Notice of Appeal: JOHN ROGERS VS. LYFT, INC.

On March 12, 2020 a Notice of Appeal was filed involving a dispute between Rogers, John, and Lyft, Inc., for OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
APP-010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY STATE BAR NUMBER:202849 FOR COURT USE ONLY
NAME: Eugene M. Paige
FIRM NAME:Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
STREET ADDRESS:633 Battery Street
CITY:San Francisco STATE:CA ZIP CODE: 94111
TELEPHONE NO.:415-391-5400 FAX NO.:415-397-7188 ELECTRONICALLY
epaige@keker.com
E-MAIL ADDRESS:

Defendant Lyft, Inc.
ATTORNEY FOR (name):
F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
STREET ADDRESS:400 McAllister Street 05/21/2020
400 McAllister Street
MAILING ADDRESS: Clerk of the Court
CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Francisco, CA 94102 BY: CARLOS MURILLO
BRANCH NAME: Civic Center Courthouse
Deputy Clerk

PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: John Rogers, Amir Ebadat, Hany Farag
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Lyft, Inc.
OTHER PARENT/PARTY:

RESPONDENT'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL SUPERIOR COURT CASE NUMBER:

(UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE) CGC-20-583685
COURT OF APPEAL CASE NUMBER (if known):
April 30, 2020
Re: Appeal filed on (date): Not Yet Available
Notice: Please read Information on Appeal Procedures for Unlimited Civil Cases (form APP-001-INFO) before
completing this form. This form must be filed in the superior court, not in the Court of Appeal.

1. RECORD OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
The appellant has chosen to use a clerk's transcript under rule 8.122.

a. Additional documents. (If you want any documents from the superior court proceedings in addition to the documents
designated by the appellant to be included in the clerk's transcript, you must identify those documents here.)

In addition to the documents designated by the appellant, I request that the clerk include in the transcript the following
documents from the superior court proceedings. (You must identify each document you want included by its title and provide the
date it was filed or, if that is not available, the date the document was signed.)

Document Title and Description Date of Filing
(1) Class Action Complaint (filed by Plaintiff) 3-12-2020

(2) Notice of Removal, Including ALL Exhibits (filed by Defendant) 3-19-2020

(3) Def.'s Ex Parte App. to Strike Pl.'s Emergency Mot. for Prelim. Injunction for Lack of 4-16-2020
Jurisdiction (filed by Defendant)
(4) Decl. of R. James Slaughter In Support of Ex Parte App. to Strike Pl.'s Emergency Mot. for
4-16-2020
Prelim. Injunction for Lack of Jurisdiction, Including ALL Exhibits (filed by Defendant)
(5) Record of Remand to Superior Court 4-17-2020

(6) Decl. of Christopher Sholley In Support of Opp. to Pl.'s Ex Parte App. for Emergency Prelim.
4-22-2020
Injunction (filed by Defendant)
(7) Notice of Entry of Order (filed by Defendant) 5-20-2020

See additional pages. (Check here if you need more space to list additional documents. List these documents on a
separate page or pages labeled "Attachment 1(a)," and start with number (8).)

Page 1 of 3

Form Approved for Optional Use
Judicial Council of California
RESPONDENT'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.50,
8.121–8.124, 8.128, 8.130, 8.134, 8.137
APP-010 [Rev. January 1, 2019] (Unlimited Civil Case) www.courts.ca.gov
APP-010
CASE NAME: Rogers v. Lyft, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT CASE NUMBER:
CGC-20-583685

1. b. Additional exhibits. (If you want any exhibits from the superior court proceedings in addition to those designated by the
appellant to be included in the clerk's transcript, you must identify those exhibits here.)

