Preview
1 Andrew M. Morrow, III, Esq. - State Bar No. 128300
DOWNTOWN L.A. LAW GROUP
2 910 S. Broadway
3 Los Angeles, CA 90015
Tel: (213) 389-3765
4 Fax: (877) 389-2775
Email: Andy.morrow@downtownlalaw.com
5
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7 JANE DOE T.H.
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF KERN
10
11 JANE DOE T.H., an individual. Case No.:
12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Downtown L.A. Law Group
13
Los Angeles, CA 90015
v. 1. GENERAL NEGLIGENCE
910 S. Broadway
14 2. NEGLIGENT HIRING,
LYFT, INC., a Delaware corporation; OSCAR RETENTION, AND
15 SUPERVISION
DOE, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive. 3. COMMON CARRIER
16 NEGLIGENCE
Defendants. 4. NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO
17 WARN
5. VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR
18 SEXUAL ASSAULT
6. VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR
19 SEXUAL BATTERY
7. INTENTIONAL
20 MISREPRESENTATION
8. NEGLIGENT
21 MISREPRESENTATION
9. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION
22 OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
10. BREACH OF CONTRACT
23 11. FALSE IMPRISONMENT
24 PUNITIVE DAMAGES
12. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
25 OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
26
[JURY DEMANDED]
27
28
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679)
1 Comes now Plaintiff JANE DOE T.H. ("Plaintiff') alleges causes of action against
2 LYFT, INC. ("LYFT"), a Delaware corporation, OSCAR DOE, an individual; and DOES 1
3 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, and complains and alleges as follows:
4 PARTIES
5 1. Plaintiff, JANE DOE T.H. is filing this action under a pseudonym because Courts
6 generally allow the use of a pseudonym where a “legitimate privacy concern” exists and
7 pseudonyms especially in cases involving victims of sexual misconduct, assault or abuse.
8 (Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1436, 1452.).
9 2. JANE DOE T.H. is and at all times was, an adult female resident of Kern, California,
10 and was an LYFT passenger who was sexually assaulted by Defendant OSCAR DOE who
11 drove her on April 12, 2021.
12 3. JANE DOE T.H. files this action under a pseudonym as she is a victim of sexual
Downtown L.A. Law Group
13 assault. Plaintiff proceeds in this manner to protect her legitimate privacy rights as further
Los Angeles, CA 90015
910 S. Broadway
14 disclosure would expose her to stigmatization and invasion of privacy. Plaintiff further
15 anticipates seeking concurrence from Defendants for entry into a protective order to prevent
16 unnecessary disclosure of JANE DOE T.H.'s real name in the public record.
17 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief
18 alleges that at all times relevant hereto Defendants LYFT, INC., a Delaware corporation;
19 OSCAR DOE, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, are, and at all times herein
20 mentioned were individuals, corporations, sole proprietors, shareholders, associations,
21 partners and partnerships, joint venturers, and/or business entities unknown, primarily
22 residing and doing business in the County of San Francisco, and with LYFT’s principal
23 place of business being located at 185 Berry Street, San Francisco, CA 94107. Said location
24 is the center of Corporate decision-making with respect to the hiring and supervision of
25 LYFT drivers, like OSCAR DOE, including but not limited-safety precautions, passenger
26 safety, as well as decision-making with respect to LYFT’s response to the ongoing sexual
27 attacks upon LYFT passengers.
28
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679)
1 5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, plural, corporate, partnership,
2 associate, or otherwise, of DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who
3 therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. The full extent of the facts linking
4 such fictitiously sued Defendants is unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes,
5 and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE was, and is,
6 negligent, or in some other actionable manner, responsible for the events and happenings
7 hereinafter referred to, and thereby negligently, or in some other actionable manner, legally
8 caused the hereinafter described injuries and damages to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will hereafter
9 seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to show the Defendants' true names and
10 capacities after the same have been ascertained.
11 6. Collectively, LYFT, INC., a Delaware corporation; OSCAR DOE, an individual;
12 and DOES 1-50, inclusive, shall hereinafter be referred to as “Defendants” or “All
Downtown L.A. Law Group
13 Defendants.”
Los Angeles, CA 90015
910 S. Broadway
14 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times herein
15 mentioned, each of the defendants herein was the agent, servant, licensee, employee,
16 assistant, consultant, or alter ego, of each of the remaining defendants, and was at all times
17 herein mentioned acting within the course and scope of said relationship when Plaintiff was
18 injured as set forth herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each and every defendant,
19 when acting as a principal, was negligent in the selection, hiring, supervision or retention of
20 each and every other defendant as an agent, servant, employee, assistant, or consultant.
21 8. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein
22 mentioned, each business, public entity or corporate employer, through its officers,
23 directors, supervisors and managing agents, and each individual defendant, had advance
24 knowledge of the wrongful conduct, psychological profile, and behavior propensity of said
25 agents, servants, licensees, employees, assistants, consultants, and alter egos, and allowed
26 said wrongful conduct to occur and continue to occur, thereby ratifying said wrongful
27 conduct, and, after becoming aware of their wrongful conduct, each public entity, and
28
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679)
1 corporate defendant by and through its officers, directors, supervisors and managing agents,
2 and each individual defendant, authorized and ratified the wrongful conduct herein alleged.
3 9. Defendants are liable for the acts of each other through principles of
4 respondeat superior, agency, ostensible agency, partnership, alter-ego and other forms of
5 vicarious liability.
6 FACTUAL OVERVIEW OF ALLEGATIONS
7 10. On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff ordered a ride through the LYFT rideshare app
8 originating from Olive Drive, Bakersfield, California to 5267 Olive Drive, Bakersfield,
9 California.
10 11. Plaintiff was picked up by a LYFT driver, Defendant OSCAR DOE.
11 12. During the course of the LYFT ride, Plaintiff was sexually assaulted by Defendant
12 OSCAR DOE. Prior to reaching the destination location, Defendant OSCAR DOE stopped
Downtown L.A. Law Group
13 the vehicle in an abandoned parking lot and parked the vehicle before exiting the vehicle
Los Angeles, CA 90015
910 S. Broadway
14 and entering the backseat.
15 13. Defendant OSCAR DOE then propositioned Plaintiff to perform sexual favors in
16 exchange for money, which Plaintiff declined.
17 14. Without Plaintiff’s consent, during the course of the LYFT ride, Defendant OSCAR
18 DOE made contact with Plaintiff by fondling and grabbing her breasts and vagina.
19 15. The conduct of Defendant OSCAR DOE occurred during the ride until Plaintiff was
20 able to push Defendant OSCAR DOE away from her and flee the vehicle.
21 16. Defendant LYFT collected and retained a fee for the LYFT trip that resulted in the
22 sexual assault of Plaintiff.
23 17. These events have had a debilitating effect on Plaintiff. The trauma of the assault
24 caused and continues to cause pain and suffering and has had a catastrophic impact on
25 Plaintiff’s life and well-being. The sexual assault has caused a severe and irreparable
26 deterioration of her relationships with her family and friends.
27 ///
28 ///
4
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679)
1 18. Unfortunately, there have been many other sexual assault victims who like Plaintiff,
2 have been attacked and traumatized after they simply contracted with LYFT for a safe ride
3 home.
