL QUIROZ
     1461 Ford Street, Suite 205
18   Redlands, California 92373
     T: (909) 381-0527 IF: 909-381-0658            Email: d fenrnson/albortonoetrini.com
19
     Jeff I. Braun, Esq. I Nicole C. Barilla, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant, JOSEPH LORENZO
20   McNEIL, TROPP & BRAUN, LLP                    WILLIAMSON
     2 Park Plaza, Suite 620
21   Irvine, CA 92614                              Email: jbraun@mtbattorneys.com
     T: (949) 259-2890 / F: (949) 259-2891         nbarilla@mtbattorneys.com
22

23               NAVARRO v. LYFT, CASE NO.          30-2021-01181662-CU-PA-CJC
     Suzanne Leslie, Esq./ Arshia Mardasi, Esq.      Attorney for Plaintiff, CHRISTINE
24   ALLEN FLATT BALLIDIS & LESLIE INC               NAVARRO
     4400 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 370
25   Newport Beach, CA 92660                         Email: sleslie@allenflatt.com
     T: (949) 752-7474 / F: (949) 752-1645           amardasi@allenflatt.com
26

27

28
                                                   5
                                           NOTICE OF RULING

     254101478v.l
     Jerry C. Popovich, Esq/Ryan M. Sellers, Esq.     Attorneys for Defendant L YFT,
     SELMAN BREITMAN LLP                              INC.
 2   6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 1100
     Santa Ana, California 92707                      Email: i12o12ovich@selmanlaw.com
 3
     T: (714) 647-2527                                rsellers@selmanlaw.com
 4   Jeff I. Braun, Esq./ Nicole C. Barilla, Esq.     Attorneys for Defendant, JOSEPH
     McNEIL, TROPP & BRAUN, LLP                       LORENZO WILLIAMSON
 5
     2 Park Plaza, Suite 620
 6   Irvine, CA 92614                                 Email: jbraun@mtbattorneys.com
     T: (949) 259-2890 / F: (949) 259-2891            nbarilla@mtbattorneys.com
 7   Daniel L. Ferguson, Esq.                         Attorneys for Defendant, HECTOR
     BORTON PETRINI, LLP                              MANUEL QUIROZ
 8   1461 Ford Street, Suite 205
     Redlands, California 923 73
 9
     T: 909-381-0527 / F: 909-381-0658                Email: dferguson@bortonoetrini.com
10   Shayne L. Wulterin, Esq.                         Attorneys for Defendant, THE HERTZ
     FORD WALKER HAGGERTY & BEHAR LLP                 CORPORATION
11   1 World Trade Center 27 th Fl
     Long Beach, CA 90831
12   T: (562) 983-2500 / F: (562) 983-2555            Email: shavne@fwhb.com
13   Mario M. Oropeza, Esq.                           Attorneys for Defendant, THE HERTZ
     FORD WALKER HAGGERTY & BEHAR LLP                 CORPORATION
14   391 Main St.
     Corona, CA 92880
15   T: (951) 523-0230 / F: (951) 523-7050            Email: morooeza@fwhb.com
16
                  WINSTEAD Y. SOLIS, CASE NO. 30-2020-01151351-CU-PA-CJC
17   Jeffrey A. Milman, Esq.                 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ERIN WINSTEAD anc
     HODES MILMAN, LLP                       LEONARD WINSTEAD
18   9210 Irvine Center Drive
     Irvine, California 92618
19
     T: (949) 640-8222 / F: (949) 336-8114   Email: jmilman@hodesmilman.com
20                                          Lee Weiss: lweissialhodesmilman.com
      Rory D. Leos, Esq.                    Attorneys for Defendant, CHRISTOPHER
21    MCDONALD & CODY                        SOLIS
      28 Executive Park, Third Floor
22    Irvine, CA 92614
      T: (714) 831-1713                     Email: rleos@macdonaldcody.com
23
     Daniel L. Ferguson, Esq.               Attorneys for Defendant, HECTOR
24   BORTON PETRINI, LLP                    MANUEL QUIROZ
     1461 Ford Street, Suite 205
25   Redlands, California 923 73
     T: 909-381-0527 / F: 909-381-0658      Email: dferguson@borton12etrini.com
26

