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

                                WARREN METLITZKY (CA Bar No. 220758)
 1 GABRIELA KIPNIS (CA Bar No. 284965)
   CONRAD | METLITZKY | KANE LLP
 2 Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400                                 ELECTRONICALLY
   San Francisco, CA 94111                                                FILED
 3 Telephone: (415) 343-7100                                           Superior Court of California,
                                                                        County of San Francisco
   Facsimile:     (415) 343-7101
 4 Email: wmetlitzky@conmetkane.com                                        02/27/2023
   Email: gkipnis@conmetkane.com                                        Clerk of the Court
 5                                                                       BY: JUDITH NUNEZ
                                                                                      Deputy Clerk
   HEIDI K. HUBBARD (pro hac vice)
 6 BETH A. STEWART (pro hac vice)
   DAVID RANDALL J. RISKIN (pro hac vice)
 7 WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
   680 Maine Avenue, S.W.
 8 Washington, DC 20024
   Telephone: (202) 434-5000
 9 Facsimile:     (202) 434-5029
   Email: hhubbard@wc.com
10 Email: bstewart@wc.com
   Email: driskin@wc.com
11
   Attorneys for Lyft, Inc.
12
                            SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
                                    COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
14
   Coordination Proceeding                      Case No. CJC-20-005061
15 Special Title (Rule 3.550)
                                                JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION
16                                              PROCEEDING NO. 5061
17   IN RE LYFT RIDESHARE CASES                       Case Assigned to the Honorable Andrew Y.S. Cheng,
                                                      Dept. 613
18   This document applies to:
                                                      LYFT, INC.’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
19   Jane Doe v. Lyft, Inc., No. 20STCV24962          OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
     (Super. Ct., L.A. Cty.)                          IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
20                                                    SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
21                                                    REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
22                                                    (Filed concurrently with Notice of Motion and Motion
                                                      for Summary Adjudication and Memorandum of
23                                                    Points and Authorities in Support, Request for
                                                      Judicial Notice, 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)         SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSA
 1          Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 437c(b)(1) and California Rule of Court 3.1350(d),

 2 Lyft, Inc. submits this separate statement of undisputed material facts in support of its summary-

 3 adjudication motion. The evidence cited in this statement is set forth in the declaration of Cavale Scott

 4 and the exhibits attached thereto, the declaration of Warren Metlitzky and the exhibits attached thereto,

 5 and the accompanying Request for Judicial Notice, all of which is filed with this statement.

 6                                      General Undisputed Material Facts

 7             Lyft’s Undisputed Material                            Plaintiff’s Response and
             Fact and Undisputed Evidence                             Supporting Evidence
 8    1.      Riders can request rides offered on the
      Lyft platform through a mobile-phone
 9
      application (the “Lyft app”).
10
      Decl. of C. Scott (Feb. 27, 2023), ¶ 3; Decl. of
11    W. Metlitzky (Feb. 27, 2023), Ex. 8 (First
      Am. Compl. (Dec. 27, 2022)), ¶ 3.
12

13    2.      During the early morning hours of
      June 16, 2019, Plaintiff requested a ride from
14    her residence to an address in West
      Hollywood, California using the Lyft app.
15
      Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 147:15–
16    17, 150:5–10; Scott Decl. ¶¶ 7, 12 & Ex. 1;
17    Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 8 (First Am. Compl.
      (Dec. 27, 2022)), ¶ 3.
18
      3.      Plaintiff alleges the driver of the ride
19    at issue on June 16, 2019 masturbated during
      the ride at issue.
20

21    Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 8 (First Am. Compl.
      (Dec. 27, 2022)), ¶¶ 63–64; Metlitzky Decl.,
22    Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 207:12–16.
23

24                   Undisputed Material Facts Relevant to Plaintiff’s Tenth and Eleventh
25                                    Causes of Action for Products Liability
26          Lyft is entitled to summary adjudication in its favor on the failure-to-warn products-liability
27 claims because, as a matter of law, Lyft provides a service, not a product. Nor, in all events, does the