4 INADEQUATE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND INADEQUATE SCREENING
5 19. LYFT is aware that LYFT drivers were sexually assaulting and raping passengers.
6 Sexual predators driving for LYFT have continued to assault and sexual assault LYFT's
7 passengers. For years, LYFT has known of the ongoing sexual assaults and sexual assaults
8 by LYFT drivers upon LYFT passengers. Complaints to LYFT by passengers who have
9 been attacked by LYFT drivers, combined with subsequent criminal investigations by law
10 enforcement, clearly establish that LYFT has been fully aware of these continuing attacks
11 by sexual predators driving for LYFT.
12 20. LYFT's response to this sexual predator crisis amongst LYFT drivers has been
Downtown L.A. Law Group
13 appallingly inadequate. LYFT continues to hire drivers without performing adequate
Los Angeles, CA 90015
910 S. Broadway
14 background checks. LYFT continues to allow culpable drivers to keep driving for LYFT.
15 And, perhaps most importantly, LYFT has failed to adopt and implement reasonable driver
16 monitoring procedures designed to protect the safety of its passengers. As a consequence,
17 LYFT passengers continue to be victims of sexual assaults by LYFT drivers.
18 21. Passengers including Plaintiff pay LYFT a fee in exchange for safe passage to their
19 destination. LYFT' s public representations state that "safety is our top priority" and "it is
20 our goal to make every ride safe, comfortable and reliable". Unbeknownst to Plaintiff,
21 LYFT's priority is not passenger safety. Profits are LYFT' s priority. As a result, Plaintiff
22 and other passengers continue to be attacked by sexual predators driving for LYFT.
23 22. When faced with this sexual predator crisis, there are a number of potential safety
24 procedures that a reasonable transportation company would implement in order to address
25 this dangerous situation. Yet, LYFT corporate management has failed to implement the
26 most obvious and straightforward safety procedures in order to address the growing problem
27 of sexual assault by those LYFT drivers who are sexual predators.
28
5
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679)
1 23. Corporate decision-making with respect to passenger safety issues is centered at
2 LYFT' s corporate headquarters in San Francisco. Decisions with respect to the vetting of
3 LYFT drivers and the supervision of LYFT driver's vis a vis the safety of its passengers are
4 made and implemented in its San Francisco headquarters. LYFT's contract with LYFT
5 customers specifies that the agreement should be governed by California law.
6 24. Even today, the hiring of LYFT drivers occurs without any real screening. Potential
7 drivers merely fill out a form online. There is no interview either in person or through online
8 Skype.
9 25. There is no adequate background check and no biometric fingerprinting. In their
10 haste to grow market share and incentivize low wage employees they turn a blind eye to any
11 customer complaints regarding their drivers.
12 26. Almost all online applicants become drivers. Once a LYFT applicant becomes a
Downtown L.A. Law Group
13 driver, LYFT fails to utilize its own technology, including in car cameras and GPS tracking,
Los Angeles, CA 90015
910 S. Broadway
14 to ensure that drivers keep the camera running during the entire ride and that the driver
15 remains on course to the passenger's destination.
16 27. LYFT does not have a zero-tolerance policy for sexual misconduct and has allowed
17 drivers who have been reported for misconduct to continue driving. In fact on information
18 and belief LYFT does not even vet the complaints of sexual misconduct but rather uses an
19 algorithm to determine whether a driver should be deactivated.
20 28. LYFT does not require non-harassment training, nor does it adequately investigate
21 passenger complaints of sexually inappropriate behavior or serious sexual assaults.
22 Shockingly, a chatroom of rideshare drivers exists where they openly discuss and brag about
23 the access that they have to passengers. LYFT's history of hiring sexual predator who have
24 assaulted LYFT passengers, and notwithstanding the obvious and open subculture of LYFT
25 drivers who harbor a sexual motivation for driving passengers, LYFT does nothing to warn
26 its passengers about this very serious and real danger.
27 ///
28 ///
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679)
1 LYFT'S FINANCIAL MODEL
2 29. The key to LYFT's business model is getting as many new LYFT drivers on the road
3 as possible. The more drivers, the more rides, the more money LYFT makes. Unfortunately,
4 more careful screening and supervision would result in fewer drivers and lower profits.
5 30. LYFT also has a high turnover among its drivers because they are not well paid and
6 often move on to other jobs. As a result, and in order to keep the number of drivers on the
7 road at a maximum level, LYFT's business model is designed to accept as many new drivers
8 as possible and to keep as many existing drivers working for LYFT as possible.
9 Unfortunately, LYFT prioritizes profits over passenger safety. That is why LYFT corporate
10 management has made deliberate decisions to adopt inadequate initial screening procedures,
11 inadequate safety monitoring, and has failed to warn passengers of the dangers of riding
12 with LYFT.
Downtown L.A. Law Group
13 LYFT'S CONTROL OVER ITS DRIVERS
Los Angeles, CA 90015
910 S. Broadway
14 31. LYFT exercises significant control over its drivers and those whom it allows to drive
15 for the company. LYFT executives set all of the fare rates. Drivers have no input on the
16 fares charged and no ability to negotiate fares with customers. Fees are standardized based
17 on mileage and or ride time, similar to taxis.
18 32. LYFT collects a percentage fee for every ride. LYFT does not charge drivers a fee to
19 become a LYFT driver and LYFT does not charge drivers to use the LYFT App.
20 33. LYFT drivers are prohibited from answering passenger inquiries about booking rides
21 outside of the LYFT App.
22 34. LYFT has the power to hire and terminate drivers with or without cause.
23 35. LYFT drivers are expected to accept all ride requests while they are logged into the
24 App. Drivers who reject or cancel too many ride requests risk facing discipline, including
25 suspension or termination.
26 36. LYFT provides its drivers with and requires them to use and display LYFT branding
27 materials in order to make their drivers easily identifiable as LYFT drivers.
28
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679)
1 37. LYFT also allows for passengers to provide comments to LYFT regarding their
2 experience with the LYFT driver. These comments are not shared with other passengers.
3 Passengers are not provided with any information regarding their driver other than a
4 photograph, and other basic information about the car. Passengers are not informed about
5 prior complaints concerning particular drivers.
6 38. Within the app, LYFT does not tell passengers whether their comments regarding
7 drivers are shared with drivers, resulting in a rideshare culture where passengers are fearful
8 that giving honest negative feedback could negatively impact their passenger star rating - or
9 result in retaliation from the driver.
10 NO MONITORING OF RIDES
11 39. Given LYFT' s knowledge of the sexual assaults and sexual assaults of its passengers
12 by LYFT drivers, the company should have implemented a monitoring system in order to
Downtown L.A. Law Group
13 protect its passengers. As a technology company with access to a state-of-the-art in-app
Los Angeles, CA 90015
910 S. Broadway
14 tracking system, as well as a camera within the required mobile device, LYFT could take
15 the following steps towards the elimination of the sexual assaults by LYFT drivers:
16 § Adopt a zero-tolerance policy for improper conduct and inform all drivers of the
17 policy;
18 § Maintain a surveillance camera and rules requiring its continuing operation during
19 all rides;
20 § Inform drivers that if they tum off the surveillance system during a LYFT ride,
21 they will never drive for LYFT again;
22 § Inform their drivers that they may not in any way harass or participate in any
23 sexual contact of any kind with their passengers;
24 § Modify the functionality of the app so that LYFT can determine immediately if a
25 driver deviates from these protocols;
26 § Warn riders of the dangers of taking a LYFT ride while intoxicated
27 § Interview drivers to ensure proper fit with the company’s goal of safe rides
28
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679)
1 § Recertify drivers on an ongoing basis and require specific criteria to be met before
2 a driver’s employment is continued.