In addition to the exhibits designated by the appellant, I request that the clerk include in the transcript the following exhibits
that were admitted in evidence, refused, or lodged in the superior court. (For each exhibit, give the exhibit number, such
as Plaintiff's #1 or Defendant's A, and a brief description of the exhibit. Indicate whether or not the court admitted the
exhibit into evidence. If the superior court has returned a designated exhibit to a party, the party in possession of the
exhibit must deliver it to the superior court clerk within 10 days after service of this notice designating the record. (Rule
8.122(a)(3).))

Exhibit Number Description Admitted (Yes/No)
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

See additional pages. (Check here if you need more space to list additional exhibits. List these exhibits on a
separate page or pages labeled "Attachment 1(b)," and start with number (5).)

c. Copy of clerk's transcript. I request a copy of the clerk's transcript. (Check (1) or (2).)

(1) I will pay the superior court clerk for this transcript when I receive the clerk's estimate of the costs of this transcript.
I understand that if I do not pay for this transcript, I will not receive a copy.

(2) I request that the clerk's transcript be provided to me at no cost because I cannot afford to pay this cost. I have
submitted the following document with this notice designating the record (check (a) or (b)):

(a) An order granting a waiver of court fees and costs under rules 3.50 –3.58; or

(b) An application for a waiver of court fees and costs under rules 3.50–3.58. (Use Request to Waive Court Fees
(form FW-001) to prepare and file this application.)

2. RECORD OF ORAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
The appellant has chosen to use a reporter's transcript under rule 8.130.

a. Designation of additional proceedings. (If you want any oral proceedings in addition to the proceedings designated by
the appellant to be included in the reporter's transcript, you must identify those proceedings here.)

(1) In addition to the proceedings designated by the appellant, I request that the following proceedings in the superior court
be included in the reporter's transcript. (You must identify each proceeding you want included by its date, the department
in which it took place, a description of the proceedings (for example, the examination of jurors, motions before trial, the
taking of testimony, or the giving of jury instructions), the name of the court reporter who recorded the proceedings (if
known), and whether a certified transcript of the designated proceeding was previously prepared.)

APP-010 [Rev. January 1, 2019]RESPONDENT'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL Page 2 of 3

(Unlimited Civil Case)
APP-010
CASE NAME: Rogers v. Lyft, Inc. SUPERIOR COURT CASE NUMBER:
CGC-20-583685

2. a. (1) (continued)

Date Department Full/Partial Day Description Reporter's Name Prev. prepared?
(a) 4-29-2020 302 Partial Motion hearing Maria Torreano Yes No

(b) Yes No

(d) Yes No

(e) Yes No

(f) Yes No

(g) Yes No

See additional pages. (Check here if you need more space to list additional proceedings. List these proceedings on a
separate page or pages labeled "Attachment 2a(1)," and start with letter (h).)

(2) Deposit for additional proceedings.

I have (check a, b, c, or d):
(a) Deposited with the superior court clerk the approximate cost of preparing the additional proceedings by including
the deposit with this notice as provided in rule 8.130(b)(1).
(b) Attached a copy of a Transcript Reimbursement Fund application filed under rule 8.130(c)(1).

(c) Attached the reporter’s written waiver of a deposit under rule 8.130(b)(3)(A) for (check either (i) or (ii)):
(i) All of the designated proceedings.

(ii) Part of the designated proceedings.

(d) Attached a certified transcript under rule 8.130(b)(3)(C).

b. Copy of reporter's transcript.

(1) I request a copy of the reporter's transcript.

(2) I request that the reporters provide (check (a), (b), or (c)) :

(a) My copy of the reporter's transcript in electronic format.

(b) My copy of the reporter's transcript in paper format.

(c) My copy of the reporter's transcript in electronic format and a second copy of the reporter's transcript in paper
format.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 271.)