28
                                                            2
     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)                SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSA
30
 1 Lyft application meet the definition of a “product,” and it therefore cannot be the basis of a products-

 2 liability claim.1

 3             Lyft’s Undisputed Material                           Plaintiff’s Response and
 4           Fact and Undisputed Evidence                            Supporting Evidence
      4.      Riders can request rides offered on the
 5    Lyft platform through a mobile-phone
      application (the “Lyft app”).
 6
      Scott Decl. ¶ 3; Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 8 (First
 7
      Am. Compl. (Dec. 27, 2022)), ¶ 3.
 8
      5.      During the early morning hours of
 9    June 16, 2019, Plaintiff requested a ride from
      her residence to an address in West
10    Hollywood, California using the Lyft app.
11
      Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 147:15–
12    17, 150:5–10; Scott Decl. ¶¶ 7, 12 & Ex. 1;
      Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 8 (First Am. Compl.
13    (Dec. 27, 2022)), ¶ 3.
14    6.      Plaintiff alleges that Lyft connects
15    people seeking rides with people providing
      rides through the Lyft app.
16
      Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 8 (First Am. Compl.
17    (Dec. 27, 2022)), ¶ 18.
18
      7.      Plaintiff alleges that the Lyft app
19    matches a rider with a driver, who drives the
      rider to their destination.
20
      Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 8 (First Am. Compl.
21    (Dec. 27, 2022)), ¶ 18.
22

23

24

25
            1
26          Whether there is a product at issue in this action is a question of law for the Court, and thus no
   dispute of fact would preclude summary adjudication. See Brooks v. Eugene Burger Mgmt. Corp., 215
27 Cal. App. 3d 1611, 1626 (1989). Nevertheless, Lyft is including the “facts” underlying its legal
   argument that the Lyft app is not a product out of an abundance of caution and to forestall any theory
28 that procedural impediments would preclude summary adjudication.
                                                         3
     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)               SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSA
30
               Lyft’s Undisputed Material                         Plaintiff’s Response and
 1           Fact and Undisputed Evidence                          Supporting Evidence
 2    8.     In her complaint, Plaintiff repeatedly
      references Lyft’s “services.”
 3
      Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 8 (First Am. Compl.
 4    (Dec. 27, 2022)), ¶¶ 59, 60, 138, 141, 151.
 5
      9.      The Legislature classifies Lyft as a
 6    “[t]ransportation network company”—a
      company “providing prearranged
 7    transportation services for compensation using
      an online-enabled application or platform to
 8    connect passengers with drivers using a
 9    personal vehicle.”

10    Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 5431(c).

11    10.      The Legislature has said: “The
      commission has initiated regulation of
12    transportation network companies as a new
13    category of charter-party carriers and
      continues to develop appropriate regulations
14    for this new service.”

15    Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 5440(a).
16
      11.     The Legislature has said:
17    “Technology application-based ride hailing
      services, such as those services provided by
18    transportation network companies (TNC),
      have impacted the lives of many people by
19    reducing transportation barriers that limited
      access to jobs, health care, and society.
20
      However, more can be done to enable
21    increased access to on-demand transportation
      services for people with disabilities, especially
22    for persons using nonfolding motorized
      wheelchairs.”
23

24    Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 5440(d).

25

26

27

28
                                                          4
     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)             SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSA
30
                Lyft’s Undisputed Material                            Plaintiff’s Response and
 1            Fact and Undisputed Evidence                             Supporting Evidence
 2    12.      Lyft’s operating permit states that Lyft
      “facilitate[s] rides between passengers and
 3    private drivers using their own personal
      vehicles.”
 4
      Req. for Judicial Notice, Ex. I (Transportation
 5
      Network Company Permit (expires Apr. 9,
 6    2023)).

 7

 8                          Undisputed Material Facts Relevant to Plaintiff’s Second

 9                     Cause of Action for Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention

10          Lyft is entitled to summary adjudication in its favor on the negligent hiring, supervision, and

11 retention claim because Plaintiff cannot show, as required, that there was specific evidence, from either

12 before or after the at-issue driver began driving on the Lyft platform, that would have put Lyft on notice

13 he had a propensity to commit the alleged sexual misconduct.