3 § Ensure that drivers names match their ID’s.
4 40. The ongoing sexual attacks by LYFT drivers are and have long been known to
5 LYFT. Prior to Plaintiffs sexual assault, LYFT has known that a consequence of its business
6 model has been exposing passengers, who are using the business for a safe ride home after a
7 night of drinking, to drivers that may take advantage of their vulnerable position. Despite
8 being a company that holds itself out to the public as being engaged in the safe
9 transportation of its passengers from place to place for compensation, LYFT has failed to
10 take any reasonable precautions to attempt to prevent harm to its passengers.
11 41. At the time of the actions alleged in this complaint LYFT was aware of the
12 established occurrence of sexual assault of its passengers by its drivers but failed to take any
Downtown L.A. Law Group
13 reasonable action to protect its passengers from these assaults and violations.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
910 S. Broadway
14 MISREPRESENTATIONS AS TO SAFETY
15 42. In addition to inadequate background check procedures, LYFT affirmatively induces
16 passengers, particularly unaccompanied, intoxicated, and/or vulnerable passengers, to use its
17 services with the expectation of safety, while LYFT simultaneously knows that sexual abuse
18 of its passengers has been prevalent.
19 43. LYFT does not report statistics about sexual harassment or sexual assault by its
20 drivers. LYFT does not disclose its policies or procedures on dealing with sexual assault by
21 its drivers. LYFT does not properly train its customer service representatives on how to deal
22 with serious allegations of driver misconduct. As a result, passengers who report sexual
23 abuse by a driver have been later matched with the same driver, and dangerous drivers
24 continue to drive with LYFT and assault passengers while LYFT profits from their actions.
25 At the time of Plaintiffs sexual assault, LYFT's guidelines for their drivers made no mention
26 of sexual harassment or assault guidelines.
27
28
9
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679)
1 44. In short, LYFT fails to follow reasonable safety procedures and intentionally induces
2 passengers to use LYFT' s services while in a vulnerable state. As a result, Plaintiff and
3 passengers like her are attacked and sexually assaulted by LYFT's drivers.
4 LYFT'S INADEQUATE BACKGROUND CHECKS
5 45. LYFT relies on a quick, name-based background check process to screen its
6 applicant drivers and has continuously refused to adopt an industry-standard, fingerprint-
7 based background check qualification process.
8 46. LYFT's background check process requires drivers to submit personal identifiers
9 (driver's license and social security number) through an online webpage. LYFT, in turn,
10 provides this information to third party vendors to perform a basic, name-based background
11 check.
12 47. Neither LYFT nor the third-party vendors it uses for background checks verifies that
Downtown L.A. Law Group
13 the information provided by applicants is accurate or complete. The turnaround time for a
Los Angeles, CA 90015
910 S. Broadway
14 LYFT background check is typically between 3-5 days.
15 48. The difference between name-based background checks and fingerprint-based
16 background checks is significant. While a name-based background check searches the
17 applicant's reported name against various databases and compares records that have the
18 same name, a fingerprint-based background check (or biometric check) uses the fingerprints
19 of the individual to match against a law enforcement database, comparing records that have
20 the same print, even if the names are different.
21 49. For example, most prospective taxi drivers are required by the taxicab companies to
22 undergo criminal background checks that require the driver to submit fingerprints through a
23 technology called "Live Scan." The fingerprint images are used to automatically search
24 against all other fingerprint images in government criminal record databases, including
25 databases maintained by state law enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
26 (FBI). The FBI's database includes criminal record information from all 50 states, including
27 sex offender registries. If a person has a criminal history anywhere in the U.S., it will
28 register as a match.
10
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679)
1 50. Fingerprints are not only a highly accurate way to confirm an individual's identity,
2 they are also universally used among state and federal government agencies. This allows for
3 the highest levels of information-sharing among all relevant agencies - an element that is
4 lacking when fingerprints are not used to verify identities.
5 51. Because of the unique identifying characteristics of fingerprints, the Live Scan
6 process provides assurance that the person whose criminal history has been run is, in fact,
7 the applicant. This would ensure that a convicted rapist or sexual predator could not use a
8 false identification to become a LYFT driver.
9 52. Name-based background checks, on the other hand, are limited and not easily shared
10 among the appropriate authorities. These name-based criminal background checks are
11 performed on publicly available databases and records from county courthouses, which are
12 not linked to each other and typically, do not go back past seven years. Because the FBI
Downtown L.A. Law Group
13 database is not accessed, there is no true national search performed, making these searches
Los Angeles, CA 90015
910 S. Broadway
14 incomplete, limited and inaccurate.
15 53. Name-based background checks present systematic, fundamental problems. First,
16 there is no way to positively identify a person via a biometric indicator, increasing the
17 likelihood of fraud. Likewise, because names, addresses and birthdays are not unique, the
18 likelihood of false positives (a person linked in error with another's record) and false
19 negatives (someone getting cleared when they should not) are greatly increased. For
20 example, if an individual changes his/her name, or for some other reason has a criminal
21 history under a different name, the name-based checks can miss the individual's criminal
22 history.
23 54. LYFT has refused to adopt fingerprint-based biometric checks and has in fact spent
24 millions of dollars lobbying against local regulations requiring these checks.
25 55. LYFT's background check process is designed for speed, not safety. In refusing to
26 adopt reasonable safety procedures, LYFT makes clear that its priority is profit, not
27 passenger safety.
28 ///
11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679)
1 56. By failing to take reasonable steps to confront the problem of multiple sexual
2 assaults and sexual assaults of LYFT passengers by LYFT drivers, LYFT has acted in
3 conscious disregard of the safety of its passengers, including Plaintiff, and has breached its
4 duty of reasonable care and has breached the implied and express covenants arising from its
5 contract with its passengers.
6 57. LYFT is legally responsible for the harm to Plaintiff under a number of legal
7 theories including vicarious liability for the intentional acts of its employees (battery and
8 false imprisonment) basic negligence for failing to act with reasonable care when faced with
9 multiple and ongoing attacks by its drivers, breach of the non-delegable duty of a
10 transportation company to provide safe passage to its passengers, punitive damages for the
11 conscious disregard of the safety of its passengers, intentional and negligent
12 misrepresentations and breaches of contract, and express and implied covenants arising out
Downtown L.A. Law Group
13 of its commercial contracts with its passengers, including Plaintiff.
Los Angeles, CA 90015
910 S. Broadway
14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
15 (GENERAL NEGLIGENCE)
16 58. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference.
17 59. On or about April 12, 2021, Defendant OSCAR DOE, an employee of Defendants
18 LYFT, INC. ("LYFT"), a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
19 sexually assaulted Plaintiff JANE DOE T.H. as she was an LYFT passenger in his vehicle.