Date: May 21, 2020

Eugene M. Paige
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF RESPONDENT OR ATTORNEY)

APP-010 [Rev. January 1, 2019]RESPONDENT'S NOTICE DESIGNATING RECORD ON APPEAL Page 3 of 3

(Unlimited Civil Case)
Attachment 1(a) – Additional Documents

Document Title and Description Date of Filing
8. Def. Lyft, Inc.’s Notice of Petition and 4-16-2020
Petition to Compel Individual
Arbitration and Stay Action
9. Def. Lyft, Inc.’s Mem. of P’s and A’s 4-16-2020
In Support of Petition to Compel
Individual Arbitration and Stay Action
10. Decl. of R. James Slaughter In 4-16-2020
Support of Def. Lyft, Inc.’s Petition to
Compel Individual Arbitration and
Stay Action, Including ALL Exhibits
11. Email Correspondence with Court 4-16-2020 through 4-23-2020
Regarding Briefing and Argument
Scheduling [attached to this
designation form for reference as
“Attachment 1(a)-11”]

 Plaintiffs had designated these documents but incorrectly listed their dates of filing as April 20,
2020 rather than April 16, 2020.
Attachment 1(a) – 11 – Email Correspondence with Court Regarding Briefing and Argument
Scheduling dated April 16, 2020 through April 23, 2020.

The document appended hereto is an email thread among counsel for the parties, members of the
court staff, and the Honorable Ethan Schulman (Dept. 302). These emails reflect
communications to and from the Court regarding scheduling, briefing, and hearing arrangements
for the matters on appeal. These emails are designated for the record on appeal because they
pertain to the procedure and timing for Judge Schulman’s resolution of the issues on appeal.
ATTACHMENT 1(a)-11
Email Correspondence with the Court
Regarding Briefing and Argument Scheduling
From: Ethan P. Schulman
To: sliss@llrlaw.com; akramer@llrlaw.com; Brook Dooley; Rachael Meny; Gene Paige; Ian A. Kanig;
adoherty@llrlaw.com; R. James Slaughter; bshatz@manatt.com
Cc: mjones@sftc.org; ebura@sftc.org; contestdept302tr@sftc.org; maria.torreano@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Rogers v. Lyft - Case No. CGC-20-583685 | Ex Parte Applications for Emergency Relief
Date: Thursday, April 23, 2020 1:09:44 PM

i - No employee in your company has ever replied to this person.

Report this Email | Mark as Safe | Powered by MessageControl
[EXTERNAL]

Dear Counsel:

As previously indicated, the Court will hear these related matters together. Plaintiffs’
opposition to Lyft’s motion to compel arbitration shall be filed by Tuesday, April 28, at
4:00 p.m. Pacific time. By the same deadline, Plaintiffs may file any opposition to the
motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by former Governors Davis and
Schwarzenegger. The opposition may address both whether the Court should consider
the proposed amicus brief and, if it does, may respond on the merits to that brief. No
reply briefs or further filings will be considered. The Court will hear argument on
Wednesday, April 29, at 1:30 p.m. Pacific time via Court Call.

For the parties’ information, I understand that the clerk’s office has now received from
the federal court the certified copy of the remand order. Once the clerk’s office receives
the required copy of the docket entries, all filings will be processed and will appear on
the register of actions.

Two other housekeeping matters. First, I still have not received Exhibits 6-10 to
Plaintiffs’ emergency application. Second, Plaintiffs are requested to provide me with a
copy of the operative amended complaint as filed in federal court. Thank you.

Ethan P. Schulman
Judge, San Francisco Superior Court
Civic Center Courthouse, Dept. 302
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

From: Shannon Liss-Riordan
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 5:19 PM
To: Contestdept302tr
Cc: Melinka Jones ; Ernalyn Bura ; Anne Kramer
; rmeny@keker.com; epaige@keker.com; bdooley@keker.com;
ikanig@keker.com; Anastasia Doherty ; R. James Slaughter

Subject: RE: Rogers v. Lyft - Case No. CGC-20-583685 | Ex Parte Applications for Emergency Relief

⚠WARNING: This email was generated from an external source. You should only open files from
a trustworthy source.