14             Lyft’s Undisputed Material                             Plaintiff’s Response and
             Fact and Undisputed Evidence                              Supporting Evidence
15
      13.     Riders can request rides offered on the
16    Lyft platform through a mobile-phone
      application (the “Lyft app”).
17
      Scott Decl. ¶ 3; Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 8 (First
18    Am. Compl. (Dec. 27, 2022)), ¶ 3.
19
      14.     During the early morning hours of
20    June 16, 2019, Plaintiff requested a ride from
      her residence to an address in West
21    Hollywood, California using the Lyft app.
22    Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 147:15–
23    17, 150:5–10; Scott Decl. ¶¶ 7, 12 & Ex. 1.

24    15.    For the ride Plaintiff requested using
      the Lyft app on June 16, 2019, she was
25    matched with a driver named Matias.
26
      Scott Decl. ¶¶ 7, 12 & Exs. 1, 5.
27

28
                                                             5
     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)                 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSA
30
               Lyft’s Undisputed Material                             Plaintiff’s Response and
 1           Fact and Undisputed Evidence                              Supporting Evidence
 2    16.    Before Matias was permitted to access
      the Lyft platform as a driver, a third-party
 3    vendor conducted a background check on
      Matias for Lyft.
 4
      Scott Decl. ¶¶ 9–10 & Ex. 4.
 5

 6    17.    That third-party background check
      included certain state and federal records
 7    searches.
 8    Scott Decl., Ex. 4.
 9
      18.    The background check did not reflect
10    any disqualifying convictions of Matias in
      those databases.
11
      Scott Decl. ¶ 10 & Ex. 4.
12

13    19.      Matias gave 119 rides as a driver on
      the Lyft platform before the June 16, 2019
14    ride at issue.

15    Scott Decl. ¶¶ 11–12 & Ex. 5.
16
      20.    Matias received zero instances of
17    negative written feedback by riders through
      the Lyft app before the ride at issue.
18
      Scott Decl. ¶ 13 & Ex. 6.
19

20    21.     None of the in-app feedback prior to
      the ride at issue reported that Matias acted in a
21    sexually-inappropriate manner.

22    Scott Decl. ¶ 13 & Ex. 6.
23    22.     Prior to the ride at issue, there were no
24    communications in the Zendesk system
      reporting that Matias acted in a sexually-
25    inappropriate manner.

26    Scott Decl. ¶ 14.
27

28
                                                             6
     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)                 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSA
30
 1                      Undisputed Material Facts Relevant to Plaintiff’s Eighth and

 2                 Ninth Causes of Action for Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation

 3          Lyft is entitled to summary adjudication in its favor on Plaintiff’s misrepresentation claims

 4 because she has failed to identify any particular statements she claims are false or misleading. She does

 5 not identify the timing of any particular statement, the context of any particular statement, or how she

 6 relied on any particular statement. Although Plaintiff falls back on the statements alleged in her

 7 amended complaint, those incomplete fragments—again, divorced from timing or context—cannot give

 8 rise to liability.

 9            Lyft’s Undisputed Material                           Plaintiff’s Response and
10           Fact and Undisputed Evidence                           Supporting Evidence
      23.
11

12
      Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 222:25–
13
      223:2.
14
      24.
15

16    Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 223:3–4.
17
      25.
18
19
      Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 223:5–7.
20

21    26.

22

23
      Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 224:2–10.
24

25

26

27

28
                                                          7
     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)              SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSA
30
              Lyft’s Undisputed Material                            Plaintiff’s Response and
 1           Fact and Undisputed Evidence                            Supporting Evidence
 2    27.

