Top Banner
CAlJSE NO.: _____ _ .JANE DOE, § § § § § § § § § § § § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintif.[, vs. JUDICIAL DISTRICT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a "Uber" and "Uber Dallas"; TRIPLE CLASS LIMOUSINES, LLC d/b/a "Triple Class Limousines"; and T ALAL ALI CHAMMOUT, Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION COMES NOW, Plaintiff. JANE DOE and files this Original Petition, complaining of Defendants UBER TECHNOLOGlI:'S, INC., d/b/a "Uber" and "Uber Dallas"; TRIPLE CLASS LIMOUSINES, LLC d/b/a "'Triple Class Limousines"; and TALAL ALI CHAMMOUT, and for causes of action, states the following: SUMMARY Uber is a $50 billion dollar company that rode into Dallas, Texas and other cities around the world, making big promises of convenience and safety. By allowing customers to pay for car-rides through a cutting-edge smart-phone app, Uber certainly honored its promise of convenience. But Uber consistently has failed to honor its promise of safety - all for the sake of padding its bottom line. Sadly, this case is a glaring testament to the hollowness of Uber's safety promises. In this case, by Uber's own admission, Uber made "'mistakes," Uber "failed to live up to [its] own ... standards," and an Uber representative "mistakenly granted [Defendant] Chammout PL;\INTIIT"S ORI(i1N;\L PETITION
14

Jane Doe vs. Uber Technologies

Aug 17, 2015

Download

Documents

digitalaccess

A woman who accused an Uber driver of rape in Dallas is suing Uber and the driver
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript

CAlJSENO.: ______ .JANEDOE, INTHE DISTRICT COURT Plaintif.[, vs.JUDICIAL DISTRICT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a "Uber"and "Uber Dallas";TRIPLE CLASS LIMOUSINES, LLC d/b/a "Triple ClassLimousines";and T ALAL ALICHAMMOUT, Defendants.DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION COMESNOW,Plaintiff.JANEDOEandfilesthisOriginalPetition,complainingof DefendantsUBERTECHNOLOGlI:'S,INC.,d/b/a"Uber"and"UberDallas";TRIPLECLASS LIMOUSINES,LLCd/b/a"'TripleClassLimousines";andTALALALICHAMMOUT,andfor causes of action, states thefollowing: SUMMARY Uber isa $50billion dollar company that rode intoDallas, Texas and other cities around the world,makingbigpromises of convenienceandsafety.By allowing customers topayfor car-ridesthroughacutting-edgesmart-phoneapp,Ubercertainlyhonoreditspromiseof convenience.ButUberconsistentlyhasfailedtohonoritspromiseof safety- allforthe sake of padding itsbottomline. Sadly,thiscaseisaglaring testament tothehollowness of Uber's safetypromises.Inthis case,byUber's own admission,Uber made "'mistakes," Uber "failed toliveupto[its]own ...standards,"andanUberrepresentative"mistakenlygranted[Defendant]Chammout PL;\INTIIT"S ORI(i1N;\L PETITION access toUber as a driver."]More specifically. Uber empowered. emboldened. and enabled a predator- Defendant Chammout. byplacing himinto a vehiclewithunsuspecting women. including thePlaintiff. insituations inwhich hewould be driving them. alone totheir homes atnight. AccordingtoUber'sownadmission.althoughChammoufsaccountinitiallywasmarked "willnot bedriving." anUber representative mistakenly granted Chammout access toUber as a driver on April17,2015.Uber's actions were akin toletting a tiger loose ina shopping mall.After Uber began pairing Chammout withunsuspecting women, the question wasnot whether Chammout would strike, but when and against whom.On July 25,2015. Chammout struck- against thePlaintiff: andwithdevastating consequences. Thisincidentisnotthefirsttimethatoneof Uber'sdrivershasbeenallegedtohave committedarapeor other heinous crime.There havebeen alltoomanyreportsof similar incidentsintherelativelyshortlifespanof Uberasacompany.Allegationsof rapesor otherassaultsbyUberdrivershaveoccurredinAtlanta,Boston,Chicago,LosAngeles, Orlando,San Francisco.Washington,D.C..and New Delhi,India,among other cities. This case isaboutholdingUber legally accountable forthe foreseeablecriminalacts of one of itsdrivers.andforcingUbertoinstitutebasic,common-sensecorrectivemeasuresto ensurethatallof thedriversthatitplacesincarswithitspassengersmanyof whomare young women, truly posenosafety threat tothose passengers. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1.Pursuant toRules190.1and190.3of the Texas Rules of CivilProcedure, Plaintiff states that discoveryinthis cause isintended tobeconducted under Level 3 . .JURYDEMAND 2.Pursuant toRules 216 and217 of the Texas Rules of CivilProcedure. Plaintiff requests a jury trialof this matter.Accordingly.Plaintiff tenderedtheproper jury feewiththefiling of Plaintiff s OriginalPetition. RULE 47 STATEMENT OF MONETARY RELIEF SOlJGHT 3.Plaintiff preferstohavethe jury determine thefairamountof compensation forPlaintiffs damages.andPlaintiffplacesthedecisionregardingtheamountof compensationtobe ]SeeLetter regarding thisincident fromLeandre Johns. GeneralManager of "Uber Dallas" PLAINTIFF'SORIGINAL PETITION2 awardedinthejury'shands.Rule47of theTexasRuleof CivilProcedure,however, requiresPlaintiff toprovideastatementregardingtheamountof monetaryrelief sought. Accordingly,Plaintiffstatesthatmonetaryreliefof over$ 1,000,000,inamounttobe determined bythe jury, isbeing sought. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 4.Pursuant torule194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiflrequests that Defendants disclosetoPlaintiff,within50daysof theserviceof thisrequesttheinformationand materials described inrule194.2, to be produced at Crain Lewis Brogdon, LLP, 3400 Carlisle Street,Suite 200,Dallas, Texas 75204. INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION SERVED 5.Plaintiff serves interrogatories andrequests for production uponDefendants withPlaintiffs OriginalPetition andRequest forDisclosure. REQUEST FOR DEPOSITIONS 6.Plainti 1'1' herebyrequests datesforthedepositions of thefollowing employees and/or agents of Uber:1)JoeSullivan,Ubersafetymanager,2)LeandreJohns,GeneralManagerof "Uber Dallas,"3) theUber agent(s)and/or employee(s) whograntedDefendant Chammout access toUber asa driver on or about Aprilof2015,4)theUber supervisor of the agent(s) and/or employee(s) who granted Defendant Chammout access toUber as a driver on or about Aprilof 2015,5)allmembersof theUber"SafetyTeam"whoinvestigatedtheincident madethebasisofthissuit6)allUberagent(s)and/oremployee(s)whohadany responsibilitiesforinvestigating thequalifications,employment history,or criminalhistory of DefendantChammoutbeforetheincidentmadethebasis of thissuit7)theUberagent PLAINTIFI'S ORIGINAL PETITION and/oremployeewiththemostknowledgeregardingassaults,violentcrimes,andrapes allegedly committed byUber drivers other thanDefendant Chammout. PARTIES 7.PlaintitfJANE DOE is an individual residing in Dallas County, Texas.Due to the extremely personal andsensitive nature of thislawsuit, Plaintiff isproceeding under the pseudonym of "JaneDoe."Defendantshavefullknowledgeof Plaintiffsidentity,duetoDefendants' involvement intheunderlying acts and omissions thatformthe basis of this petition. 8.Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES,INC., d/b/a "Uber," isa California corporation, doing businessinthestateof Texasas"Uber"and"Uber Texas."Ithasmaintainedcontinuous and systematic ties with the State of Texas, and it entered into a contract with Texas residents and/or committed atortinwholeor inpartintheState of Texas,causinginjurytoa'rexas resident.It may beservedbyserving itsTexas agent forservice of process: NationalRegistered Agents, Inc. 1999Bryan, Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75201 9.Defendant TRIPLE CLASS LIMOUSINES, LLC, dba "Triple Class Limousines"is a Texas corporation, doing business inthe state of Texas, andmay be servedbyserving itsagent for service of process: Talal Ali Chammout Triple Class Limousines, LLC 2217 Sky Harbor Drive Plano, Texas 75205 11.Defendant TALAL ALICHAMMOUT is anindividual residing in Collin County, Texas and