Dear Judge Schulman:

Attached please find a courtesy copy of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Lyft’s Motion to Stay. (We filed this
opposition just before 5:00 p.m. I sincerely apologize it was not filed by 4:00; we inadvertently
calendared it for ourselves as due at 5:00, the time we had a brief due yesterday.)

As for Lyft’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, as discussed in this Opposition, we urge the Court to
address Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction prior to considering Lyft’s Motion
to Compel Arbitration. If, however, the Court continues to believe that we must address Lyft’s
Motion to Compel Arbitration at this time, we request that our deadline to respond be early next
week (April 28).

Thank you,

Shannon Liss-Riordan
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Tel: (617) 994-5800
Fax: (617) 994-5801
sliss@llrlaw.com
www.llrlaw.com

From: R. James Slaughter
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 5:15 PM
To: contestdept302tr@sftc.org; Shannon Liss-Riordan
Cc: mjones@sftc.org; ebura@sftc.org; Anne Kramer ; rmeny@keker.com;
epaige@keker.com; bdooley@keker.com; ikanig@keker.com; Anastasia Doherty

Subject: RE: Rogers v. Lyft - Case No. CGC-20-583685 | Ex Parte Applications for Emergency Relief

Dear Judge Schulman,

Attached please find courtesy copies of Lyft’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for an
Emergency Preliminary Public Injunction, along with supporting declarations. These documents
were filed earlier today. There are six PDFs total. Please let me know if you do not receive all six, in
which case I will send them in groups.

Thank you again for your attention to this matter,

R. James Slaughter
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111

e: rslaughter@keker.com
o: 415-773-6623

From: Contestdept302tr
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 3:03 PM
To: R. James Slaughter ; contestdept302tr@sftc.org; sliss@llrlaw.com
Cc: mjones@sftc.org; ebura@sftc.org; akramer@llrlaw.com; Rachael Meny ;
Gene Paige ; Brook Dooley ; Ian A. Kanig
; adoherty@llrlaw.com
Subject: RE: Rogers v. Lyft - Case No. CGC-20-583685 | Ex Parte Applications for Emergency Relief

[EXTERNAL]

Dear Counsel:

Thank you for forwarding copies of these papers, which I had not previously received. By
copy of this email, I am requesting the clerk’s office to formally file the papers in the
docket as well.

In the Court’s view, it would be most efficient to address all of the related pending
matters, including the motion to compel arbitration, at the same time. If Plaintiffs are in
a position to do so, they are requested to submit their opposition to the motion to
compel on Wednesday as well. If Plaintiffs would like additional time to respond,
however, I would of course grant a request for a reasonable extension of that deadline,
which may be made informally by email.
Ethan P. Schulman
Judge, San Francisco Superior Court
Civic Center Courthouse, Dept. 302
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

From: R. James Slaughter
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:49 PM
To: Contestdept302tr ; sliss@llrlaw.com
Cc: Melinka Jones ; Ernalyn Bura ; akramer@llrlaw.com;
rmeny@keker.com; epaige@keker.com; bdooley@keker.com; ikanig@keker.com;
adoherty@llrlaw.com
Subject: RE: Rogers v. Lyft - Case No. CGC-20-583685 | Ex Parte Applications for Emergency Relief

⚠WARNING: This email was generated from an external source. You should only open files from
a trustworthy source.

Dear Judge Schulman,

Thank you for this direction. Lyft will submit its opposition to plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction papers
on Wednesday as you have ordered.

In the meantime, attached to this email are copies of Lyft’s motion to compel arbitration papers.
These documents were filed on Thursday, April 16, and I understand courtesy copies were delivered
to the Court on Friday. We received on Friday what appeared to be an automated notification from
the clerk’s office that the motion to compel arbitration filing had been rejected because the case
had been removed to federal court. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, we are emailing
these papers to you again. Given the rejection notice, please let us know if you want these formally
submitted again with an ex parte application.