20 On or about April 12, 2021, Defendant OSCAR DOE got into the back seat of the vehicle
21 next to Plaintiff. Defendant OSCAR DOE made contact with Plaintiff by fondling and
22 grabbing her breasts and vagina.
23 60. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant OSCAR DOE’s conduct.
24 61. As a result of Defendant OSCAR DOE’s conduct Plaintiff was physically and
25 psychologically damaged, incurred medical bills, sustained disability and had to retain an
26 attorney and has incurred legal costs in connection therewith in order to prosecute this
27 action.
28
12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679)
1 62. Defendant OSCAR DOE’s threatening, aggressive and sexual behavior was a
2 substantial factor in Plaintiff’s fear for Plaintiff’s reasonable physical person and her sense
3 of personal dignity.
4 63. By providing transportation to the general public using its application and network
5 of drivers, LYFT owed a duty to act with due and reasonable care towards the public and in
6 particular its own passengers, including Plaintiff.
7 64. LYFT has been on notice that its drivers have been sexually harassing, sexually
8 assaulting, and raping its passengers. LYFT was aware or should have been aware that some
9 LYFT drivers would continue to assault, sexually molest, and/or sexually assault their
10 vulnerable LYFT patrons and passengers.
11 65. Since learning of the sexual assaults perpetrated by its drivers, LYFT never adapted
12 or improved its safety procedures in any meaningful way.
Downtown L.A. Law Group
13 66. LYFT does not require video monitoring of its drivers that cannot be turned off, nor
Los Angeles, CA 90015
910 S. Broadway
14 provide emergency notification to LYFT and the authorities when a driver drastically veers
15 off course from the passenger's destination or abruptly cancels the ride.
16 67. LYFT is very well aware of the dangers its drivers pose yet induces passengers like
17 the Plaintiff to enter LYFT cars while intoxicated. In doing so, LYFT fails to warn of the
18 dangers of sexual assault by LYFT's drivers.
19 68. In fact LYFT encourages passengers to use its services and passes itself of as safe.
20 LYFT does not do any diligence to ensure its drivers do not use the platform for any
21 nefarious purposes such as sexual assault.
22 69. LYFT does not require any sexual harassment/assault training of its drivers nor have
23 any policies in place for immediate termination if a driver engages in sexual misconduct.
24 70. LYFT did not verify the driver’s identity and was responsible for the driver
25 concealing their true name.
26 71. LYFT does not provide passengers with access to the driver’s past complaints or in
27 any way inform them of prior instances of misconduct allegations.
28
13
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679)
1 72. LYFT collects complaints and allegations about driver misconduct but conceals
2 them from its passengers in order to increase its market share.
3 73. LYFT does not cooperate with the police when a driver commits an illegal sexual
4 attack on its passengers. Despite having the express right to disclose driver information at
5 LYFT's sole discretion, LYFT requires that extensive standards be met before the company
6 will even consider law enforcement requests for information. Even after a report of sexual
7 assault or has been made, LYFT generally requires a subpoena before it will release
8 information. LYFT's policy of noncooperation discourages police agencies from making
9 recommendations to District Attorney's offices to file complaints against LYFT drivers, and
10 provides LYFT's predatory drivers with tacit assurance that their illegal attacks will not be
11 detected by law enforcement.
12 74. When hiring new drivers, LYFT does not verify driver identities with biometric
Downtown L.A. Law Group
13 background checks. LYFT does not correct for false negatives created by its name-based
Los Angeles, CA 90015
910 S. Broadway
14 screening procedures. LYFT does not provide industry-standard background checks which
15 would provide the most comprehensive means of screening applicant drivers. LYFT does
16 not invest in continuous monitoring of its drivers and is not immediately alerted when one
17 of its drivers is implicated in criminal acts.
18 75. LYFT cultivates an environment that encourages its passengers to ignore signs of
19 danger.
20 76. LYFT does not have a streamlined process to address passenger reports of sexual
21 assaults by its drivers and continues to let dangerous predators drive for and earn money for
22 LYFT.
23 77. For the above reasons and others, LYFT breached its duty of reasonable care
24 towards Plaintiff.
25 78. LYFT's breach was the legal cause of Plaintiff's sexual assault, which
26 catastrophically traumatized, degraded, violated, and robbed her of her dignity and safety.
27 The depraved attack on Plaintiff caused Plaintiff to suffer psychological harm from which
28 she may never fully recover.
14
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679)
1 79. As a direct and legal cause of LYFT's general negligence, Plaintiff has suffered
2 damages, both economic and general, non-economic damages according to proof.
3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION)
5 80. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference.
6 81. Defendant LYFT and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive hired Defendant OSCAR DOE.
7 LYFT's hiring of Defendant OSCAR DOE was mostly automated, after Defendant OSCAR
8 DOE merely filled out some short forms online, uploaded photos of a driver's license,
9 vehicle registration and proof of vehicle insurance.
10 82. At the time Defendant OSCAR DOE applied to drive for LYFT, LYFT was not
11 performing adequate background checks for its drivers. After minimal information was
12 provided to LYFT, Defendant OSCAR DOE was hired and engaged as a LYFT driver.
Downtown L.A. Law Group
13 83. LYFT did not interview, check the references of, provide training to, or advise
Los Angeles, CA 90015
910 S. Broadway
14 Defendant OSCAR DOE of any anti-sexual assault policies when hiring him. LYFT had no
15 reasonable basis for believing that Defendant OSCAR DOE was fit to drive passengers
16 around and failed to use reasonable care in determining whether he was fit for the task.
17 LYFT should have known of Defendant OSCAR DOE's unfitness but failed to use
18 reasonable care to discover his unfitness and incompetence.
19 84. Despite failing to reasonably endeavor to investigate Defendant OSCAR DOE's
20 incompetence for transporting passengers in a moving vehicle, LYFT employed Defendant
21 OSCAR DOE.
22 85. LYFT knew or should have known that assigning the task of transporting passengers
23 to an inadequately screened driver created an unreasonable risk of harm to LYFT's
24 passengers, including Plaintiff, particularly when LYFT had been on notice of the string of
25 sexual assaults committed by LYFT' s drivers.
26 86. Defendant OSCAR DOE was and/or became unfit to perform the work for which he
27 was HIRED as he improperly and illegally took advantage of LYFT's passenger Plaintiff
28
15
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679)
1 when she attempted to use the service for a safe ride to her intended destination, thereby
2 causing her psychological harm.
3 87. Because of Defendant OSCAR DOE’s unfitness to perform the task of transporting
4 Plaintiff, Plaintiff was sexually assaulted, which humiliated, degraded, violated, and robbed
5 Plaintiff of her dignity and personal safety.
6 88. LYFT's and DOES 1 through 50's, inclusive, negligence in hiring, retaining, and or
7 supervising caused Plaintiff’s sexual assault, which humiliated, degraded, violated, and
8 robbed Plaintiff of her dignity and personal safety. The depraved attack on Plaintiff caused
9 Plaintiff to suffer psychological harm from which she may never fully recover.
10 89. As a direct and legal result of LYFT's general negligence, Plaintiff has suffered
11 damages, both economic and general, non-economic damages according to proof.