maybeservedbyserving service of process at: PLAINTIl'FSORIGINALPETITION4 Talal Ali Chammout 2217 Sky Harbor Drive Plano, Texas 75205 VENUE AND JURISDICTION 12.Venue isproper inthis Court by virtue of sections15.001et.seq. of the Texas CivilPractice &Remedies Code because the cause of actionwhich isthe basis of this case aroseinwhole or inpartinthiscounty,and/orDefendants'residenceor principalofficeisinthiscounty. This Court has jurisdiction because Plaintiffs damages are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 13.Uber isa $50 billion dollar company that rodeintoDallas, Texas and other cities around the world,makingbigpromisesof convenience andsafety.Byallowing customerstopayfor car-ridesthroughacutting-edgesmart-phoneapp,Ubercertainlyhonoreditspromiseof convemence.ButUberconsistentlyhasfailedtohonoritspromiseof safety - allforthe sake of padding itsbottomline. 14.Uber representstoitscustomers onitswebsite and elsewhere that Uber has a "commitment tosafety," that Uber itis"putting safetyfirst."that Uber provides "the safest transportation option," thatUber provides"saferides,"that "the Uber experiencehasbeendesignedfrom thegroundupwithyoursafetyinmind,"thatUberutilizes"multi-layeredbackground checks:' andthat every Uber driver "isthoroughlyscreened througha process thatincludes county, federal, and multi-state criminal background checks that go back as far as the driver's state's law allows." 15.Sadly,thiscaseisaglaring testament tothehollownessof Uber's safetypromises.Inthis case,byUber's ownadmission,Uber made "mistakes,"Uber "failedtoliveupto[its]own PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION5 ...standards,"andanUberrepresentative"mistakenlygranted[Defendant]Chammout access to Uber as a driver.,,2More specifically, Uber empowered, emboldened, andenabled a predator - Defendant Chammout, byplacing himinto a vehicle with unsuspecting women, including the Plaintiff, insituations in which hewould be driving them, alone to their homes atnight. 16.What Uber should have known, and could have known through even the most casualperusal of theinternetusingGoogle,wasthatDefendantChammouthadbeenconvictedof felony assaultin1995andconvictedof thefederalfelonyof possessionof firearmsin2007.In fact,thefederalgovernmentindictedChammout in2006forbeing afeloninpossessionof firearms and conspiracy topossess stolen government property,including pistols and rocket launchers.Aspartof apleaagreementin2007,thegovernmentdroppedtheconspiracy charge,andChammoutthenservedsixandahalf yearsinfederalprison.Hewasnot released until2012, just three years before the events made thebasis of this suit. 17.NewsreportsreadilyavailabletoUberontheinternetalsoshouldhavemadeUber aware that the federal judge presiding over the possession of firearms case cited the following other allegedactsofviolenceinsentencingChammouttosixandhalfyearsinprison:1) allegations that Chammout hadshot a juvenile in theleg,2)allegations thatChammout had struck a juvenile intheface,3)allegations that Chammout hadhithiswifeinthe headwith acrowbaLand4)allegationsthatChammouthadhiredahitmantokillhiswife. Furthermore,Chammout'scriminalrecordsindicatedthathehadbeenarrestedfor prostitutioninDallasin2014. 2SeeLetter regarding thisincident fromLeandre Johns,GeneralManager of"Uber Dallas" PLAINTIITS ORIGINAL PETITION6 18.Inthis case, Chammout usedafakedCity of Dallaspermit togethimself andhis company, Triple Class Limousines, approved by Uber.The permit used by Chammout actually expired in2010andhadbeenissuedtoadifferentdriver.TheCityof Dallashasstatedthatitis "one hundred percent certain" that Chammout was not permitted by the city tobe a driver in thecity,andthatChammout didnotgothroughthecity'svettingsystem,atall.Infact undertheCityof Dallas'rules,Chammoutwouldhavebeenpreventedfromobtaininga permit todrive for afull5 yearsfollowinghis release fromprisonin2012. 