Thank you again for your attention to this matter,

R. James Slaughter
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111

e: rslaughter@keker.com
o: 415-773-6623
From: Contestdept302tr
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 9:09 AM
To: R. James Slaughter ; sliss@llrlaw.com; contestdept302tr@sftc.org
Cc: mjones@sftc.org; ebura@sftc.org; akramer@llrlaw.com; Rachael Meny ;
Gene Paige ; Brook Dooley ; Ian A. Kanig
; adoherty@llrlaw.com
Subject: RE: Rogers v. Lyft - Case No. CGC-20-583685 | Ex Parte Applications for Emergency Relief

[EXTERNAL]

Dear Counsel:

The Court is prepared to accept Ms. Liss-Riordan’s representation that the clerk of the
federal district court informed her office that the remand order has been mailed. It is
entirely plausible in the current circumstances that the clerk’s offices in both courts are
operating with reduced staff, which would explain any delays in processing mail, docket
entries, and the like. By the time the Court holds a hearing or issues an order, it
anticipates receiving confirmation that the remand has been perfected, at which time
the duplicative re-filed complaint shall be dismissed.

By this Wednesday, April 22, at 4:00 p.m. Pacific time, the parties shall file further papers
as follows:

Plaintiffs shall file any opposition to Lyft’s application for a mandatory stay of
proceedings or, in the alternative, for an order shortening time on its petition to
compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ remaining claim; and
Lyft shall file any opposition to Plaintiffs’ application for an emergency preliminary
public injunction.

The Court will then inform the parties whether additional briefing is required and
whether it will hold a telephonic hearing.

Finally, please note that on Friday, I received three emails from Ms. Kramer attaching
Exhibits 11-20, 21-25, and 26-36 to Plaintiffs’ application; I did not, however, receive the
supporting declaration or Exhibits 1-10.

Ethan P. Schulman
Judge, San Francisco Superior Court
Civic Center Courthouse, Dept. 302
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

From: R. James Slaughter
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 6:18 PM
To: sliss@llrlaw.com; Contestdept302tr
Cc: Melinka Jones ; Ernalyn Bura ; akramer@llrlaw.com;
rmeny@keker.com; epaige@keker.com; bdooley@keker.com; ikanig@keker.com;
adoherty@llrlaw.com
Subject: RE: Rogers v. Lyft - Case No. CGC-20-583685 | Ex Parte Applications for Emergency Relief

⚠WARNING: This email was generated from an external source. You should only open files from
a trustworthy source.

Dear Judge Schulman,

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020, Lyft gave Plaintiffs’ counsel notice that it did not believe the Superior
Court had jurisdiction over this matter on remand because the federal court had not mailed a
certified copy of the remand order to the Superior Court under 28 USC 1447(c). We asked that if
they had evidence to the contrary to please provide it to us. My email to opposing counsel on this
issue is attached to our ex parte papers. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond. Instead, they filed an
amended complaint acknowledging the jurisdictional issue you identify below.

Lyft still does not have any evidence that the federal district court clerk has mailed a certified copy of
the order of remand to the superior court clerk. It is our experience is that such correspondence is
posted on the federal court’s electronic filing system. See attached for an example. No such notice
has been posted in the Rogers federal court docket.

Finally, I feel constrained to respond to Plaintiffs’ counsel statement that Judge Chhabria said that
that Lyft improperly removed this matter to federal court. Judge Chhabria said no such thing.

Thank you for your continued attention to this matter,

R. James Slaughter
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111

e: rslaughter@keker.com
o: 415-773-6623

From: Shannon Liss-Riordan
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 3:59 PM
To: contestdept302tr@sftc.org
Cc: mjones@sftc.org; ebura@sftc.org; akramer@llrlaw.com; R. James Slaughter
; Rachael Meny ; Gene Paige ;
Brook Dooley ; Ian A. Kanig ; adoherty@llrlaw.com
Subject: RE: Rogers v. Lyft - Case No. CGC-20-583685 | Ex Parte Applications for Emergency Relief

[EXTERNAL]

Dear Judge Schulman:

Thank you for your email. We have contacted the federal court and were told that the order of
remand was mailed on April 9, 2020. We assume that the courthouse has limited operations to
accept mail right now, which likely explains the delay of it having been entered into the court’s
system. (The new complaint we filed, which includes only the public injunctive relief claims that the
federal court remanded to the state court, was filed yesterday (we have the receipt for the filing),
but apparently it is being processed, which is why we do not yet have a case number for it.)