27

28
                                                     6
                                             NOTICE OF RULING

     254101478v.1
 1   Jeff I. Braun, Esq./Nicole C. Barilla, Esq.     Attorneys for Defendant, JOSEPH LORENZO
     McNEIL, TROPP & BRAUN, LLP                      WILLIAMSON
 2   2 Park Plaza, Suite 620
     Irvine, CA 92614                                Email: jbraun@mtbattorneys.com
 3
     T: (949) 259-2890 / F: (949) 259-2891           nbarilla@mtbattorneys.com
 4             HOOVER v. LYFT, INC., CASE NO. 30-2019-01105050-CU-PA-CJC
      Eric J. Dubin, Esq.                      Attorneys for Plaintiffs RILEY HOOVER,
 5    DUBIN LAW FIRM                           SHEA HOOVER LAFFERTY and KA YCEI
      19200 Von Karman A venue, Sixth Floor    HOOVER
 6
      Irvine, California 92612
 7    T: (949) 477-8040                        Email: edubin@dubinlaw.com
      Annee Della Donna, Esq.                         Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs RILEY
 8                                                    HOOVER, SHEA HOOVER
      LAW OFFICE OF ANNEE DELLA DONNA
 9    301 Forrest Avenue                              LAFFERTY and KAYCEE HOOVER
      Laguna Beach, California 92651
10    T: (949) 376-5730 / Fax: (949) 497-5627         Email: delladonnalaw@cox.net
      Rory D. Leos, Esq.                              Attorneys for Defendant CHRISTOPHER
11
      MCDONALD & CODY                                 SOLIS
12    28 Executive Park, Third Floor
      Irvine, California 92614
13    T: (714) 831-1713                               Email: rleos@macdonaldcody.com
     Daniel L. Ferguson, Esq.                         Attorneys for Defendant HECTOR
14
     BORTON PETRINI, LLP                              MANUEL QUIROZ
15   1461 Ford Street, Suite 205
     Redlands, California 92373
16   T: (909) 381-0527 / F: (909) 381-0658            Email: dferguson@bortongetrini.com
     Jerry C. Popovich, Esq/Ryan M. Sellers, Esq.     Attorneys for Defendant L YFT,
17
     SELMAN BREITMAN LLP                              INC.
18   6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 1100
     Santa Ana, California 92707                      Email: jgogovich@selmanlaw.com
19   T: (714) 647-2527                                rsellers@selmanlaw.com
20   Jeff I. Braun, Esq.                              Attorneys for Defendant, JOSEPH
     Nicole C. Barilla, Esq.                          LORENZO WILLIAMSON
21   McNEIL, TROPP & BRAUN, LLP
     2 Park Plaza, Suite 620
22   Irvine, CA 92614                                 Email: jbraun@mtbattorneys.com
     T: (949) 259-2890 / F: (949) 259-2891            nbarilla@mtbattorneys.com
23

24                  OROZCO v. LYFT, CASE NO. 30-2019-01073186-CU-PA-CJC
      Eric V. Traut, Esq.                   Attorneys for Plaintiff OL YVIA OROZCO
25    TRAUT FIRM
      5 Hutton Center Drive, Suite 700
26    Santa Ana, California 92707
27    T: (714) 835-7000 / F: (714) 957-5759 Email: eric@trautfirm.com