19.According toUber'spolicies,thereshouldhavebeentwosetsof backgroundchecksdone onChammout:1) a set of checks by the city - inthis case, the City of Dallas, and 2) a set of checks done by Uber.Here, neither set of checks was done.andUber let Chammout loose on the unsuspecting public, including the Plaintiff.Among many other mistakes, Uber does notappeartohaveverifiedChammout'sallegedpermittodriveontheCityof Dallas' website,andUbercertainlydidnotdoeventhemostcursoryof backgroundcheckson Chammout or did not heedthe results of the checks. inthe event that any checks were done. 20.AccordingtoUber'sownadmission,althoughChammout'saccountinitiallywasmarked "willnotbe driving,"anUber representativemistakenly granted Chammout access toUber as a driver onApril17,2015.Uber's actions were akin toletting a tiger loose in a shopping mall.After Uber began pairing Chammout with unsuspecting women, the question was not whether Chammout would strike, but when and against whom. 2l.Onor aboutJuly25,2015,Chammoutstruck- againstthePlaintiff:andwithdevastating consequences.On that day,Uber sent its agent and/or employee,Chammout topickupthe Plaintiff onMcKinneyAvenueinDallasaround8:00p.m.Chammout drovethePlaintiff toherhomeinDallasCounty,Texas,wherehefollowedherinsidethehomeagainsther PLAINTIFF"S ORIGINAL PETITION7 wishesandviolentlystruckheronthebackof thehead.InsidethePlaintiffshome, ChammoutthenrapedthePlaintiff.ThePlaintiiT neverconsentedtoanysexualrelations with Chammout.Chammout has now admitted tohaving sexualrelations with the Plaintiff. and theState of Texas has charged Chammout with felonysexualassault of thePlaintiff. 22.Thisincidentisnotthefirsttimethatoneof Uber'sdrivershasbeenallegedtohave committed arape or other heinous crimes.There have been alltoomanyreports of similar incidentsintherelativelyshortlifespanof Uberasacompany.Allegationsof rapesor otherassaultsbyUberdrivershaveoccurredinAtlanta,Boston,Chicago,LosAngeles, Orlando, San Francisco, Washington,D.C., and New Delhi,India, among other cities.Each time,Uber apologizes.Each time,Uber promises totake allnecessary corrective measures toprevent futuresimilar incidents.And,each time,Uber denies alllegalresponsibility for theincident.Furthermore,inthefaceof this parade of horribles,Uber persistsinpursuing anagenda of actively opposing any and allregulatoryandlegislative efforts tomandate that itstrengthen the background checks performed on Uber's drivers. 23.This caseisabout holding Uber legally accountable fortheforeseeablecriminalacts of one of itsdrivers,andforcingUbertoinstitutebasic,common-sensecorrectivemeasuresto ensurethatallof thedriversthatitplacesincarswithitspassengersmanyof whomare young women, trulyposenosafety threat tothose passengers. 24.As a result of Defendants' actions and omissions, the Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue tosuffer extreme emotional distress, pain, mentalanguish, andsuffering.She bas incurred, and will continue toincur, substantial damages and bodily injuries arising out of the acts and omissionsallegedherein.Defendants'actionsandomissionsproximatelycausedthe Plaintifrs injuries anddamages. PLAINTIFF'S ORI(i1NAL PETITION8 CAUSES OF ACTION Count1:Sexual Assault - AllDefendants 25.DefendantChammout committedthefelonycriminaloffenseof assaultuponthePlaintiff. UnderTexaslaw,theelementsof assaultarethesameincivilandcriminalsuits,anditis thelawof thisStatethatanassaultisbothanoffenseagainstthepeaceanddignityof the State, as well as aninvasion of privacy rights and a ci vi I tort.For that reason, the definition of assault. whether ina civilor criminaltrial,isthe same. 26.Defendants Uber and Triple Class Limousine are liable forDefendant Chammoui's conduct asallegedabove.pursuanttothedoctrineofrespondeatsuperiorbecauseDefendant Chammout was acting inthe course and scope of his employment with Defendants Uber and Triple Class Limousine at the time of the occurrence. 