Given that Plaintiffs are attempting to file an emergency motion (that they have been seeking to
have heard for a month – and was originally filed in this court last month, and a hearing set, which
was terminated once the case was removed to federal court (an improper removal, according to the
federal court, with respect to the public injunctive relief claim) – we would urge the court to
consider the motion as soon as possible. Given that the federal court informed us that it mailed the
order of remand last week, that would appear to re-confer jurisdiction on this court.

We received confirmation from the Superior court that our emergency motion and the declaration
and exhibits were filed. The email containing the declaration and exhibits may not have reached you
because of the size of the attachments. We will break them down into separate emails to ensure
the attachments come through.

Thank you very much for your consideration. Please let us know if there is anything further we need
to do to present this motion for the court’s consideration.

Shannon Liss-Riordan
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Tel: (617) 994-5800
Fax: (617) 994-5801
sliss@llrlaw.com
www.llrlaw.com

From: Contestdept302tr
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 5:22 PM
To: Anne Kramer ; Shannon Liss-Riordan ; R. James
Slaughter ; rmeny@keker.com; epaige@keker.com; bdooley@keker.com;
ikanig@keker.com; Anastasia Doherty
Cc: Melinka Jones ; Ernalyn Bura ; Contestdept302tr

Subject: RE: Rogers v. Lyft - Case No. CGC-20-583685 | Ex Parte Applications for Emergency Relief

Dear Counsel:

The Court currently lacks jurisdiction to act on the parties’ applications. When Case No.
CGC-20-583685 was removed to federal court on March 19, 2020, all proceedings were
automatically suspended and the Court lost jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. section
1447(c), jurisdiction is not transferred back to the superior court until the federal district
court clerk mails a certified copy of the order of remand to the superior court clerk.
(Spanair SA v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 348, 352.)

Although Plaintiffs state in their memorandum that they have re-filed their remaining
claim as a new complaint, Plaintiffs’ papers do not bear a new case number, and as yet,
no such newly-filed complaint appears on the docket. (The Court also notes that it has
not received the declaration and exhibits referred to in the attached email, nor do they
appear to have been submitted for filing.) Thus, there is no pending action in which the
Court has jurisdiction to act.

For the parties’ guidance, the Court’s view is that pending the remand of the original
action, filing a second complaint raising the same claim against the same defendant
would not be an appropriate means of circumventing the Court’s temporary lack of
jurisdiction. The Court therefore would be inclined to stay or abate any such later-filed
duplicative action. The parties are requested to inform the Court as soon as the remand
order has been mailed.
Ethan P. Schulman
Judge, San Francisco Superior Court
Civic Center Courthouse, Dept. 302
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

From: Anne Kramer
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 7:09 PM
To: Shannon Liss-Riordan ; Contestdept302tr
Cc: Melinka Jones ; Ernalyn Bura ; R. James Slaughter
; rmeny@keker.com; epaige@keker.com; bdooley@keker.com;
ikanig@keker.com; Anastasia Doherty
Subject: RE: Rogers v. Lyft - Case No. CGC-20-583685 | Ex Parte Applications for Emergency Relief

⚠WARNING: This email was generated from an external source. You should only open files from
a trustworthy source.