28
                                                    7
                                            NOTICE OF RULING
     254101478v.1
 1   Robert Cohen, Esq. I Scott Mizen, Esq.         Attorneys for Defendant, HECTOR
     VEATCH CARLSON, LLP                            MANUEL QUIROZ
 2   1055 Wilshire Blvd., 11th Fl.
 3   Los Angeles, CA 90017
     T: (213) 381-2861 / F: (213) 383-6370          Email: rcohen@veatchfirm.com
 4    Jerry C. Popovich, Esq/Ryan Sellers, Esq.      Attorneys for L YFT, INC.
 5    SELMAN BREITMAN LLP 11766
      Wilshire Blvd., Sixth Floor Los
 6    Angeles, CA 90025-6546                         Email: i12o12ovich@selmanlaw.com
      T: (714) 647-2527                              rsellers@selmanlaw.com
 7    Rory D. Leos, Esq.                            Attorneys for Defendant, CHRISTOPHER
 8    MCDONALD & CODY                               SOLIS
      28 Executive Park, Third Floor
 9    Irvine, CA 92614
      T: (714) 831-1713 / F: (714) 823-3229         Email: rleos@macdonaldcody.com
10   Daniel L. Ferguson, Esq.                       Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant
     BORTON PETRINI, LLP                            REYNA GUERRERO
11
     1461 Ford Street, Suite 205
12   Redlands, California 923 73
     T: (909) 381-0527 / F: (909) 381-0658          Email: dferguson@borton12etrini.com
13   Jeff I. Braun, Esq. /Nicole C. Barilla, Esq.   Attorneys for Defendant, JOSEPH LORENZO
     McNEIL, TROPP & BRAUN, LLP                     WILLIAMSON
14
     2 Park Plaza, Suite 620
15   Irvine, CA 92614                               Email: jbraun@mtbattorneys.com
     T: (949) 259-2890 / F: (949) 259-2891          nbarilla@mtbattorneys.com
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
                                                     8
                                             NOTICE OF RULING

     254101478v.l
                                   SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
                                       COUNTY OF ORANGE
                                      CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER
                                              MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 05/13/2021                    TIME: 02:00:00 PM                    DEPT: CX102
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Peter Wilson
CLERK: Virginia Harting
REPORTER/ERM: None
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: Raquel Wangsness

CASE NO: 30-2019-01065850-CU-PA-CJC CASE !NIT.DATE: 04/24/2019
CASE TITLE: Polanco vs. LYFT, Inc.
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited   CASE TYPE: Pl/PD/WO-Auto

EVENT ID/DOCUMENT ID: 73514561
EVENT TYPE: Demurrer to Complaint
MOVING PARTY: Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, Rasier, LLC
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer to Complaint, 04/16/2021

APPEARANCES
No Appearance by all parties
Tentative Ruling posted on the Internet.

All parties submitted on the Court's tentative ruling.

The Court confirms the tentative ruling as follows:

Defendants Uber Technologies. Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC and Rasier, LLC's (collectively Defendants)
Demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action in Plaintiff Christine Navarro's First Amended Complaint (FAC) is
SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

The issue here is whether the Uber App qualifies as a product, rather than a service. "The basis of strict
liability is the furnishing of defective goods." (Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215
Cal.App.3d 1611, 1624; Pierson v. Sharp (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 340, 344 ["The doctrine of strict liability
in tort applies to producing and marketing enterprises responsible for placing products in the stream of
commerce. [Italics in original].") As such, plaintiff must establish "that the object or instrumentality
claimed to be defective was in fact a 'product'." (Id. at 1626.) "A product is a physical article which results
from a manufacturing process and is ultimately delivered to a consumer." (Pierson v. Sharp, supra, 216
Cal.App.3d at 345.) A defect in the product is "ultimately objectively measurable". ( Ibid.)

Strict products liability does not extend to services. (Pierson v. Sharp, supra, 216 Cal.App. at 345.)
"Courts have also declined to apply strict liability where the transaction's service aspect predominates
and any product sale is merely incidental to the provision of the service." (Ibid. [providing examples of
products vs. services]; Ontiveros v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2008) 169 Cal. App. 4th 424, 433-434 [on
summary judgment, no strict liability because dominant purpose of membership at gym was fitness
services, and fitness products were incidental]; Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th
248, 258 [rafting company not liable in strict products liability because was raft was incidental to rafting
services]; Hennigan v. White (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 395, 403 ["As a condition precedent to maintaining
a strict products liability claim, a plaintiff must show the transaction in which she obtained the product
was one in which the transaction's primary objective was to acquire ownership or use of a product, and
not one where the primary objective was to obtain a service."])




