Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 18

DOUGLAS H. WIGDOR (NY SBN 2609469)

1
JEANNE M. CHRISTENSEN (NY SBN 2622124)
2 ELIZABETH J. CHEN (NY SBN 5126214)
(To be admitted pro hac vice)
3 WIGDOR LLP
85 Fifth Avenue, Fifth Floor
4
New York, NY 10003
5 Tel.: (212) 257-6800
Fax: (212) 257-6845
6
JAMIE C. COUCHE (SBN 252001)
7
ANDERSON & POOLE, P.C.
8 601 California Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94108
9 Tel.: (415) 956-6413
Fax: (415) 956-6416
10
11 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
JANE DOE
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 JANE DOE, Case No.:

16
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
17
vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
18
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., TRAVIS
19
KALANICK, in his personal and professional
20 capacities, ERIC ALEXANDER, in his
personal and professional capacities and EMIL
21 MICHAEL, in his personal and professional
capacities,
22
23 Defendants.

24
Plaintiff Jane Doe, by and through undersigned counsel Wigdor LLP as and for her
25
26 Complaint against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber or the Company), Travis

27 Kalanick, Eric Alexander and Emil Michael (together, Defendants), hereby alleges as follows:
28
Page 1 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 2 of 18

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1
2 1. Uber has taken start-up culture, in which fierceness and always be hustling,

3 two key Uber Competencies, are prioritized above people to a new extreme, perpetuating rape
4
culture and violating all bounds of decency as to customer privacy.
5
2. Plaintiff was violated physically when she was brutally raped in Delhi, India by
6
her Uber driver in December 2014. Sadly, in the United States, Uber executives violated her a
7
8 second time by unlawfully obtaining and sharing her medical records from that vicious sexual

9 assault and have failed, as of the date of this filing, to apologize to her for this outrageous
10
conduct.
11
3. Uber executives duplicitously and publicly decried the rape, expressing sympathy
12
for Plaintiff, and shock and regret at the violent attack, while privately speculating, as outlandish
13
14 as it is, that she had colluded with a rival company to harm Ubers business.

15 4. In December 2014, Travis Kalanick (Kalanick), Ubers Chief Executive Officer,

16
went so far as to make the following public statement:
17
What happened over the weekend in New Delhi is horrific. Our
18 entire teams hearts go out to the victim of this despicable crime.
We will do everything, I repeat, everything to help bring this
19
perpetrator to justice and to support the victim and her family in
20 her recovery.

21 We will work with the government to establish clear background

checks currently absent in their commercial transportation
22
licensing programs. We will also partner closely with the groups
23 who are leading the way on women's safety here in New Delhi and
around the country and invest in technology advances to help make
24 New Delhi a safer city for women.1
25
26
27
1
28 https://newsroom.uber.com/india/statement-from-uber-ceo-travis-kalanick/.
Page 2 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 3 of 18

5. Ubers feigned concern was exposed shortly thereafter when the Company failed
1
2 to do anything to support the victim and her family or to make New Delhi a safer city for

3 women.
4
6. Kalanick, Eric Alexander (Alexander), Ubers then-Vice President for Business
5
in Asia and Emil Michael (Michael), Ubers then-Senior Vice President for Business, bought
6
into the narrative of rape denialism which focuses on whether a victim had been drinking, what
7
8 she was wearing, or whether she knew the alleged rapist, rather than on the very real physical,

9 emotional and financial toll that rape takes on a victim.2

10
7. By focusing on whether she was really raped at all, and painting Plaintiff as an
11
opportunist and a liar, Defendants seemed to be assuring themselves that the only reason why a
12
woman would report a sexual assault is for personal gain, rather than to prevent similar crimes
13
14 from occurring again or to right an injustice.

