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