DATE: 05/13/2021                                   MINUTE ORDER                                       Page 1
DEPT: CX102                                                                                     Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Polanco vs. LYFT, Inc.                             CASE NO: 30-2019-01065850-CU-PA-CJC


Here, the parties have not, nor has the Court independently found, any legal authority determining
whether the Uber App is a product or not.

Based on the allegations in Navarro's FAG, the Uber App does not fit within the definition of a "product"
since it is not a "tangible good" or "physical object". As Defendants note, Navarro describes the Uber App
as "a computer-based technology platform that matches drivers with passengers in real time." FAG, at
,I,I15, 19. This allegation itself indicates the Uber App is a service, not a product.

Although in her Opposition, Navarro refers to the Uber App as a "product", she fails to demonstrate how it
falls within any definition of product and does not cite to any cases that support her contention that the
Uber App is properly classified as a product.

Specific to the strict products liability claim, Navarro alleges the Uber App "and/or user interface" in the
driver's vehicle is defective in that its location creates a visual block that limits and restricts visibility of
drivers. FAG, at ,163. It is unclear what "user interface" refers to, but even if it could qualify as a product,
the predominate purpose of the Uber App is the service of matching drivers with passengers as Navarro
alleges. FAG, at ,I19. The interface is an integral part of the providing that service. (See Pierson v. Sharp
Memorial Hospital, Inc., supra, 216 Cal.App.3d 346-347 [hospital not strictly liable for defective carpet in
hospital room that injured patient's wife since hospital is engaged in providing everything necessary to
furnish patient with course of treatment and patient's room is integral component of medical services
provided by hospital].)

In light of the Court's conclusion that the Uber App is not a "product," the Court does not address the
parties further arguments concerning proximate causation as it relates to this cause of action.

Navarro has made no showing that the defect may be cured by amendment, and the Court accordingly
sustains the demurrer without leave to amend.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.




DATE: 05/13/2021                                   MINUTE ORDER                                       Page 2
DEPT: CX102                                                                                       Calendar No.
Exhibit
  B
Exhibit
  C
   SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
                                          Civil Division
                     Southwest District, Torrance Courthouse, Department B

19STCV24988                                                                       March 22, 2022
ARNOLD FLORES vs UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.                                       8:30 AM


Judge: Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                    CSR: Monica Castaneda CSR #10323
Judicial Assistant: J. Ahn                         ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Fondon                     Deputy Sheriff: None

APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): Vincent Francis Bennett (Telephonic)
For Defendant(s): Guillaume D'Amico (Telephonic); Justina Leilani Tate (Telephonic)




NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without
Demurrer; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10); Hearing on Ex Parte
Application OF DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. TO ADVANCE HEARING
DATE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DEMAND NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL
EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ARNOLD FLORES

Pursuant to Government Code sections 68086, 70044, and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956,
Monica Castaneda, CSR # 10323, certified shorthand reporter is appointed as an official Court
reporter pro tempore in these proceedings, and is ordered to comply with the terms of the Court
Reporter Agreement. The Order is signed and filed this date.

Matters are called for hearing.

The above captioned motions are held.

Plaintiff argues on the Court's tentative ruling, and the defendants submit.

The Court having fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, takes the
matter under submission.

The EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. TO
ADVANCE HEARING DATE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DEMAND
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ARNOLD FLORES filed by
Uber Technologies, Inc. on 03/21/2022 is Granted.

Pursuant to the request of moving party, the Hearing on Motion for Leave to Demand Neuro
IME scheduled for 07/12/2022 is continued to 4/14/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department B at
Torrance Courthouse.

                                           Minute Order                               Page 1 of 10
   SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
                                         Civil Division
                    Southwest District, Torrance Courthouse, Department B

19STCV24988                                                                       March 22, 2022
ARNOLD FLORES vs UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.                                       8:30 AM


Judge: Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                   CSR: Monica Castaneda CSR #10323
Judicial Assistant: J. Ahn                        ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Fondon                    Deputy Sheriff: None

Any opposition and reply may be filed and served within the time frame set forth in CCP
1005(b).