27.Inthe alternative. ifChammout was anindependent contractor. DefendantsUber and Triple ClassLimousineareliableforDefendantChammoufsconductasallegedabove,because UberandTripleClassLimousinefailedtoexercisereasonablecontroloveremployees, agents, andlor independent contractors when pairing theminvehicles withUber passengers. See, e.g.,Read v.TheSco/lFetzer Co.,990S.W.2d732 (Tex.1998). Count 2:Negligence - Uber 28.Uber wasnegligent, among other ways.in: 1.Failing toproperly hire,train,andsupervise its drivers,such asChammout; 2.Failing topromulgate and enforce effective safetypolicies forscreening drivers of Uber vehiclesforcriminaland violent tendencies; 3.Failing toconduct appropriatebackground checks onChammout before allowing him totransport passengers of Uber; PLAINTI "'''''S ORIGINALPETITION9 4.Accepting a fakedCity of Dallas permit fromChammout without verifying whether itwas real; 5.Waiving any Uber background check of Chammout based on the fakedCity of Dallas permit; 6.Failing toverify that the City of Dallas conducted anybackground checks of Chammout; 7.Granting Chammout access toUber asa driver,althoughhis filewasmarked:"will not bedriving" andChammout had a criminalhistory andpersonalhistory that disqualifiedhimfromdriving; 8.Creating a falseandmisleading sense of security forUber passengers, such as the l a i n t i n ~ bymaking exaggerated anduntruthfulclaims about Uber's alleged extensive screening ofUber's drivers; 9.Failing toact with the highlevelof care required of ""commoncarriers" inthe State of Texas,thatis,failingtoexercise thehigh degree of care that a very cautious and prudent carrier wouldhave exercised under the same or similar circumstances; 10.Failing toexercise reasonable controlover employees, agents, and/or independent contractors when pairing theminvehicles withUher passengers.S'ee,e.g.Read v. TheScollfelzer Co.,990S.W.2d732 (Tex.1998). Count 3 - Negligence - Triple ClassLimousine 29.Triple Class Limousine wasnegligent andgrosslynegligent among other ways,in: 1.Failing toproperlyhire,train, andsupervise itsdrivers,suchas Chammout; 2.Failing topromulgate and enforce effective safety policies forscreening drivers of itsvehicles for criminalandviolent tendencies; PLAINTIFF'S ORI(i1NAL PETITION10 3.Failing toconduct appropriate background checks onChammout before allowing him totransport passengers; 4.Failing toverify that theCity of Dallas conducted anybackground checks of Chammout; 5.Granting Chammout access toUber asa driver,although his filewas marked: "will not bedriving:' and Chammout hada criminalhistory andpersonalhistory that disqualifiedhimfromdriving;and 6.Failing toact withthehighlevelof care requiredof "common carriers" intheState of Texas, thatis,failing toexercise thehigh degree of care that a verycautious and prudent carrier wouldhave exercisedunder thesame or similar circumstances . .JointEnterprise 30.Alternatively,Defendants areliableforthenegligence of each other under a theoryof joint enterprisebecause:1)anexpressorimpliedagreementamongDefendantsexisted,2)a commonpurposewastobecarriedoutbyDefendants,3)acommonpecuniaryinterestin thatpurposeexistedamongDefendants,and4)anequalrighttocontroltheenterprise existed. Negligence -Proximate Causation 31.Each ofthe foregoing acts or omissions, singularly or in combination with others, constituted negligence,whichproximatelycausedtheabove-referencedoccurrenceandPlaintiffs injuries and damages. PLAINTIFF'S ORICilNAL PETITIONII PERSONAL INJURIES ANDDAMAGES 32.As a result of Defendants'actions,Plaintiff has suffered severe bodily, economic, and mentalinjuries.Consequently, Plaintiff seeks thefollowing damages: 1.MedicalExpenses:Plaintiff hasincurredbodilyinjuries which were caused by the incident inquestion.Plaintiff hasincurredmedical expensesinthepast andwill continue toincur themin the future. 2.PhysicalPain:Plaintiff has endured severephysicalpaininthepast andwill endure paininthefuture. 3.MentalAnguish:Plainti1fhas endured mentalanguishinthepast andwillendure mentalanguishinthefuture. 4.Loss of Earning Capacity:Plaintiff has suffered aloss of earning capacityinthe past,andwillcontinue tosuffer aloss of earning capacityinthefuture. 