15 8. Indeed, only by discrediting Jane Does account of what happened, including her
16
medical records about the rape, could Kalanick, Alexander and Michael have contrived such an
17
irrational and fictitious story about a rival ride-sharing company being involved in her rape
18
account.
19
20 9. After Plaintiffs sexual assault, Alexander went directly to Delhi where he

21 managed to obtain Plaintiffs confidential, private medical records generated by physicians who
22
examined her after the brutal rape.
23
24
2
25 See Rebecca M. Loya, Rape as an Economic Crime: The Impact of Sexual Violence on
Survivors' Employment and Economic Well-Being, J. INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE (Nov. 6, 2014).
26 According to studies, sexual assault and the related trauma response can disrupt survivors
27 employment in several ways, including time off, diminished performance, job loss and inability
to work. These outcomes can have long term impacts on the financial well-being of survivors,
28 limiting long-term economic stability. Id.
Page 3 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 4 of 18

10. Alexander showed the records to Kalanick and Michael.

1
2 11. Alexander, Kalanick and Michael discussed the records among themselves and

3 with other staff at Uber, speculating that Plaintiff had made up the brutal rape in collusion with a
4
rival of Uber in India in order to undermine Ubers business.
5
12. Nothing was further from the truth.
6
13. Plaintiff was raped, and her Uber driver was convicted in a criminal proceeding
7
8 for her rape.3

9 14. This flagrantly irresponsible, defamatory and offensive theory concocted by

10
Alexander, Kalanick and Michael has no rational basis. Upon information and belief, Alexander,
11
Kalanick and Michael have no medical training from which they could have reviewed medical
12
examination records of a rape victim and arrived at such a hypothesis. Indeed, Alexanders
13
14 actions were just a sampling in a long series of inappropriate, discriminatory actions that he,

15 Kalanick and Michael took for years without any consequences.

16
15. By way of example only, Kalanick once sent a memo to his subordinates
17
lamenting the fact that he would remain celibate at a work-related event, writing #FML, which
18
in Internet-speak translates to fuck my life, implying that he was upset that he could not have
19
20 sexual relations with his subordinates.

21 16. Also, by way of example only, Michael sought to hide a trip that he took with
22
Kalanick and other male executives to a karaoke/escort bar, where each of the men selected a
23
woman who was labeled with a number to spend the night with them, much to the chagrin of a
24
female colleague from Uber. When she reported the incident, Michael called another witness to
25
26
27 3
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/20/uber-driver-convicted-of-raping-
28 passenger-delhi-shiv-kumar-yadav.
Page 4 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 5 of 18

confirm that she would follow the party line and leave out the part of the evening where
1
2 numbered escorts were selected.

3 17. Alexander continued to retain Plaintiffs records until he was forced to turn them
4
over in or around December 2015.
5
18. Upon information and belief, Uber continues to maintain possession of Plaintiffs
6
medical records.
7
8 19. Ubers board of directors has acknowledged the egregious violation of Ms. Does

9 privacy, with board member Arianna Huffington stating: Our task now is to learn, rebuild and
10
move forward together to write Ubers next chapter.
11
20. Plaintiff is devastated by the acts of Uber and its executives, who have intruded
12
into her very personal medical records from her sexual assault and callously disregarded her
13
14 privacy by sharing their contents across the Company.

15 21. Plaintiff brings this action for intrusion into private affairs and public disclosure
16
of private facts, as well as for defaming her character.
17
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18
22. The jurisdiction of this action arises under diversity of citizenship, which is
19
20 codified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. Ms. Doe is a resident of Texas, Defendant Uber

21 Technologies, Inc. is a citizen of California, and this action involves an amount in controversy in
22
excess of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
23
23. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.
24
because it is headquartered in San Francisco, California and conducts business in California.
25
26
27
28
Page 5 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 6 of 18

24. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1
2 1391(b) and (c) because Defendant is headquartered in this District and because Defendant

3 conducts business in this District.

4
PARTIES
5
25. Jane Doe is an adult woman who resides in Texas.
6
26. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal
7
8 place of business located at 1455 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94103.

9 27. Defendant Travis Kalanick is the Chief Executive Officer of Uber. Upon
10
information and belief, Kalanick is a resident of the State of California.
11
28. Defendant Eric Alexander was, during all relevant times, the President for
12
Business for Ubers Asia Pacific region. Upon information and belief, Alexander is a resident of
13
14 the State of California. Alexander was terminated on or about June 7, 2017 when it came to light

15 that he had obtained medical records of Plaintiff and then showed the records to Defendants
16
Kalanick and Michael, and discussed with and/or showed the records to others at the Company.
17
29. Defendant Emil Michael was, during all relevant times, the Senior Vice President
18
for Business at Uber. Upon information and belief, Michael is a resident of the State of
19
20 California. Michael departed Uber on June 12, 2017 as a result of a recommendation made in