Case Management Conference is scheduled for 4/14/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department B at
Torrance Courthouse.

**LATER THIS DATE**

RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER. COURT RULING:

1. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.’s Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint
2. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Second Amended Complaint
3. Estaquio Aguilar-Hernandez’s Motion to Strike Portions of Second Amended Complaint

Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.’s Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint is sustained without
leave to amend.

Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.’s Motion to Strike Portions of Second Amended Complaint is
denied, in part, granted without leave to amend, in part, granted with 20 days leave to amend, in
part, and moot, in part.

Estaquio Aguilar-Hernandez’s Motion to Strike Portions of Second Amended Complaint is
denied, in part, and granted with 20 days leave to amend, in part.

Background

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on July 18, 2019. Plaintiff’s operative Second Amended Complaint
was filed on September 2, 2021. Plaintiff alleges the following facts: On February 2, 2019,
Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle home from work at LAX Airport when Uber driver,
Defendant Estaquio Aguilar-Hernandez, turned left into Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Aguilar-Hernandez was distracted due to the Uber Driver App. Plaintiff alleges the following
causes of action: 1. General Negligence; 2. Motor Vehicle Negligence; 3. Negligence Per Se
(Cal. Veh. Code §§ 23123(a); 23123.S(a); 21801(a); and 22107); 4. Negligent Hiring, Retention,
Training, and Supervision; 5. Strict Products Liability.

Meet and Confer

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. set forth a meet and confer declaration in sufficient
                                         Minute Order                                 Page 2 of 10
   SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
                                          Civil Division
                     Southwest District, Torrance Courthouse, Department B

19STCV24988                                                                        March 22, 2022
ARNOLD FLORES vs UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.                                        8:30 AM


Judge: Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                    CSR: Monica Castaneda CSR #10323
Judicial Assistant: J. Ahn                         ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Fondon                     Deputy Sheriff: None

compliance with CCP § 430.41 and CCP § 435.5. (Decl., Justina L. Tate, ¶¶ 4-9.)

Defendant Aguilar-Hernandez set forth a meet and confer declaration in sufficient compliance
with CCP § 435.5. (Decl., Daniella J. Lee, ¶ 9.)

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.’s Request for Judicial Notice is denied because the
request was only made with the Reply, thus, depriving Plaintiff of the ability to adequately
respond to this new matter which was only first submitted with the Reply.

Demurrer

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of
law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) In testing the
sufficiency of the complaint, the court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual
allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3)
judicially noticed matters. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court may not
consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7
Cal.App.4th 634, 638.) Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the
plaintiff must show that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each
cause of action. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.)
Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should
sustain the demurrer. (C.C.P., § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27
Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.)

Sufficient facts are the essential facts of the case "with reasonable precision and with
particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of
his cause of action.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.) "Whether the
plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer."
(Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609–610.) Under Code Civil Procedure §
430.10(f), a demurrer may also be sustained if a complaint is “uncertain.” Uncertainty exists
where a complaint’s factual allegations are so confusing they do not sufficiently apprise a
defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986)
185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

Defendants demur to the fifth cause of action for Strict Products Liability on the ground that the
cause of action does not state sufficient facts to state a cause of action.
                                            Minute Order                               Page 3 of 10
   SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
                                          Civil Division
                     Southwest District, Torrance Courthouse, Department B

19STCV24988                                                                          March 22, 2022
ARNOLD FLORES vs UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.                                          8:30 AM


Judge: Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                     CSR: Monica Castaneda CSR #10323
Judicial Assistant: J. Ahn                          ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Fondon                      Deputy Sheriff: None


5th Cause of Action for Strict Products Liability

Defendants’ demurrer to the fifth cause of action is sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff
fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action.