To the Court and Counsel:

Attached please find the ex parte application materials filed this evening in the matter of Rogers v.
Lyft, Inc. (as remanded in Case No. CGC-20-583685, and as filed today (see attached complaint)). The
ex parte application materials include: (1) Plaintiffs’ Notice of Ex Parte Application and Memorandum
In Support Thereof; (2) Declaration of Shannon Liss-Riordan In Support of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte
Application, with attached Exhibits 1-35; (3) the Proof of Service; and (4) Proposed Order. Due to
the size of attachments, the Declaration and exhibits will be sent in the next email. Please let us
know if anyone on this email does not receive the Declaration and exhibits.

Pursuant the General Order of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, and email
order of the Hon. Ethan P. Schulman (April 16, 2020), the telephonic hearing will be set at the
Court’s discretion. As Plaintiffs’ counsel represented to the Court earlier this evening, Plaintiffs
provided notice to Lyft’s counsel that they intended to appear to have this ex parte application
heard tomorrow (April 17, 2020) at 11:00 a.m. However, pursuant to the Court’s email order,
Plaintiffs understand the Court will consider the papers and inform the parties as to whether and
when a hearing will be scheduled.

Thank you,

Anne Kramer
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
T: 617-994-5800
F: 617-994-5801
www.llrlaw.com

From: Shannon Liss-Riordan
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 8:44 PM
To: Contestdept302tr
Cc: Melinka Jones ; Ernalyn Bura ; R. James Slaughter
; Anne Kramer ; rmeny@keker.com;
epaige@keker.com; bdooley@keker.com; ikanig@keker.com; Anastasia Doherty

Subject: RE: Rogers v. Lyft - Case No. CGC-20-583685 | Ex Parte Applications for Emergency Relief

Dear Judge Schulman:

When we received your email below, we were in the process of filing Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application
for Emergency Relief. We had informed Lyft’s counsel that we planned to notice the application for
hearing tomorrow, and we apologize that it has taken us longer to pull together all of the papers and
exhibits than we had anticipated, thus the late filing time.

Because the papers are now ready, we will proceed to file them, but we understand from your email
below that the hearing will not take place tomorrow. Instead, we will await your order as to
whether and when to appear for a telephonic hearing.

Thank you,

Shannon Liss-Riordan
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Tel: (617) 994-5800
Fax: (617) 994-5801
sliss@llrlaw.com
www.llrlaw.com

From: Contestdept302tr
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 8:03 PM
To: R. James Slaughter ; Shannon Liss-Riordan ; Anne
Kramer ; rmeny@keker.com; epaige@keker.com; bdooley@keker.com;
ikanig@keker.com
Cc: Contestdept302tr ; Melinka Jones ; Ernalyn
Bura
Subject: RE: Rogers v. Lyft - Case No. CGC-20-583685 | Ex Parte Applications for Emergency Relief
Dear Counsel:

The Court has not received any motion for an emergency preliminary injunction or any
notice that Plaintiffs intend to appear ex parte to seek such relief. Accordingly, Lyft’s ex
parte applications are premature. Consistent with the procedures announced in the
Court’s March 24, 2020 and later General Orders on the Court’s website (link attached
below), if an application for emergency relief is filed, the Court will review the
applications and—where appropriate—notify the parties to appear for a telephonic
hearing. No hearing will be held tomorrow.

https://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/general-info/Information-Regarding-Coronavirus-And-
Court-Operations

Ethan P. Schulman
Judge, San Francisco Superior Court
Civic Center Courthouse, Dept. 302
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

From: R. James Slaughter
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 3:04 PM
To: Contestdept302tr
Cc: sliss@llrlaw.com; akramer@llrlaw.com; rmeny@keker.com; epaige@keker.com;
bdooley@keker.com; ikanig@keker.com
Subject: Rogers v. Lyft - Case No. CGC-20-583685 | Ex Parte Applications for Emergency Relief

⚠WARNING: This email was generated from an external source. You should only open files from
a trustworthy source.

To the Clerk of the Court,

Attached please find two ex parte applications being filed on behalf of Defendant Lyft. Lyft files
these ex parte applications in response to Plaintiffs’ notice that they intend to seek an ex parte
emergency preliminary injunction at 11 a.m. tomorrow. Lyft has noticed these ex parte applications
for tomorrow, Friday, April 17, 2020 at 11 a.m. in Department 302.

