Order: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                O50 Ge2y

DENNIS J. HERRERA

City Attorney, City of San Francisco
RONALD P. FLYNN, SBN 184186
Chief Deputy City Attorney

YVONNE R. MERE, SBN 173594

Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation
MOLLY J. ALARCON, SBN 315244
SARA J. EISENBERG, SBN 269303
MATTHEW GOLDBERG, SBN 240766
Deputy City Attorneys

Office of the San Francisco City Attorney
1390 Market Street, Seventh Floor

San Francisco, California 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3800

Email: matthew.goldberg@sfcityatty.org

Attorneys for the People of the State of California

(Plaintiff's Counsel Continued on Next Page)

San Francisco County Superior Court

APR 20 2021
CLERK OF THE CO!
BK OF URT

BY: 2
27 Cissy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; LYFT, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1-50,

Defendants.

Case No. CGC-20-584402

JOINT REQUEST TO DISSOLVE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND

PROPOSED] ORDER

Judge: Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo
Date: N/A

Time: N/A

Dept.: 304

Date Action Filed: May 5, 2020

Trial Date: None Set

1

Joint Request to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction and [Ppaposéd] Order (Case No. CGC-20-584402)

aspCo em ND HH BF WN

NN N NY N NON NON De
eo NIN DHF BH &§ So we AYA HA RF BW NH FD

Additional Counsel for the People (Continued from Preceding Page):

MATTHEW RODRIQUEZ

Acting Attorney General of California
SATOSHI YANAI, SBN 186355

Senior Assistant Attorney General

MARISA HERNANDEZ-STERN, SBN 282477
Supervising Deputy Attorney General _

MINSU D. LONGIARU, SBN 298599

R. ERANDI ZAMORA-GRAZIANO, SBN 281929
DEMIAN CAMACHO, SBN 286693

LILLIAN Y. TABE, SBN 207338

Deputy Attorneys General

1515 Clay Street, 20° Floor

P.O. Box 70550

Oakland, California 94612-0550

Telephone: (510) 879-1300

Email: minsu.longiaru@doj.ca.gov

MICHAEL N. FEUER

City Attorney, City of Los Angeles
MICHAEL BOSTROM, SBN 211778
Managing Assistant City Attorney
Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney
200 North Spring Street, 14" Floor

Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: (213) 978-1867

Email: michael.bostrom@lacity.gov

MARA W. ELLIOTT

City Attorney, City of San Diego
MARK ANKCORN, SBN 166871
Chief Deputy City Attorney
KEVIN B. KING, SBN 309397
JULIE RAU, SBN 317658
Deputy City Attorneys

San Diego City Attorney’s Office
1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1100
San Diego, California 92101-4100
Telephone: (619) 236-6220
Email: KBKing@sandiego.gov

Attorneys for the People of the State of California

2

Joint Request to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction and Broppéec Order (Case No. CGC-20-584402)Co em YN DH BF Bw NH

No RN KN Be eB Be eB es ee
BNRRRBERRBE SE RVWTABTRE BERS

I. | PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 5, 2020, Plaintiff, the People of the State of California (“People”), by and through
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of the State of California; Michael N. Feuer, Los Angeles City
Attorney; Mara W. Elliott, San Diego City Attorney; and Dennis J. Herrera, San Francisco City
Attorney, brought this action against Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), and Does
one through fifty (collectively “Defendants”). :

On June 25, 2020, the People moved for a preliminary injunction. On August 10, 2020, the
San Francisco Superior Court (Schulman, J.) granted the motion and issued an order under which
Defendants were “enjoined and restrained from classifying their [California] Drivers as independent
contractors in violation of Labor Code section 2750.3.”

The Court of Appeal affirmed the injunction and denied Defendants’ petitions for rehearing;
the Supreme Court denied Defendants’ petitions for review and Defendants’ requests for
depublication.. (People vy. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 266, as modified on denial
of reh'g (Nov. 20, 2020), review denied (Feb. 10, 2021).) The Court of Appeal issued remittitur on
February 22, 2021. “ “

The preliminary injunction has been stayed since it was granted—first by the San Francisco
Superior Court and later by the Court of Appeal. The stay is currently set to “expire 60 days after
issuance of the remittitur, or, if any party brings an application or motion to vacate the preliminary
injunction within that time period, 30 days after the trial court rules on the motion or application,
whichever is later.” (Id. at p. 317.)

On March 25, 2021, this Court granted the People’s application for complex designation and
assigned the action for all purposes to this department,

, I. JOINT REQUEST

Courts retain the power to dissolve a preliminary injunction at any point. (See Sontag Chain
Stores Co. v. Superior Court (1941) 18 Cal.2d 92, 94-95 [an injunetive order, “it has uniformly been
held, is always subject, upon a proper showing, to modification or dissolution by the court which
rendered it”); see also Union Interchange, Inc. v. Savage (1959) 52 Cal.2d 601, 604 [When the

decree is continuing in nature, directed at future events, it must be subject to adaptation as events may
3

Joint Request to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction and [Propogéd] Order (Case No. CGC-20-584402)shape the need”); Salazar v. Eastin (1995) 9 Cal.4th 836, 850 [court has inherent power to vacate an
injunction upon a showing of a change in controlling law].) A court may “modify or dissolve an
injunction . . . upon a showing that there has been a material change in the facts upon which the
injunction . . . was granted, that the law upon which the injunction . . . was granted has changed, or
that the ends of justice would be served by the modification or dissolution of the injunction.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 533.)

Here, the People and the Defendants (collectively, the “Parties”) jointly request that this Court
prospectively dissolve the preliminary injunction because there have been material changes in fact and
law. On November 3, 2020, California voters passed Proposition 22. (California Secretary of State,
General Election, Statement of Vote, available at < https:/Awww.sos.ca.gov/elections/prior-
elections/statewide-election-results/general-election-november-3-2020/statement-vote > [as of April 5,
2021].) Proposition 22 became effective on December 16, 2020, and is codified at Business and
Professions Code sections 7448 to 7467. It provides, in relevant part, that ah app-based driver is an
independent contractor with respect to the app-based driver’s relationship with a network company if

the following four conditions are met:

(a) The network company does not unilaterally prescribe specific dates, times of day, or
a minimum number of hours during which the app-based driver must be logged into the
network company's online-enabled application or platform.

(b) The network company does not require the app-based driver to accept any specific
rideshare service or delivery service request as a condition of maintaining access to the
network company's online-enabled application or platform.

(c) The network company does not restrict the app-based driver from performing
tideshare services or delivery services through other network companies except during
engaged time.

(d) The network company does not restrict the app-based driver from working in any
other lawful occupation or business.

(Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7451.)

Uber and Lyft represent that—for purposes of Proposition 22—they are network companies
and the Drivers affected by the preliminary injunction are app-based drivers. Uber and Lyft further
represent that they are meeting the aforementioned four conditions and, therefore, these Drivers are

properly classified as independent contractors rendering the preliminary injunction no longer
4

ZZ
Joint Request to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction and ed] Order (Case No. CGC-20-584402)
PsOo Oe IN DWH BF BN HY

RoN De Be Be eB ew we ee ewe eB
8B SRkREBBREBERERDRERDE BHR AS

applicable. Under these circumstances, the Parties believe that the ends of justice warrant this Court
dissolving the preliminary injunction. Doing so will save judicial resources by obviating the need for
a noticed motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 533, and the associated briefing and
hearing.
Ill. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully request that this Court exercise its inherent

power and prospectively dissolve the preliminary injunction.

DATED: April 12, 2021 DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney, City of San Francisco

By: _/s/Matthew D. Goldberg

Matthew D. Goldberg
Attorney for the People of the State of California

DATED: April 12, 2021 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP ~

By: _/s/Rohit Singla

Rohit Singla
Attorney for Defendant Lyft, Inc.

DATED: April 12, 2021 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

By: _/s/Heather L. Richardson

Heather L. Richardson

Attorney for Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.

5

Joint Request to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction and Propo5éd] Order (Case No. CGC-20-584402)[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon joint request of the Parties, the preliminary injunction in this matter, issued on
August 10, 2020, is hereby DISSOLVED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

patep: 4-(beH Bul Oa
' Honorable Anne-Christine Massullo
Judge of the Superior Court

6

Joint Request to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction and [Prgposed] Order (Case No. CGC-20-584402)