12
Preview
1 Andrew M. Morrow, III, Esq. - State Bar No. 128300 DOWNTOWN L.A. LAW GROUP 2 910 S. Broadway 3 Los Angeles, CA 90015 Tel: (213) 389-3765 4 Fax: (877) 389-2775 Email: Andy.morrow@downtownlalaw.com 5 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 7 JANE DOE T.H. 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF KERN 10 11 JANE DOE T.H., an individual. Case No.: 12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Downtown L.A. Law Group 13 Los Angeles, CA 90015 v. 1. GENERAL NEGLIGENCE 910 S. Broadway 14 2. NEGLIGENT HIRING, LYFT, INC., a Delaware corporation; OSCAR RETENTION, AND 15 SUPERVISION DOE, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive. 3. COMMON CARRIER 16 NEGLIGENCE Defendants. 4. NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO 17 WARN 5. VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR 18 SEXUAL ASSAULT 6. VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR 19 SEXUAL BATTERY 7. INTENTIONAL 20 MISREPRESENTATION 8. NEGLIGENT 21 MISREPRESENTATION 9. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION 22 OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 10. BREACH OF CONTRACT 23 11. FALSE IMPRISONMENT 24 PUNITIVE DAMAGES 12. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION 25 OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 26 [JURY DEMANDED] 27 28 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679) 1 Comes now Plaintiff JANE DOE T.H. ("Plaintiff') alleges causes of action against 2 LYFT, INC. ("LYFT"), a Delaware corporation, OSCAR DOE, an individual; and DOES 1 3 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, and complains and alleges as follows: 4 PARTIES 5 1. Plaintiff, JANE DOE T.H. is filing this action under a pseudonym because Courts 6 generally allow the use of a pseudonym where a “legitimate privacy concern” exists and 7 pseudonyms especially in cases involving victims of sexual misconduct, assault or abuse. 8 (Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1436, 1452.). 9 2. JANE DOE T.H. is and at all times was, an adult female resident of Kern, California, 10 and was an LYFT passenger who was sexually assaulted by Defendant OSCAR DOE who 11 drove her on April 12, 2021. 12 3. JANE DOE T.H. files this action under a pseudonym as she is a victim of sexual Downtown L.A. Law Group 13 assault. Plaintiff proceeds in this manner to protect her legitimate privacy rights as further Los Angeles, CA 90015 910 S. Broadway 14 disclosure would expose her to stigmatization and invasion of privacy. Plaintiff further 15 anticipates seeking concurrence from Defendants for entry into a protective order to prevent 16 unnecessary disclosure of JANE DOE T.H.'s real name in the public record. 17 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based upon such information and belief 18 alleges that at all times relevant hereto Defendants LYFT, INC., a Delaware corporation; 19 OSCAR DOE, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, are, and at all times herein 20 mentioned were individuals, corporations, sole proprietors, shareholders, associations, 21 partners and partnerships, joint venturers, and/or business entities unknown, primarily 22 residing and doing business in the County of San Francisco, and with LYFT’s principal 23 place of business being located at 185 Berry Street, San Francisco, CA 94107. Said location 24 is the center of Corporate decision-making with respect to the hiring and supervision of 25 LYFT drivers, like OSCAR DOE, including but not limited-safety precautions, passenger 26 safety, as well as decision-making with respect to LYFT’s response to the ongoing sexual 27 attacks upon LYFT passengers. 28 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679) 1 5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, plural, corporate, partnership, 2 associate, or otherwise, of DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff who 3 therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. The full extent of the facts linking 4 such fictitiously sued Defendants is unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is informed and believes, 5 and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE was, and is, 6 negligent, or in some other actionable manner, responsible for the events and happenings 7 hereinafter referred to, and thereby negligently, or in some other actionable manner, legally 8 caused the hereinafter described injuries and damages to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will hereafter 9 seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to show the Defendants' true names and 10 capacities after the same have been ascertained. 11 6. Collectively, LYFT, INC., a Delaware corporation; OSCAR DOE, an individual; 12 and DOES 1-50, inclusive, shall hereinafter be referred to as “Defendants” or “All Downtown L.A. Law Group 13 Defendants.” Los Angeles, CA 90015 910 S. Broadway 14 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all times herein 15 mentioned, each of the defendants herein was the agent, servant, licensee, employee, 16 assistant, consultant, or alter ego, of each of the remaining defendants, and was at all times 17 herein mentioned acting within the course and scope of said relationship when Plaintiff was 18 injured as set forth herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each and every defendant, 19 when acting as a principal, was negligent in the selection, hiring, supervision or retention of 20 each and every other defendant as an agent, servant, employee, assistant, or consultant. 21 8. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein 22 mentioned, each business, public entity or corporate employer, through its officers, 23 directors, supervisors and managing agents, and each individual defendant, had advance 24 knowledge of the wrongful conduct, psychological profile, and behavior propensity of said 25 agents, servants, licensees, employees, assistants, consultants, and alter egos, and allowed 26 said wrongful conduct to occur and continue to occur, thereby ratifying said wrongful 27 conduct, and, after becoming aware of their wrongful conduct, each public entity, and 28 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679) 1 corporate defendant by and through its officers, directors, supervisors and managing agents, 2 and each individual defendant, authorized and ratified the wrongful conduct herein alleged. 3 9. Defendants are liable for the acts of each other through principles of 4 respondeat superior, agency, ostensible agency, partnership, alter-ego and other forms of 5 vicarious liability. 6 FACTUAL OVERVIEW OF ALLEGATIONS 7 10. On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff ordered a ride through the LYFT rideshare app 8 originating from Olive Drive, Bakersfield, California to 5267 Olive Drive, Bakersfield, 9 California. 10 11. Plaintiff was picked up by a LYFT driver, Defendant OSCAR DOE. 11 12. During the course of the LYFT ride, Plaintiff was sexually assaulted by Defendant 12 OSCAR DOE. Prior to reaching the destination location, Defendant OSCAR DOE stopped Downtown L.A. Law Group 13 the vehicle in an abandoned parking lot and parked the vehicle before exiting the vehicle Los Angeles, CA 90015 910 S. Broadway 14 and entering the backseat. 15 13. Defendant OSCAR DOE then propositioned Plaintiff to perform sexual favors in 16 exchange for money, which Plaintiff declined. 17 14. Without Plaintiff’s consent, during the course of the LYFT ride, Defendant OSCAR 18 DOE made contact with Plaintiff by fondling and grabbing her breasts and vagina. 19 15. The conduct of Defendant OSCAR DOE occurred during the ride until Plaintiff was 20 able to push Defendant OSCAR DOE away from her and flee the vehicle. 21 16. Defendant LYFT collected and retained a fee for the LYFT trip that resulted in the 22 sexual assault of Plaintiff. 23 17. These events have had a debilitating effect on Plaintiff. The trauma of the assault 24 caused and continues to cause pain and suffering and has had a catastrophic impact on 25 Plaintiff’s life and well-being. The sexual assault has caused a severe and irreparable 26 deterioration of her relationships with her family and friends. 27 /// 28 /// 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679) 1 18. Unfortunately, there have been many other sexual assault victims who like Plaintiff, 2 have been attacked and traumatized after they simply contracted with LYFT for a safe ride 3 home. 4 INADEQUATE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND INADEQUATE SCREENING 5 19. LYFT is aware that LYFT drivers were sexually assaulting and raping passengers. 