 3

 4    Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 223:22–
      224:1.
 5

 6    28.    Lyft served a special interrogatory
      asking that Plaintiff “[s]pecify each
 7    ‘misrepresentation[] of fact’ made by LYFT
      and received by YOU that YOU say induced
 8    YOU to use LYFT on June 16, 2019, as
 9    alleged in paragraphs 137-45 of the
      COMPLAINT, including the complete
10    verbatim content of the statement, the date and
      time up which YOU received the statement,
11    and the means by which YOU received the
      statement.”
12

13    Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 9 (Pl.’s Resps. to Lyft’s
      Special Interrogs., Set Two (Feb. 20, 2023)),
14    Interrog. 11.

15    29.     Plaintiff responded to special
      interrogatory 11 on February 20, 2023.
16

17    Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 9 (Pl.’s Resps. to Special
      Interrogs., Set Two), Interrog. 11.
18
      30.
19

20    Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 9 (Pl.’s Resps. to Special
21    Interrogs., Set Two), Interrog. 11.

22    31.

23

24

25

26    Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 9 (Pl.’s Resps. to Special
      Interrogs., Set Two), Interrog. 11.
27

28
                                                           8
     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)               SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSA
30
               Lyft’s Undisputed Material                           Plaintiff’s Response and
 1           Fact and Undisputed Evidence                            Supporting Evidence
 2    32.    After the at-issue ride on June 16,
      2019 through June 2020, Plaintiff completed
 3    71 rides that she had requested through the
      Lyft app.
 4
      Scott Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. 1.
 5

 6    33.     On August 9, 2019 at 10:14 p.m.,
      Plaintiff, using the Lyft app, requested a ride
 7    from her residence to the same address in
      West Hollywood, California as for the June
 8    16, 2019 ride at issue.
 9
      Scott Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. 1.
10

11                               Undisputed Material Facts Relevant to Plaintiff’s
12                                       Fifth Cause of Action for Assault
13            Lyft is entitled to summary adjudication in its favor on the assault claim because the undisputed
14 evidence establishes that there was no threatened physical contact, which is an essential element of

15 assault.

16
               Lyft’s Undisputed Material                           Plaintiff’s Response and
17           Fact and Undisputed Evidence                            Supporting Evidence
      34.     Riders can request rides offered on the
18    Lyft platform through a mobile-phone
      application (the “Lyft app”).
19
      Scott Decl. ¶ 3; Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 8 (First
20
      Am. Compl. (Dec. 27, 2022)), ¶ 3.
21
      35.     During the early morning hours of
22    June 16, 2019, Plaintiff requested a ride from
      her residence to an address in West
23    Hollywood, California using the Lyft app.
24
      Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 147:15–
25    17, 150:5–10; Scott Decl. ¶¶ 7, 12 & Ex. 1.

26

27

28
                                                           9
     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)               SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSA
30
                Lyft’s Undisputed Material                           Plaintiff’s Response and
 1            Fact and Undisputed Evidence                            Supporting Evidence
 2    36.     Plaintiff alleges the driver of the ride
      at issue on June 16, 2019 masturbated during
 3    the ride at issue.

 4    Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 8 (First Am. Compl.
      (Dec. 27, 2022)), ¶¶ 63–64; Metlitzky Decl.,
 5
      Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 207:12–16.
 6
      37.
 7

 8    Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 236:2–4.
 9
      38.
10

11
      Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 179:8–17;
12    235:24–236:1.
13
      39.
14

15    Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 179:11–
      14.
16

17    40.

18
      Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 179:11–
19    14.
20
      41.
21

22
      Metlitzky Decl., Ex. 7 (Pl.’s Dep.), 236:5–8.
23

24

25

26

27

28
                                                            10
     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)                SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSA
30
 1 DATED: February 27, 2023                     Respectfully submitted,

 2                                              CONRAD | METLITZKY | KANE LLP
 3

 4                                              WARREN METLITZKY
 5                                              GABRIELA KIPNIS
                                                WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
 6

 7                                              HEIDI K. HUBBARD
                                                BETH A. STEWART
 8                                              DAVID RANDALL J. RISKIN
 9                                              Attorneys for Lyft, Inc.
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
                                               11
     CASE NO. 20STCV24962 (CJC-20-005061)   SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ISO MSA
30