“The elements of a strict products liability cause of action are a defect in the manufacture or
design of the product or a failure to warn, causation, and injury. More specifically, plaintiff must
ordinarily show: (1) the product is placed on the market; (2) there is knowledge that it will be
used without inspection for defect; (3) the product proves to be defective; and (4) the defect
causes injury.” Nelson v. Superior Court (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 689, 695 (internal citations and
quotations omitted). “[A] products liability claimant must meet a condition precedent to
successfully maintain the action. He or she must show that the object or instrumentality claimed
to be defective was in fact a “product” as defined or contemplated by the Restatement of Torts,
legislation or case law. Whether or not a product was defectively designed or manufactured is a
factual issue to be determined by the trier of fact. However, whether or not the subject object or
instrumentality is a “product” is a question of law for the trial court[.]” Brooks v. Eugene Burger
Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611, 1626.

The Court finds, as a matter of law, that as to the instrumentality at issue here – the Uber Driver
App – the application is not a “product” for purposes of a cause of action for Strict Products
Liability. Instead, the application is a service and not a product.

Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prod. Liab. § 19 defines “product” as follows:

“(a) A product is tangible personal property distributed commercially for use or consumption.
Other items, such as real property and electricity, are products when the context of their
distribution and use is sufficiently analogous to the distribution and use of tangible personal
property that it is appropriate to apply the rules stated in this Restatement.
(b) Services, even when provided commercially, are not products.
(c) Human blood and human tissue, even when provided commercially, are not subject to the
rules of this Restatement.”

California law recognizes “a fundamental and reasonable basis for imposing strict tort liability
on persons providing products but not upon those rendering services. A product is a physical
article which results from a manufacturing process and is ultimately delivered to a consumer. A
defect in the article even if initially latent is ultimately objectively measurable. On the other
hand, a service is no more than direct human action or human performance.” Pierson v. Sharp
                                               Minute Order                               Page 4 of 10
   SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
                                          Civil Division
                     Southwest District, Torrance Courthouse, Department B

19STCV24988                                                                           March 22, 2022
ARNOLD FLORES vs UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.                                           8:30 AM


Judge: Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                     CSR: Monica Castaneda CSR #10323
Judicial Assistant: J. Ahn                          ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: M. Fondon                      Deputy Sheriff: None

Memorial Hospital, Inc. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 340, 345. “[T]he policy reasons underlying the
strict products liability concept should be considered in determining whether something is a
product within the meaning of its use ... rather than ... to focus on the dictionary definition of the
word.” Fluor Corp. v. Jeppesen & Co. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 468, 475 (internal citation
omitted).

Here, the primary objective of the application is to provide a service – matching Uber drivers
with Uber customers who require transportation services. It is true, that under a dictionary
definition of a “product,” the application may qualify as such. However, as noted above, the
legal definition of a product for strict products liability does not necessary match the dictionary
definition. “In a given transaction involving both products and services, liability will often
depend upon the defendant's role.” Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 248,
258. Here, the role of Uber and the corresponding use of the Uber App is to provide a service.
“As a condition precedent to maintaining a strict products liability claim, a plaintiff must show
the transaction in which she obtained the product was one in which the transaction's primary
objective was to acquire ownership or use of a product, and not one where the primary objective
was to obtain a service. [C]ourts have not extended the doctrine of strict liability to transactions
whose primary objective is obtaining services[.]” Hennigan v. White (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th
395, 403 (internal citation and quotations omitted).

Plaintiff’s references to Bolger v. Amazon, LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 431 and Hardin v. PDX,
Inc. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 159 are not persuasive. In Bolger, Amazon was not sued under a
products liability theory based on a defect in its application or website. Instead, Amazon was
sued under the chain of distribution because the actual defective product – a laptop computer
battery – was purchased via Amazon’s website. In Hardin, again, an actual defective product was
involved – the drug lamotrigine and the corresponding information pamphlet. A software
company named PDX was responsible for disseminating the drug information pamphlet online.
PDX allegedly only included a 5-page pamphlet rather than the full 8-page pamphlet. Thus, as to
PDX, the alleged defective product constituted the pamphlet itself. The Court of Appeal
recognized that PDX was not being sued for its role in merely being a software provider.
“Hardin's claim against PDX does not arise from its role as the software or service provider that
enabled Safeway to access the WKH lamotrigine monograph. Hardin sued