21 connection with an investigation conducted into Ubers culture and business practices.
22
BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
23
I. Uber Technologies, Inc.
24
30. Launched in San Francisco in June 2010, Uber operates as a transportation
25
26 network company throughout the world. In a relatively new industry called ride-hailing,

27 Uber connects drivers and passengers through a downloadable smartphone application (App)
28
Page 6 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 7 of 18

called Uber. Individuals who have downloaded the App use it to make a request for
1
2 transportation from one place to another for a fee. An Uber driver responds to the ride request,

3 picks up the individual and drives them to their destination. App users pay Uber for the ride
4
through the App with a credit card. Uber pays the driver a share of the fare collected, and retains
5
the remainder.
6
31. Uber is available to the general public through its App. It charges standardized
7
8 fees (subject to multipliers during surge pricing periods) to customers in every city in which it

9 operates, in the same way that a traditional taxi company does.

10
32. Ubers business model requires an enormous pool of drivers in order to provide
11
rides to customers quickly and efficiently. To accomplish this, Uber solicits and retains
12
thousands of non-professional drivers. Uber markets to potential drivers on its website, where it
13
14 states: Uber needs partners like you. Drive with Uber and earn great money. . . Get paid

15 weekly just for helping your community of passengers get rides around town. After these
16
drivers are hired by Uber, Uber makes the drivers available to the public to provide rides via the
17
App.
18
33. As of April 2017, Uber has employed over 1 million drivers and claims to be
19
20 adding hundreds of thousands of drivers to its payroll every month.

21 34. Ubers valuation has soared to $70 billion in 2017, and it is reported that the
22
company generated $6.5 billion in revenues in 2016.
23
35. As of July 2016, it was reported that Uber had raised nearly $12 billion in total
24
funding, and the Company had previously stated that it had plans to hold an initial public
25
26 offering (IPO) in 2017.

27
28
Page 7 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 8 of 18

36. Uber has seen a barrage of negative press this year, including a New York Times
1
2 report alleging numerous cases of workplace sexual harassment at Uber, scathing reports from

3 attorneys Perkins Coie LLP and Covington & Burling LLP resulting in numerous terminations,
4
as well as the departure, voluntary and involuntary, of numerous high-level executives. The
5
negative publicity appears to have halted the companys plans, and Uber has not confirmed if it
6
will be holding an IPO in 2017.
7
8 37. Neither drivers nor customers are charged fees to download the Uber App. Ubers

9 sole source of revenue is from charges to customers for rides.

10
38. Ubers reckless expansion is the precise factor that has led to such staggering
11
profits in such a short amount of time.
12
39. Ubers goal of dominating and controlling the emerging ride-hailing market at the
13
14 expense of a healthy workplace culture free of unlawful invasions of privacy and discrimination

15 is a calculated decision made by senior executives that continues through the present.
16
40. By rewarding employees who perform, regardless of complaints of
17
discrimination, unlawful behavior or unethical practices, Uber has created an unrestrained,
18
untenable work environment that permits and even encourages employees to engage in shocking
19
20 and inappropriate behavior.

21 II. Ubers Unrestrained, Unethical Executives

22
41. From the highest levels of the Company including the board level, Uber makes an
23
intentional decision to look the other way when hiring and supervising its executives, essentially
24
letting them run wild so long as new business ventures continue to succeed and profits
25
26 continue to roll in.

27
28
Page 8 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 9 of 18

42. It was not until early 2017, when former Uber engineer Susan Fowler publicly
1
2 complained about systemic gender discrimination at Uber, that the Company took any steps to

3 examine the issue of whether her complaints were true. Unfortunately, by that time, sex
4
discrimination had become rampant across the Company.
5
43. Absent public pressure from reporters at publications like The New York Times,
6
Reuters and Recode, Uber would have continued to reward and promote employees who were
7
8 unlawfully discriminating against subordinates and brushing complaints of discrimination under

9 the proverbial rug.

10
44. Kalanick has been caught on tape berating an Uber driver4 and has sent out a
11
highly inappropriate memorandum to staff regarding rules for having sex during a Company
12
offsite event (including stating: Yes, that means that Travis will be celibate on this trip.
13
14 #CEOLife #FML, referring to the phrase fuck my life in Internet slang).5

15 45. Michael is no better, having suggested that Uber should hire a team of opposition
16
researchers to dig up dirt on the personal lives and backgrounds of reporters who were reporting
17
negatively on Uber. In particular, he wanted research on Sarah Lacy, who had accused the
18
Company of sexism and misogyny.6
19
20 46. Michael also sought to silence a Human Resources complaint of gender

21 discrimination, which alleged that he, Kalanick and other male executives all went to an escort
22
23
4
24 https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/28/14766868/uber-driver-argument-ceo-travis-
kalanick-video.
25
5
https://www.recode.net/2017/6/8/15765514/2013-miami-letter-uber-ceo-kalanick-
26 employees-sex-rules-company-celebration.
27 6
https://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/uber-executive-suggests-digging-up-dirt-on-
28 journalists?utm_term=.fgxLYX4N6#.qy1vX7rMb.
Page 9 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 10 of 18

bar in Korea and selected numbered women to spend time with them for the evening. His
1
2 attempts were in vain, however, as the report came to light anyway, as did his attempts to cover it

3 up.7
4
III. Invasion of Jane Does Privacy
5
47. On December 5, 2014, Plaintiff was sexually assaulted and raped by an Uber
6
driver named Shiv Kumar Yadav (Yadav).
7
8 48. Yadav had driven Plaintiff off-route to a remote and secluded area of Delhi, India.

9 49. Subsequent to the rape, Plaintiff reported it to the police and underwent a medical
10
examination in connection the report.
11
50. This report was highly confidential as it involved Plaintiffs personal medical
12
information and extremely sensitive details about the brutal rape.
13
14 51. In undergoing the examination by the physician, Plaintiff believed that she had a

15 reasonable expectation of privacy in her medical records and that they would not be disseminated
16
to anyone beyond the police.
17
52. Plaintiffs medical examination and the police report led to charges being filed
18
against Yadav with concomitant criminal proceedings.
19
20 53. Two days after the incident, Travis Kalanick, Ubers Chief Executive Officer,

21 made the following public statement:

22
What happened over the weekend in New Delhi is horrific. Our
23 entire team's hearts go out to the victim of this despicable crime.
We will do everything, I repeat, everything to help bring this
24 perpetrator to justice and to support the victim and her family in
her recovery.
25
26
27 7
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/25/15061270/uber-employee-company-trip-south-
28 korean-escort-bar.
Page 10 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 11 of 18

We will work with the government to establish clear background

1
checks currently absent in their commercial transportation
2 licensing programs. We will also partner closely with the groups
who are leading the way on women's safety here in New Delhi and
3 around the country and invest in technology advances to help make
New Delhi a safer city for women.
4
5 54. Just a few days later, on or about December 13, 2014, Defendant Eric Alexander

6 met with Delhi police and intentionally obtained Plaintiffs confidential medical records.
7
55. Intrusion into medical records of a rape victim is highly offensive.
8
56. Alexander examined the records closely and showed them to Kalanick and
9
Michael.
10
11 57. Upon information and belief, Alexander does not have any medical training.

12 58. Upon information and belief, Kalanick does not have any medical training.
13
59. Upon information and belief, Michael does not have any medical training.
14
60. Alexander, Kalanick and Michael also discussed Plaintiffs records with
15
numerous staff throughout Uber, including non-executives, and disseminated a defamatory
16
17 theory that Plaintiff had made up her rape and was colluding with a rival taxi/ride-hailing

18 company to jettison Ubers business in India.

19
61. Alexander obtained Plaintiffs records and shared them with Kalanick and
20
Michael so that he could attempt to defame and undermine her very serious allegations of sexual
21
assault and rape.
22
23 62. Plaintiffs medical records were not of legitimate public concern, especially

24 because criminal proceedings were already underway as a result of Plaintiffs report to the
25
police.
26
63. Alexander carried around Plaintiffs medical records in a briefcase.
27
28
Page 11 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 12 of 18

64. Alexander and, upon information and belief, others at Uber retained a physical
1
2 copy of Plaintiffs medical records until in or around December 2015. Shockingly, it is not

3 possible to estimate the number of times that Alexander waved Ms. Does medical information
4
around Uber offices during this time period.
5
65. Although it is unlawful and despicable that Alexander shared her sensitive
6
information with even one person not privy to the ongoing legal issues in Delhi, it is clear that
7
8 multiple individuals were informed about various details or shown the actual documents.

9 66. In or around December 2015, others at Uber demanded that Alexander turn over
10
the records.
11
67. Upon information and belief, Uber continues to retain a copy of Plaintiffs
12
medical records.
13
14 68. In or around spring 2017, it was reported that Uber had hired two law firms,

15 Perkins Coie LLP and Covington & Burling LLP, to investigate claims of sexual harassment as
16
well as general workplace culture and misconduct.
17
69. On or about June 6, 2017, it was reported that Uber had terminated approximately
18
20 employees in connection with the Perkins Coie investigation.
19
20 70. That particular investigation, as of June 6, 2017, had, as of that date, resulted in

21 the following:
22
215 total incident reports, including sexual harassment,
23 bullying, bias and retaliation.
20 terminations so far.
24 31 employees in training or counseling.
7 written warnings.
25
100 cases with no action taken.
26
27
28
Page 12 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 13 of 18

57 cases still open.8

1
2 71. On or about June 7, 2017, Recode reported that Alexander had not been among

3 the 20 employees terminated, showing that he was still insulated from the consequences of his
4
actions.
5
72. It was not until questioning regarding his flagrant privacy violations of Plaintiff
6
that Recode later learned that Alexander had been terminated.9
7
8 73. Plaintiff was devastated when she learned that her extremely private, confidential

9 medical records had been passed around Uber.

10
74. Plaintiff, through her counsel, requested an apology, but sadly as of this filing,
11
none has been made.
12
75. Furthermore, Plaintiff was shocked and horrified to learn that her medical records
13
14 were the basis of rampant entirely unfounded, defamatory, spurious and callous speculation that

15 Plaintiff had made up her claims in collusion with a rival tax/ride-hailing company.
16
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
17 (Intrusion into Private Affairs)
Against All Defendants
18
76. Plaintiff realleges and reasserts each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
19
20 forth herein.

21 77. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her medical records and police
22
report filed on her behalf upon which Defendants intentionally intruded.
23
24
25
8
https://www.recode.net/2017/6/6/15749216/perkins-coie-lawyer-bobbie-wilson-uber-
26 firings-dogged-investigating-misbehavior-not-over.
27 9
https://www.recode.net/2017/6/7/15754316/uber-executive-india-assault-rape-medical-
28 records.
Page 13 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 14 of 18

78. This intrusion into Plaintiffs private medical records would be highly offensive to
1
2 a reasonable person and Plaintiff was harmed as a result of such intrusion.

3 79. Defendants conduct was a substantial factor in Plaintiffs harm.

4
80. As a result of Defendants deliberate misrepresentations of material facts, Plaintiff
5
suffered significant damages.
6
81. Defendants knew or should have known that their intrusion into Plaintiffs private
7
8 affairs would cause or had a substantial probability of causing severe emotional distress to

9 Plaintiff, and in fact did cause and continues to cause her severe emotional distress.
10
82. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that Defendants intrusion
11
into Plaintiffs private affairs would be highly offensive, so as to warrant the imposition of
12
punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294.
13
14 83. The conduct of Defendants was also engaged in with fraud, oppression and/or

15 malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including, but not
16
limited to, Plaintiff herein, so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to
17
California Civil Code Section 3294.
18
Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery against Defendants in an amount to be determined at
19
20 trial.

21 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Public Disclosure of Private Facts)
22
Against All Defendants
23
84. Plaintiff realleges and reasserts each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
24
forth herein.
25
26 85. Defendants publicized private information concerning Plaintiff, including, but not

27 limited to, medical records regarding a sexual assault and rape.

28
Page 14 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 15 of 18

86. A reasonable person in Plaintiffs position would consider publicity regarding

1
2 such records to be highly offensive and heinous.

3 87. Defendants knew or should have known that a reasonable person in Plaintiffs
4
position would consider publicity highly offensive.
5
88. The private information made public by Defendants was not of legitimate public
6
concern.
7
8 89. As a direct and proximate result of the publicity of her private information and the

9 unlawfulness of Defendants behavior, Plaintiff sustained serious harm.

10
90. Defendants knew or should have known that their publicity of Plaintiffs private
11
information would cause or had a substantial probability of causing severe emotional distress to
12
Plaintiff, and in fact did cause and continues to cause her severe emotional distress.
13
14 91. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that Defendants publicity of

15 Plaintiffs private information would be highly offensive, so as to warrant the imposition of

16
punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294.
17
92. The conduct of Defendants was also engaged with fraud, oppression and/or
18
malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including, but not
19
20 limited to, Plaintiff herein, to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California

21 Civil Code Section 3294.

22
93. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery against Defendants in an amount to
23
be determined at trial.
24
25
26
27
28
Page 15 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 16 of 18

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

1
(Defamation Per Se)
2 Against Defendants Kalanick, Alexander and Michael

3 94. Plaintiff realleges and reasserts each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
4
forth herein.
5
95. Defendants Kalanick, Alexander and Michael made numerous statements to each
6
other and other employees at Uber that Plaintiff was fraudulently claiming that she had been
7
8 raped in collusion with a rival of Uber.

9 96. Defendants Kalanick, Alexander and Michael, as well as employees at Uber,

10
reasonably understood that the statements were about Plaintiff.
11
97. Defendants Kalanick, Alexander and Michael, as well as employees at Uber,
12
reasonably understood the statements to mean that Plaintiff was committing the crime of fraud
13
14 by falsely alleging that she had been raped.

15 98. Defendants Kalanick, Alexander and Michael failed to use reasonable to care to
16
determine the truth or falsity of the statements.
17
99. Plaintiff learned about the statements of Defendants Kalanick, Alexander and
18
Michael on or about June 7, 2017.
19
20 100. As a result of Defendants Kalanicks, Alexanders and Michaels deliberate

21 misrepresentations of facts, Plaintiff suffered significant damages.

22
101. Defendants Kalanick, Alexander and Michael knew or should have known that
23
their defamatory statements regarding Plaintiff would cause or had a substantial probability of
24
causing severe emotional distress to Plaintiff, and in fact did cause and continues to cause her
25
26 severe emotional distress.

27
28
Page 16 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 17 of 18

102. Defendants Kalanick, Alexander and Michael knew or reasonably should have
1
2 known that their defamatory statements regarding Plaintiff would be highly offensive, so as to

3 warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294.
4
103. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recovery against Defendants in an amount to
5
be determined at trial.
6
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
7
8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment in her favor and against

9 Defendants, containing the following relief:

10
A. A declaratory judgment that the actions, conduct and practices of Defendants
11
complained of herein violate the laws of the State of California and any other applicable
12
jurisdiction within the United States of America;
13
14 B. An injunction and order permanently restraining Defendants from engaging in

15 such unlawful conduct;

16
C. Enter a permanent injunction directing that Uber take all affirmative steps
17
necessary to remedy the effects of the unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint, and to prevent
18
repeated occurrences in the future;
19
20 D. An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment

21 interest, to compensate Plaintiff for all physical, monetary and/or economic harm; for harm to
22
her reputation; for all non-monetary and/or compensatory harm, including, but not limited to,
23
compensation for mental anguish and physical injuries; all other monetary and/or non-monetary
24
losses suffered by Plaintiff;
25
26 E. An award of punitive damages;

27 F. An award of costs that Plaintiff has incurred in this action, as well as Plaintiffs
28
Page 17 of 18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
 Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 18 of 18

reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses to the fullest extent permitted by law; and
1

2 G. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

3 JURY DEMAND

4 Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages stated herein.
5
Dated: June 15, 2017
6 New York, New York Respectfully submitted,

7 WIGDORLLP

By~ll-~
8

9
ougias H. Wigdor
10 Jeanne M. Christensen
Elizabeth J. Chen
11

12 85 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
13 Telephone: (212) 257-6800
Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
14
dwigdor(a),wigdorlaw.com
15 jchristensen(cl{wigdorlaw.com
echen(@,wigdorlaw.com
16

