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

                                oO mw nN DH FF WN

yw N N NR YF Be ee Be ee Be ee
RPNRRRBBRB Ge DWAR DEBHRES

San Francisco County ‘Superfor Court
MAY 2.0 2021

CLERK-OF AH GOURT
BY: Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT 613

COORDINATION PROCEEDING SPECIAL Case No. CJC-20-005061

TITLE JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION
{RULE 3.550(c)] PROCEEDING NO. 5061
LYFT RIDESHARE CASES
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO STRIKE
This Order Relates to All Cases.
INTRODUCTION

This case came on regularly for hearing on May 4, 2021 in Department 613, the Honorable

Andrew Y.S. Cheng, presiding. William Levin, C. Brooks Cutter, Angela Nehmens, Michael Greenslade,

Warren Metlitzky, Kristen K. Barton, Stephen J. Estey, Walt Cubberly, Margaret Lecocke, and Celine

Cutter appeared for plaintiffs. Beth Stewart, Heidi Hubbard, David Riskin, and Ana C. Reyes appeared

parties, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to strike.
LEGAL STANDARDS

for defendant. Having reviewed and considered the arguments, pleadings, and written submissions of all

A motion to strike can be made to “any pleading,” including declarations. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436;

Barriga v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 299, 323.) “Under Code of Civil Procedure

section 436, the court ‘may ... at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: [{] ... [{] (b)

-1-

Lyft Rideshare Cases JCCP 5061 Order re: Motion to StrikeoO NY DH FF WY

NON yw ees
BNRRRBBREBSEGeFDTAEBDESHR AS

Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a
court rule, or an order of the court.” (Cal-W. Bus. Servs., Inc. v. Corning Capital Grp. (2013) 221 Cal.
App. 4th 304, 309.)
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs seek to strike the Shu Liu declaration filed in support of Lyft’s forum non conveniens
motion. Plaintiffs challenge the Liu declaration based on Liu’s limited tenure with Lyft, and the
deposition testimony showing Liu lacked the requisite personal knowledge and foundation to attest tb the
facts in the Liu declaration. |

The Court finds sufficient foundation and personal knowledge for Liu’s testimony. Plaintiffs
arguments also go to the weight to be given to Liu’s testimony, not its admissibility. Because Lyft did not
proffer Liu as a witness on the structure and day-to-day activities of Lyft’s Safety and Customer Care
team, plaintiffs’ objections regarding her inability to testify to those facts are moot. |

CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I
!
Dated: May 20, 2021 ce LK C+ |
|
|

ANDREW Y.S. CHENG
Judge of the Superior Court

-2-

Lyft Rideshare Cases JCCP 5061 Order re: Motion to StrikeCERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE
(CCP 1010.6(6) & CRC 2.260(g))

I, DANIAL LEMIRE, a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San
Francisco, certify that I am not a party to the within action.

On MAY 30 2024 » 1 electronically served THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT via
File & ServeXpress on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the File &

ServeXpress website.

Dated: MAY 20 2024

ael Yuen, Clerk”

By:

DANIAL LEMIRE, Deputy Clerk