5.Impairment:Plaintiff has enduredphysicalimpairment inthepast,andwill continue tosuffer the effects inthe future. 6.Disfigurement:Plaintiff hasincurred disfigurement asa result of the Defendants' negligence and willcontinue tosuffer fromdisfigurement inthe future. 33.Inallreasonable probability,Plaintiff willcontinue tosuffer fromtheseinjuries forthe rest of Plaintiffs life,andPlaintiff seeks compensationforsuchfuture damages. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 34.Allconditions precedent toPlaintiff's right torecover therelief sought herein have occurred or havebeen performed. RELIEF SOUGHT 35.Plaintiff requests that Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, andthat this case be tried, after whichPlaintiff recovers: 1.Judgment againstDefendants for a sum within the jurisdictionallimits of this Court forthe damages indicated above.Plaintiff prefers tohave a jury determine the amount of Plaintiff s damages; PLAINTI FF'S ORIGINAl, PETITION12 2.Pre-judgment andpost-judgment interest at the maximum amount allowedbylaw; 3.Costs of Court;and 4.Such other andfurtherrelief towhichPlaintiff maybe justly entitled. PI ORIGINAL PETITION Respectfully submitted, CRAIN LEWIS BROGDON, L.L.P. Gl QUENTINBROGDON State Bar No.03054200 ROBERT D. CRAIN State Bar No.00790525 3400 Carlisle Street Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75204 Phone:(214)522-9404 Fax:(214) 969-5522 Email: Email: ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF I3 Page1 of 1 UBER Dear Mr.Sweckard, We wanted toupdate youonour investigationinto the circumstances leadinguptoTalai Ali Chammout being charged withsexual assault Our goal has beento understandhow Mr. Chammout got touse UbeLand what steps weneed totaketoprevent thisfromhappening again. Our internalinvestigation has shownthat InJanuary 2014, Mr.Ch ammout signed up to useUber asa way to generatebusiness forhis family'slimo company viauberBLACK.Heprovided Uber witha fakeCity of Dallas license. Thefact that his license was fake meanshenever underwent either a City of Dallas or Uber background check. Atthat time, Mr.Chammout'saccount wasmarked as "WillNot Be Driving" .. because that was not the purpose forwhich hesigned up touse Uber. However, onApril17, 2015.anUber representative mistakenly grantedliAr.Chammout access to Uberasa driver. As a result of our investigation,and inclose coordinationwiththeCityof DallasTransportation Department, we conducted anaudit of alllimo companiesand livery drivers whouse Uber in Dallas today.This included: A manual review of eachCityof Dallas limousine permit that hasbeenprovidedby either ownersordrivers asa means of identification whensigning uptouse Uber. A cross-checkof theCity'sregisteredlimousine drivers against our internal database to identify any abnormalities or incorrecl information. A review toconfirm thaI every driver or limo company owner inDallas using the platform has been put throughUber's background check process. Inaddition, weare taking thefollowing steps toimproveoursafetyprocedures in Dallas: Theintroduction of extra spot check.s10ensure that thedocuments inoursystem -including photo 10,Social Security number anddriver's license., areaccurateand IIp-lo-date: and. The creationof a new approvallayer before drivers signing up to use Uber areallowed 1oacceptrides. We're also interested indiscussing withyouthepotentialto improve theCity's online portalso that TNCs canmorequickly andreliably check that thepaper documents provided aregenuine. Uber prides itself on providing a safe,convenient. reliableandaffordable ride.In thisinstance, wefailed 10live up toollr ownhighstandards. forwhich wearetruly sorry.We are determined tolearn fromthemistakes that weremadeso we cando better inthefuture.Our thoughts are withthevictimandher family.Thank youforyour continued support. https:llhtml1-f.scribdassets.coml770gf97 c5c4mOck6/imagesll-6df284e3e3 .jpg8/8/2015