1. Lyft moves ex parte to strike Plaintiffs’ motion for an emergency preliminary injunction for
lack of jurisdiction.
2. Lyft moves ex parte to stay this case pending the completion of the arbitration of Plaintiffs’
claims recently ordered by U.S. District Judge Chhabria.
Pursuant to the Court’s general order, Lyft will efile these documents. For each ex parte, the PDFs
attached hereto include as one PDF the ex parte application, declaration in support thereof and
proposed order. If the Court would prefer separate PDFs we would be pleased to provide them. We
will also provide courtesy copies to Department 302.

Thank you,

R. James Slaughter
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111

e: rslaughter@keker.com
o: 415-773-6623
ATTACHMENT 2(a)-1
Reporter’s Transcript of April 29, 2020 Hearing
1

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

2 IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

3 BEFORE THE HONORABLE ETHAN P. SCHULMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

4 DEPARTMENT NO. 302 (REMOTELY)

5
JOHN ROGERS, AMIR EBADAT,
6 and HANY FARAG,

7 Plaintiffs, No. CGC-20-583685
VS.
8

9 LYFT, INC.,

10 Defendants.
____________________________/
11

12
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
13
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2020
14

15 A P P E A R A N C E S
(All appearances via CourtCall)
16

17 For the Plaintiffs:

18 LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
BY: Shannon Liss-Riordan,
19 Anne Kramer
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
20 Boston, Massachusetts 02116

21 For the Defendant:

22 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS, LLP
BY: R. James Slaughter,
23 Rachael E. Meny
633 Battery Street
24 San Francisco, California 94111-1809

28 OFFICIAL REPORTER: MARIA A. TORREANO, CSR #8600, CRR, RMR, CCRR
2

1 April 29, 2020 1:31 p.m.

2 P R O C E E D I N G S

3 THE COURT: Okay. Good afternoon, everybody.

4 This is Rogers versus Lyft. Because we are hearing the

5 matter telephonically, I'll ask everyone to identify themselves

6 for the record.

7 And when you do speak during the course of the hearing,

8 please identify yourself again, for the benefit of the court

9 reporter and the rest of us.

10 Starting with Plaintiffs' counsel, appearances, please.

11 MS. LISS-RIORDAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is

12 Shannon Liss-Riordan for Plaintiffs.

13 THE COURT: Ms. Liss-Riordan.

14 MS. KRAMER: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Anne Kramer for

15 Plaintiff.

16 THE COURT: Okay.

17 MS. MENY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Rachael

18 Meny for Defendant Lyft.

19 MR. SLAUGHTER: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James

20 Slaughter, Keker, Van Nest & Peters, also on behalf

Case Info

Judge

GARRETT L. WONG Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 21, 2020

Case Filing Date

March 12, 2020

County

Parties

EBADAT, AMIR Appellant
FARAG, HANY Appellant
FORMER CALIFORNIA GOVENORS GRAY DAVIS Other
LISS-RIORDAN, SHANNON Attorney for the Plaintiff
LYFT, INC. Respondent
MENY, RACHAEL E Attorney
MENY, RACHAEL E Attorney for the Defendant
PAIGE, EUGENE M Attorney
PAIGE, EUGENE M Attorney for the Defendant
ROGERS, JOHN Appellant
ROGERS, JOHN Plaintiff
SHATZ, BENJAMIN G. Attorney
Robert Slaughter Attorney
Brook Dooley Attorneys for Defendants
Ian Kanig Attorneys for Defendants
Jason George Attorneys for Defendants
Anne Kramer Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Patrick Murray Attorneys for Defendants
Reynaldo Fuentes Attorney
Rohit Singla Attorney
Justin Raphael Attorney

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

Notice of Appeal: JOHN ROGERS VS. LYFT, INC.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties