Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 20NWCV00114, Date: 2024-06-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20NWCV00114 Hearing Date: June 18, 2024 Dept: C
Malik M Azhar vs Uber Technologies, Inc.
Case No.: 20NWCV00114
Hearing Date: June 18, 2024 @ 10:30 AM
#4
Tentative Ruling
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Defendant to give notice.
Background
On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff Malik Azhar (“Azhar”) sued
Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) alleging various causes of action
relating to his claim that he was wrongfully fired as one of Uber’s
drivers. On September 7, 2021, the Court
sustained Uber’s demurrer to the operative fourth amended complaint without
leave to amend. Azhar appealed, and the
Court’s order was reversed in part. The
appellate court concluded that Azhar alleged facts sufficient to state a breach
of contract cause of action but not the remaining ones. (Azhar v. Uber
Technologies, Inc. (March 10, 2023, B316044) [non-published opn.].)
The following summary of the fourth amended complaint is taken
from the appellate court’s opinion: “Azhar became an Uber driver in 2013 after
attending an event at which Uber told drivers they were independent contractors
who would be paid $15 per hour with benefits and bonuses. In March 2018, Uber
offered a $10,000 bonus to drivers having more than 5,000 miles or who had
signed up from the beginning. Azhar was entitled to this bonus and was part of
a class action that resulted in a settlement. However, Uber violated the terms
of the settlement and began to fire drivers, looking for any excuse to do so,
including accusing Muslim drivers of drunk driving. Uber accused Azhar of drunk
driving, but he responded to the accusation and was reinstated.
On February 19, 2019, a customer complained to Azhar that
he hadn't answered her text message, and she became angry when Azhar explained
he could not respond to texts while driving. She said she did not understand,
"'[w]hy you people come to this country and take jobs and don't know
anything.'" When Azhar remained silent, the customer accused him of not
speaking English and said she would get him fired. The customer called Uber and
made false accusations against Azhar, so Uber turned off Azhar's app and fired
him. On the day Uber turned off his app, Azhar had a high driver rating of
4.79. Azhar thus generally alleged that Uber fired him "based on false and
pretextual reasons" and in violation of public policy.
Azhar concluded by alleging that it was to Uber's advantage
to shut down the app to avoid paying the $10,000 bonus, so hundreds of drivers
were fired. As to the settlement, Uber underreported miles, and although Azhar
was paid $14,000, this was "very well below the actual earned amount"
as shown in his attached exhibits, "which adds up to 122,123 miles an
amount of $48,849.20, a third of the amount by reporting less mileage to the
settlement administrator."
In reversing the Court’s Order with respect to the breach
of contract cause of action, the appellate court determined that Azhar
sufficiently alleged (1) the existence of a contract having the key term of
entitling class-member drivers to 40 cents a mile, (2) Azhar's membership in
the class entitling him to payment based on miles driven, (3) Uber's breach by
underreporting the miles Azhar drove, and (4) the resulting damage to Azhar of
either $48,849.20 or that amount less what Uber has paid him.
Uber now moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative,
summary adjudication of Azhar’s only remaining cause of action for breach of contract
on the following grounds: 1) the breach of contract cause of action is barred
by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, 2) Plaintiff cannot establish that Uber
breached any term of the O’Connor Settlement Agreement by failing to
properly report all applicable on-trip miles or pay a set amount per mile
driven or that he suffered any damages, and 3) Plaintiff’s claim for punitive
damages fails because Plaintiff cannot obtain punitive damages in a breach of
contract action and he cannot establish that an Uber officer, director, or
managing agent acted with fraud or malice.
Legal Standard
The purpose of a motion for summary judgment “is to provide
courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to
determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to
resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25
Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision
(c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence
submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and
uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7
Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)
“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is
always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no
triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005)
128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment “has
met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the
party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot
be established.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(2).) “Once the
defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . .
to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the
cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Id.) “If the
plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v.
Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)
“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court
must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to
which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable
inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to
the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, supra, 159
Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)
Evidentiary Objections
Azhar’s objections (1-5) to Uber’s Compendium of Evidence
are OVERRULED.
Discussion
Uber has the initial burden to make
a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact with
respect to the breach of contract cause of action. Among the facts asserted by Uber are the
following:
·
On August 16, 2013, a lawsuit was filed against
Uber in the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
alleging that Uber misclassified Drivers working across the country as
independent contractors resulting in a number of unpaid wage and gratuity
claims, which was styled as Douglas O’Connor et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC (the “O’Connor Action”). (UMF No. 1.)
·
The parties collectively settled the O’Connor
Action. (UMG No. 2.)
·
Plaintiff was a member of the O’Connor
Settlement class and did not opt out of the O’Connor Settlement. (UMF Nos. 5
and 6.)
·
As part of the O’Connor Settlement Agreement,
Uber agreed that each member of the settlement class
would be entitled to compensation calculated in proportion with the number of
on-trip miles each class member drove based on Uber’s good faith inquiry into
its relevant business records. (UMF No. 7.)
·
Uber’s Driver App records all online miles and
on-trip miles completed by Drivers. (UMF No. 8.)
·
On-trip miles are defined as miles driven
during the period of time when a Driver is transporting a passenger. (UMF No.
9.)
·
Online miles include any miles driven when the
Driver App is activated with or without a rider in the vehicle. (UMF No. 10.)
·
Online miles includes off-trip miles, which are
miles that are driven while waiting for a trip or en-route to a rider without a
rider in the vehicle. (UMF No. 11.)
·
In accordance with the terms of the O’Connor
Settlement Agreement, Uber provided the settlement administrator, Epiq, with
information as to all on-trip miles for all class members, including Plaintiff,
from August 16, 2009 through February 28, 2019. (UMF No. 12.)
·
For the period from August 16, 2009 through
February 28, 2019, Plaintiff drove 82,179.11 on-trip miles. (UMF No. 13.)
·
Class members were sent written notice of the terms
of the settlement agreement as well as their rights and ability to opt out. (UMF
No. 15.)
·
Plaintiff elected to participate in the
settlement agreement and timely submitted a claim to the settlement
administrator. (UMF
No. 21.)
·
On September 13, 2019, the Honorable Edward M.
Chen of the United States District Court, Northern District of California
issued an order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of the O’Connor
Settlement Agreement and entered judgment in the matter. (UMF No. 22.)
·
On September 13, 2019, the O’Connor court held
that the O’Connor Settlement Agreement, including the formula for payments to
the participating class members based on on-trip miles, was “fair, reasonable,
and adequate . . . [and] in the best interest of the Named Plaintiffs and
members of the Settlement Class and consistent and in compliance with all
requirements of due process and federal law.” (UMF No, 23.)
·
Plaintiff did not submit an objection to the
settlement. (UMF No. 24.)
·
Plaintiff timely submitted a claim for compensation
as part of the O’Connor Settlement. (UMF No. 25.)
·
Uber reported to Epiq 82,179.111 on-trip miles
for Plaintiff. (UMF No. 29.)
·
Plaintiff received payment for his portion of
the O’Connor Settlement based on the 82,179.111 on-trip miles Uber reported,
which totaled $15,402.08. (UMF No. 30.)
·
Plaintiff was satisfied with the payment and
did not believe it was inaccurate at the time he cashed his settlement checks.
(UMF No. 31.)
The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract
are (1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse
for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to
the plaintiff. (Oasis
West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821, 124 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 256, 250 P.3d 1115.) A plaintiff must specifically allege
which contractual terms the plaintiff claims the defendant violated. (See,
e.g., Melican
v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th
168, 174, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 672 [pleader must state with
certainty facts constituting breach of contract].)
Uber has established the terms of the settlement agreement which
required Uber to compensate Azhar based upon the number on-trip miles Azhar
drove (UMF No. 7), Azhar’s participation in the settlement agreement (UMF No. 21.), and Uber’s performance under the
settlement agreement (UMF Nos. 29 and 30).
Therefore, the Court determines that Uber has made a prima facie showing
that there are no triable issues of material fact with respect to the breach of
contract cause of action.
The burden shifts to Azhar to raise a triable issue of material
fact.
Azhar raises various arguments in opposition to Uber’s
motion for summary judgment, but he submits no evidence to meet his
burden. Specifically, Azhar submits no
evidence to support his allegation that Uber breached the settlement agreement
by failing to pay him 40 cents a mile and by underreporting the miles he drove. Although the allegations in the fourth
amended complaint were sufficient to overcome Uber’s demurrer to the breach of
contract cause of action, they are insufficient, without supporting evidence,
to overcome a motion for summary judgment.
It is unclear whether Azhar continues to allege that he is
entitled to 40 cents per mile under the settlement agreement. Uber submits evidence that Azhar filed this
lawsuit based on his misunderstanding that Uber was supposed to pay him as part
of the O’Connor Settlement Agreement for all miles he spent driving while
logged in on the Uber Driver App, not just on-trip miles driven with a
passenger in his vehicle. (UMF No. 32.) At the time Azhar filed his action, he
thought on-trip miles referred to all miles recorded from when he turns on the
Uber Driver App until he turns off the Uber Driver App. (UMF No. 33.) After
filing this lawsuit, he researched and discovered that the O’Connor Settlement
Agreement only paid drivers based on miles while they are driving with a
passenger in their vehicles. (UMF No. 34.) Azhar does not address this issue in
his written opposition other than stating, “Plaintiff is aware of the appeals
court decision and does not need the defendant to remind him of it, or its
consequesies [sic], or outcome, or to attempt to delay the case.” (Opp. to MSJ Order,
¶ 7.) To the extent Azhar maintains that class members are entitled to 40 cents
per mile under the settlement agreement, the argument fails in a summary
judgment proceeding because he submits no evidence of this. To the extent Azhar asserts he should
receive 40 cents per mile under the settlement agreement, he is collaterally
estopped from making the argument. (Martorana v. Marlin and Saltzman
(2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 685.)
Accordingly, Uber’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.