17

18

19

20
601 California Street, Suite 1300
21 San Francisco, CA 94108
22 Tel.: (415) 956-6413
Fax: (415) 956-6416
23 jcouche(@,adplaw.com

24

25 Counsel for Plaintiff

26

27

28
Page 18of18
Complaint for Damages Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 06/17) Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of
Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
JANE DOE UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Harris County, Texas County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Jamie C. Couche, Esq. (SBN 252001), Anderson & Poole, P.C.
601 California Street, Suite 1300, San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 956-6413
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF
1 U.S. Government Plaintiff 3 Federal Question Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
2 U.S. Government Defendant 4 Diversity of Business In Another State
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure of 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury Product
130 Miller Act Liability 690 Other 157 3729(a))
315 Airplane Product Liability
140 Negotiable Instrument 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
320 Assault, Libel & Slander LABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS
150 Recovery of Pharmaceutical Personal 410 Antitrust
330 Federal Employers 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 820 Copyrights
Overpayment Of Injury Product Liability 430 Banks and Banking
Liability 720 Labor/Management 830 Patent
Veterans Benefits 368 Asbestos Personal Injury 450 Commerce
340 Marine Relations 835 PatentAbbreviated New
151 Medicare Act Product Liability
345 Marine Product Liability 740 Railway Labor Act Drug Application 460 Deportation
152 Recovery of Defaulted PERSONAL PROPERTY 470 Racketeer Influenced &
350 Motor Vehicle 751 Family and Medical 840 Trademark
Student Loans (Excludes 370 Other Fraud Corrupt Organizations
355 Motor Vehicle Product Leave Act
Veterans) 371 Truth in Lending SOCIAL SECURITY
Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 480 Consumer Credit
153 Recovery of 380 Other Personal Property 861 HIA (1395ff)
360 Other Personal Injury 791 Employee Retirement 490 Cable/Sat TV
Overpayment Damage Income Security Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veterans Benefits 362 Personal Injury -Medical
Malpractice 385 Property Damage Product 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
160 Stockholders Suits Liability IMMIGRATION
864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions
190 Other Contract 462 Naturalization
CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
195 Contract Product Liability Application
440 Other Civil Rights HABEAS CORPUS 893 Environmental Matters
196 Franchise 465 Other Immigration FEDERAL TAX SUITS
441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Actions 895 Freedom of Information
870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or
REAL PROPERTY 442 Employment Act
510 Motions to Vacate Defendant)
210 Land Condemnation Sentence 896 Arbitration
443 Housing/ 871 IRSThird Party 26 USC
220 Foreclosure Accommodations 530 General 7609 899 Administrative Procedure
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Act/Review or Appeal of
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 535 Death Penalty
Employment Agency Decision
240 Torts to Land OTHER
446 Amer. w/DisabilitiesOther 950 Constitutionality of State
245 Tort Product Liability 540 Mandamus & Other Statutes
290 All Other Real Property 448 Education
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee
Conditions of
Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District (specify) LitigationTransfer LitigationDirect File

VI. CAUSE OF Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
ACTION 28 U.S.C. 1332
Brief description of cause:
Diversity of Citizenship
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S), JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

IF ANY (See instructions):
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2)
(Place an X in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE

DATE 06/15/2017 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD /s/ Jamie C. Couche

Print Save As... Reset

JS-CAND 44 (rev. 07/16) Case 3:17-cv-03470 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/17 Page 2 of 2

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and
service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial
Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is
submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the defendant is the location of the tract of land involved.)
c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section (see attachment).

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that jurisdictions be shown in
pleadings. Place an X in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
(1) United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
(2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an X in this box.
(3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code
takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
(4) Diversity of citizenship. This refers to suits under 28 USC 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above.
Mark this section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an X in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an X in one of the six boxes.
(1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts.
(2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 USC 1441. When the
petition for removal is granted, check this box.
(3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
(4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
(5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
(6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC
1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
(8) Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. Check this box when a multidistrict litigation case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
Please note that there is no Origin Code 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an X in this box if you are filing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is used to identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
IX. Divisional Assignment. If the Nature of Suit is under Property Rights or Prisoner Petitions or the matter is a Securities Class Action, leave this
section blank. For all other cases, identify the divisional venue according to Civil Local Rule 3-2: the county in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.