6 Sexual predators driving for LYFT have continued to assault and sexual assault LYFT's 7 passengers. For years, LYFT has known of the ongoing sexual assaults and sexual assaults 8 by LYFT drivers upon LYFT passengers. Complaints to LYFT by passengers who have 9 been attacked by LYFT drivers, combined with subsequent criminal investigations by law 10 enforcement, clearly establish that LYFT has been fully aware of these continuing attacks 11 by sexual predators driving for LYFT. 12 20. LYFT's response to this sexual predator crisis amongst LYFT drivers has been Downtown L.A. Law Group 13 appallingly inadequate. LYFT continues to hire drivers without performing adequate Los Angeles, CA 90015 910 S. Broadway 14 background checks. LYFT continues to allow culpable drivers to keep driving for LYFT. 15 And, perhaps most importantly, LYFT has failed to adopt and implement reasonable driver 16 monitoring procedures designed to protect the safety of its passengers. As a consequence, 17 LYFT passengers continue to be victims of sexual assaults by LYFT drivers. 18 21. Passengers including Plaintiff pay LYFT a fee in exchange for safe passage to their 19 destination. LYFT' s public representations state that "safety is our top priority" and "it is 20 our goal to make every ride safe, comfortable and reliable". Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, 21 LYFT's priority is not passenger safety. Profits are LYFT' s priority. As a result, Plaintiff 22 and other passengers continue to be attacked by sexual predators driving for LYFT. 23 22. When faced with this sexual predator crisis, there are a number of potential safety 24 procedures that a reasonable transportation company would implement in order to address 25 this dangerous situation. Yet, LYFT corporate management has failed to implement the 26 most obvious and straightforward safety procedures in order to address the growing problem 27 of sexual assault by those LYFT drivers who are sexual predators. 28 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679) 1 23. Corporate decision-making with respect to passenger safety issues is centered at 2 LYFT' s corporate headquarters in San Francisco. Decisions with respect to the vetting of 3 LYFT drivers and the supervision of LYFT driver's vis a vis the safety of its passengers are 4 made and implemented in its San Francisco headquarters. LYFT's contract with LYFT 5 customers specifies that the agreement should be governed by California law. 6 24. Even today, the hiring of LYFT drivers occurs without any real screening. Potential 7 drivers merely fill out a form online. There is no interview either in person or through online 8 Skype. 9 25. There is no adequate background check and no biometric fingerprinting. In their 10 haste to grow market share and incentivize low wage employees they turn a blind eye to any 11 customer complaints regarding their drivers. 12 26. Almost all online applicants become drivers. Once a LYFT applicant becomes a Downtown L.A. Law Group 13 driver, LYFT fails to utilize its own technology, including in car cameras and GPS tracking, Los Angeles, CA 90015 910 S. Broadway 14 to ensure that drivers keep the camera running during the entire ride and that the driver 15 remains on course to the passenger's destination. 16 27. LYFT does not have a zero-tolerance policy for sexual misconduct and has allowed 17 drivers who have been reported for misconduct to continue driving. In fact on information 18 and belief LYFT does not even vet the complaints of sexual misconduct but rather uses an 19 algorithm to determine whether a driver should be deactivated. 20 28. LYFT does not require non-harassment training, nor does it adequately investigate 21 passenger complaints of sexually inappropriate behavior or serious sexual assaults. 22 Shockingly, a chatroom of rideshare drivers exists where they openly discuss and brag about 23 the access that they have to passengers. LYFT's history of hiring sexual predator who have 24 assaulted LYFT passengers, and notwithstanding the obvious and open subculture of LYFT 25 drivers who harbor a sexual motivation for driving passengers, LYFT does nothing to warn 26 its passengers about this very serious and real danger. 27 /// 28 /// 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679) 1 LYFT'S FINANCIAL MODEL 2 29. The key to LYFT's business model is getting as many new LYFT drivers on the road 3 as possible. The more drivers, the more rides, the more money LYFT makes. Unfortunately, 4 more careful screening and supervision would result in fewer drivers and lower profits. 5 30. LYFT also has a high turnover among its drivers because they are not well paid and 6 often move on to other jobs. As a result, and in order to keep the number of drivers on the 7 road at a maximum level, LYFT's business model is designed to accept as many new drivers 8 as possible and to keep as many existing drivers working for LYFT as possible. 9 Unfortunately, LYFT prioritizes profits over passenger safety. That is why LYFT corporate 10 management has made deliberate decisions to adopt inadequate initial screening procedures, 11 inadequate safety monitoring, and has failed to warn passengers of the dangers of riding 12 with LYFT. Downtown L.A. Law Group 13 LYFT'S CONTROL OVER ITS DRIVERS Los Angeles, CA 90015 910 S. Broadway 14 31. LYFT exercises significant control over its drivers and those whom it allows to drive 15 for the company. LYFT executives set all of the fare rates. Drivers have no input on the 16 fares charged and no ability to negotiate fares with customers. Fees are standardized based 17 on mileage and or ride time, similar to taxis. 18 32. LYFT collects a percentage fee for every ride. LYFT does not charge drivers a fee to 19 become a LYFT driver and LYFT does not charge drivers to use the LYFT App. 20 33. LYFT drivers are prohibited from answering passenger inquiries about booking rides 21 outside of the LYFT App. 22 34. LYFT has the power to hire and terminate drivers with or without cause. 23 35. LYFT drivers are expected to accept all ride requests while they are logged into the 24 App. Drivers who reject or cancel too many ride requests risk facing discipline, including 25 suspension or termination. 26 36. LYFT provides its drivers with and requires them to use and display LYFT branding 27 materials in order to make their drivers easily identifiable as LYFT drivers. 28 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679) 1 37. LYFT also allows for passengers to provide comments to LYFT regarding their 2 experience with the LYFT driver. These comments are not shared with other passengers. 3 Passengers are not provided with any information regarding their driver other than a 4 photograph, and other basic information about the car. Passengers are not informed about 5 prior complaints concerning particular drivers. 6 38. Within the app, LYFT does not tell passengers whether their comments regarding 7 drivers are shared with drivers, resulting in a rideshare culture where passengers are fearful 8 that giving honest negative feedback could negatively impact their passenger star rating - or 9 result in retaliation from the driver. 10 NO MONITORING OF RIDES 11 39. Given LYFT' s knowledge of the sexual assaults and sexual assaults of its passengers 12 by LYFT drivers, the company should have implemented a monitoring system in order to Downtown L.A. Law Group 13 protect its passengers. As a technology company with access to a state-of-the-art in-app Los Angeles, CA 90015 910 S. Broadway 14 tracking system, as well as a camera within the required mobile device, LYFT could take 15 the following steps towards the elimination of the sexual assaults by LYFT drivers: 16 § Adopt a zero-tolerance policy for improper conduct and inform all drivers of the 17 policy; 18 § Maintain a surveillance camera and rules requiring its continuing operation during 19 all rides; 20 § Inform drivers that if they tum off the surveillance system during a LYFT ride, 21 they will never drive for LYFT again; 22 § Inform their drivers that they may not in any way harass or participate in any 23 sexual contact of any kind with their passengers; 24 § Modify the functionality of the app so that LYFT can determine immediately if a 25 driver deviates from these protocols; 26 § Warn riders of the dangers of taking a LYFT ride while intoxicated 27 § Interview drivers to ensure proper fit with the company’s goal of safe rides 28 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679) 1 § Recertify drivers on an ongoing basis and require specific criteria to be met before 2 a driver’s employment is continued. 3 § Ensure that drivers names match their ID’s. 4 40. The ongoing sexual attacks by LYFT drivers are and have long been known to 5 LYFT. Prior to Plaintiffs sexual assault, LYFT has known that a consequence of its business 6 model has been exposing passengers, who are using the business for a safe ride home after a 7 night of drinking, to drivers that may take advantage of their vulnerable position. Despite 8 being a company that holds itself out to the public as being engaged in the safe 9 transportation of its passengers from place to place for compensation, LYFT has failed to 10 take any reasonable precautions to attempt to prevent harm to its passengers. 11 41. At the time of the actions alleged in this complaint LYFT was aware of the 12 established occurrence of sexual assault of its passengers by its drivers but failed to take any Downtown L.A. Law Group 13 reasonable action to protect its passengers from these assaults and violations. Los Angeles, CA 90015 910 S. Broadway 14 MISREPRESENTATIONS AS TO SAFETY 15 42. In addition to inadequate background check procedures, LYFT affirmatively induces 16 passengers, particularly unaccompanied, intoxicated, and/or vulnerable passengers, to use its 17 services with the expectation of safety, while LYFT simultaneously knows that sexual abuse 18 of its passengers has been prevalent. 19 43. LYFT does not report statistics about sexual harassment or sexual assault by its 20 drivers. LYFT does not disclose its policies or procedures on dealing with sexual assault by 21 its drivers. LYFT does not properly train its customer service representatives on how to deal 22 with serious allegations of driver misconduct. As a result, passengers who report sexual 23 abuse by a driver have been later matched with the same driver, and dangerous drivers 24 continue to drive with LYFT and assault passengers while LYFT profits from their actions. 25 At the time of Plaintiffs sexual assault, LYFT's guidelines for their drivers made no mention 26 of sexual harassment or assault guidelines. 27 28 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679) 1 44. In short, LYFT fails to follow reasonable safety procedures and intentionally induces 2 passengers to use LYFT' s services while in a vulnerable state. As a result, Plaintiff and 3 passengers like her are attacked and sexually assaulted by LYFT's drivers. 4 LYFT'S INADEQUATE BACKGROUND CHECKS 5 45. LYFT relies on a quick, name-based background check process to screen its 6 applicant drivers and has continuously refused to adopt an industry-standard, fingerprint- 7 based background check qualification process. 8 46. LYFT's background check process requires drivers to submit personal identifiers 9 (driver's license and social security number) through an online webpage. LYFT, in turn, 10 provides this information to third party vendors to perform a basic, name-based background 11 check. 12 47. Neither LYFT nor the third-party vendors it uses for background checks verifies that Downtown L.A. Law Group 13 the information provided by applicants is accurate or complete. The turnaround time for a Los Angeles, CA 90015 910 S. Broadway 14 LYFT background check is typically between 3-5 days. 15 48. The difference between name-based background checks and fingerprint-based 16 background checks is significant. While a name-based background check searches the 17 applicant's reported name against various databases and compares records that have the 18 same name, a fingerprint-based background check (or biometric check) uses the fingerprints 19 of the individual to match against a law enforcement database, comparing records that have 20 the same print, even if the names are different. 21 49. For example, most prospective taxi drivers are required by the taxicab companies to 22 undergo criminal background checks that require the driver to submit fingerprints through a 23 technology called "Live Scan." The fingerprint images are used to automatically search 24 against all other fingerprint images in government criminal record databases, including 25 databases maintained by state law enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation 26 (FBI). The FBI's database includes criminal record information from all 50 states, including 27 sex offender registries. If a person has a criminal history anywhere in the U.S., it will 28 register as a match. 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679) 1 50. Fingerprints are not only a highly accurate way to confirm an individual's identity, 2 they are also universally used among state and federal government agencies. This allows for 3 the highest levels of information-sharing among all relevant agencies - an element that is 4 lacking when fingerprints are not used to verify identities. 5 51. Because of the unique identifying characteristics of fingerprints, the Live Scan 6 process provides assurance that the person whose criminal history has been run is, in fact, 7 the applicant. This would ensure that a convicted rapist or sexual predator could not use a 8 false identification to become a LYFT driver. 9 52. Name-based background checks, on the other hand, are limited and not easily shared 10 among the appropriate authorities. These name-based criminal background checks are 11 performed on publicly available databases and records from county courthouses, which are 12 not linked to each other and typically, do not go back past seven years. Because the FBI Downtown L.A. Law Group 13 database is not accessed, there is no true national search performed, making these searches Los Angeles, CA 90015 910 S. Broadway 14 incomplete, limited and inaccurate. 15 53. Name-based background checks present systematic, fundamental problems. First, 16 there is no way to positively identify a person via a biometric indicator, increasing the 17 likelihood of fraud. Likewise, because names, addresses and birthdays are not unique, the 18 likelihood of false positives (a person linked in error with another's record) and false 19 negatives (someone getting cleared when they should not) are greatly increased. For 20 example, if an individual changes his/her name, or for some other reason has a criminal 21 history under a different name, the name-based checks can miss the individual's criminal 22 history. 23 54. LYFT has refused to adopt fingerprint-based biometric checks and has in fact spent 24 millions of dollars lobbying against local regulations requiring these checks. 25 55. LYFT's background check process is designed for speed, not safety. In refusing to 26 adopt reasonable safety procedures, LYFT makes clear that its priority is profit, not 27 passenger safety. 28 /// 11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679) 1 56. By failing to take reasonable steps to confront the problem of multiple sexual 2 assaults and sexual assaults of LYFT passengers by LYFT drivers, LYFT has acted in 3 conscious disregard of the safety of its passengers, including Plaintiff, and has breached its 4 duty of reasonable care and has breached the implied and express covenants arising from its 5 contract with its passengers. 6 57. LYFT is legally responsible for the harm to Plaintiff under a number of legal 7 theories including vicarious liability for the intentional acts of its employees (battery and 8 false imprisonment) basic negligence for failing to act with reasonable care when faced with 9 multiple and ongoing attacks by its drivers, breach of the non-delegable duty of a 10 transportation company to provide safe passage to its passengers, punitive damages for the 11 conscious disregard of the safety of its passengers, intentional and negligent 12 misrepresentations and breaches of contract, and express and implied covenants arising out Downtown L.A. Law Group 13 of its commercial contracts with its passengers, including Plaintiff. Los Angeles, CA 90015 910 S. Broadway 14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (GENERAL NEGLIGENCE) 16 58. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference. 17 59. On or about April 12, 2021, Defendant OSCAR DOE, an employee of Defendants 18 LYFT, INC. ("LYFT"), a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 19 sexually assaulted Plaintiff JANE DOE T.H. as she was an LYFT passenger in his vehicle. 20 On or about April 12, 2021, Defendant OSCAR DOE got into the back seat of the vehicle 21 next to Plaintiff. Defendant OSCAR DOE made contact with Plaintiff by fondling and 22 grabbing her breasts and vagina. 23 60. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant OSCAR DOE’s conduct. 24 61. As a result of Defendant OSCAR DOE’s conduct Plaintiff was physically and 25 psychologically damaged, incurred medical bills, sustained disability and had to retain an 26 attorney and has incurred legal costs in connection therewith in order to prosecute this 27 action. 28 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679) 1 62. Defendant OSCAR DOE’s threatening, aggressive and sexual behavior was a 2 substantial factor in Plaintiff’s fear for Plaintiff’s reasonable physical person and her sense 3 of personal dignity. 4 63. By providing transportation to the general public using its application and network 5 of drivers, LYFT owed a duty to act with due and reasonable care towards the public and in 6 particular its own passengers, including Plaintiff. 7 64. LYFT has been on notice that its drivers have been sexually harassing, sexually 8 assaulting, and raping its passengers. LYFT was aware or should have been aware that some 9 LYFT drivers would continue to assault, sexually molest, and/or sexually assault their 10 vulnerable LYFT patrons and passengers. 11 65. Since learning of the sexual assaults perpetrated by its drivers, LYFT never adapted 12 or improved its safety procedures in any meaningful way. Downtown L.A. Law Group 13 66. LYFT does not require video monitoring of its drivers that cannot be turned off, nor Los Angeles, CA 90015 910 S. Broadway 14 provide emergency notification to LYFT and the authorities when a driver drastically veers 15 off course from the passenger's destination or abruptly cancels the ride. 16 67. LYFT is very well aware of the dangers its drivers pose yet induces passengers like 17 the Plaintiff to enter LYFT cars while intoxicated. In doing so, LYFT fails to warn of the 18 dangers of sexual assault by LYFT's drivers. 19 68. In fact LYFT encourages passengers to use its services and passes itself of as safe. 20 LYFT does not do any diligence to ensure its drivers do not use the platform for any 21 nefarious purposes such as sexual assault. 22 69. LYFT does not require any sexual harassment/assault training of its drivers nor have 23 any policies in place for immediate termination if a driver engages in sexual misconduct. 24 70. LYFT did not verify the driver’s identity and was responsible for the driver 25 concealing their true name. 26 71. LYFT does not provide passengers with access to the driver’s past complaints or in 27 any way inform them of prior instances of misconduct allegations. 28 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679) 1 72. LYFT collects complaints and allegations about driver misconduct but conceals 2 them from its passengers in order to increase its market share. 3 73. LYFT does not cooperate with the police when a driver commits an illegal sexual 4 attack on its passengers. Despite having the express right to disclose driver information at 5 LYFT's sole discretion, LYFT requires that extensive standards be met before the company 6 will even consider law enforcement requests for information. Even after a report of sexual 7 assault or has been made, LYFT generally requires a subpoena before it will release 8 information. LYFT's policy of noncooperation discourages police agencies from making 9 recommendations to District Attorney's offices to file complaints against LYFT drivers, and 10 provides LYFT's predatory drivers with tacit assurance that their illegal attacks will not be 11 detected by law enforcement. 12 74. When hiring new drivers, LYFT does not verify driver identities with biometric Downtown L.A. Law Group 13 background checks. LYFT does not correct for false negatives created by its name-based Los Angeles, CA 90015 910 S. Broadway 14 screening procedures. LYFT does not provide industry-standard background checks which 15 would provide the most comprehensive means of screening applicant drivers. LYFT does 16 not invest in continuous monitoring of its drivers and is not immediately alerted when one 17 of its drivers is implicated in criminal acts. 18 75. LYFT cultivates an environment that encourages its passengers to ignore signs of 19 danger. 20 76. LYFT does not have a streamlined process to address passenger reports of sexual 21 assaults by its drivers and continues to let dangerous predators drive for and earn money for 22 LYFT. 23 77. For the above reasons and others, LYFT breached its duty of reasonable care 24 towards Plaintiff. 25 78. LYFT's breach was the legal cause of Plaintiff's sexual assault, which 26 catastrophically traumatized, degraded, violated, and robbed her of her dignity and safety. 27 The depraved attack on Plaintiff caused Plaintiff to suffer psychological harm from which 28 she may never fully recover. 14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679) 1 79. As a direct and legal cause of LYFT's general negligence, Plaintiff has suffered 2 damages, both economic and general, non-economic damages according to proof. 3 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 4 (NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION, AND RETENTION) 5 80. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated by reference. 6 81. Defendant LYFT and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive hired Defendant OSCAR DOE. 7 LYFT's hiring of Defendant OSCAR DOE was mostly automated, after Defendant OSCAR 8 DOE merely filled out some short forms online, uploaded photos of a driver's license, 9 vehicle registration and proof of vehicle insurance. 10 82. At the time Defendant OSCAR DOE applied to drive for LYFT, LYFT was not 11 performing adequate background checks for its drivers. After minimal information was 12 provided to LYFT, Defendant OSCAR DOE was hired and engaged as a LYFT driver. Downtown L.A. Law Group 13 83. LYFT did not interview, check the references of, provide training to, or advise Los Angeles, CA 90015 910 S. Broadway 14 Defendant OSCAR DOE of any anti-sexual assault policies when hiring him. LYFT had no 15 reasonable basis for believing that Defendant OSCAR DOE was fit to drive passengers 16 around and failed to use reasonable care in determining whether he was fit for the task. 17 LYFT should have known of Defendant OSCAR DOE's unfitness but failed to use 18 reasonable care to discover his unfitness and incompetence. 19 84. Despite failing to reasonably endeavor to investigate Defendant OSCAR DOE's 20 incompetence for transporting passengers in a moving vehicle, LYFT employed Defendant 21 OSCAR DOE. 22 85. LYFT knew or should have known that assigning the task of transporting passengers 23 to an inadequately screened driver created an unreasonable risk of harm to LYFT's 24 passengers, including Plaintiff, particularly when LYFT had been on notice of the string of 25 sexual assaults committed by LYFT' s drivers. 26 86. Defendant OSCAR DOE was and/or became unfit to perform the work for which he 27 was HIRED as he improperly and illegally took advantage of LYFT's passenger Plaintiff 28 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (12068679) 1 when she attempted to use the service for a safe ride to her intended destination, thereby 2 causing her psychological harm. 3 87. Because of Defendant OSCAR DOE’s unfitness to perform the task of transporting 4 Plaintiff, Plaintiff was sexually assaulted, which humiliated, degraded, violated, and robbed 5 Plaintiff of her dignity and personal safety. 6 88. LYFT's and DOES 1 through 50's, inclusive, negligence in hiring, retaining, and or 7 supervising caused Plaintiff’s sexual assault, which humiliated, degraded, violated, and 8 robbed Plaintiff of her dignity and personal safety. The depraved attack on Plaintiff caused 9 Plaintiff to suffer psychological harm from which she may never fully recover. 10 89. As a direct and legal result of LYFT's general negligence, Plaintiff has suffered 11 damages, both economic and general, non-economic damages according to proof. 12