United States District Court, N.D. California
PATRICK COTTER, ALEJANDRA MACIEL, and JEFFREY KNUDTSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
LYFT, INC., Defendant.
SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.,
MATTHEW D. CARLSON LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. ATTORNEYS
FOR PLAINTIFFS COTTER, MACIEL, AND KNUDTSON
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
VINCE CHHABRIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
have filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the class
action settlement reached with Defendant Lyft, Inc., a
hearing on which was held on June 2, 2016. The Court has
carefully considered the Settlement Agreement together with
all exhibits thereto, all the filings related to the
Settlement, the arguments of counsel, and the record in this
case. For the reasons described below and in the
Court’s June 23, 2016 Order (Dkt. No. 246), the Court
hereby gives its preliminary approval of the Settlement;
finds that the Settlement and Settlement Agreement are
sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to allow
dissemination of notice of the Settlement to the Settlement
Class and to hold a Fairness Hearing; orders the Class Notice
be sent to the Settlement Class in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement and this Order; and schedules a Fairness
Hearing to determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Settlement Agreement is hereby incorporated by reference in
this Order, and all terms or phrases used in this Order shall
have the same meaning as in the Settlement Agreement.
Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, together with
all of its Exhibits, finding that the terms of the Agreement
are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and within the range of
possible approval and sufficient to warrant providing notice
to the Settlement Class.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), the Court
certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following
Settlement Class: “All Lyft Drivers who gave at least
one Ride in California during the period from May 25, 2012
through the date of this Order.” 4. The Court finds,
for settlement purposes only, that the Action may be
maintained as a class action on behalf of the Settlement
a. Numerosity: Class Counsel estimate that more than 100, 000
individuals have potential claims and are members of the
Settlement Class. This satisfies the Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity
b. Commonality: The threshold for commonality under Rule
23(a)(2) is not high and single common issue will suffice.
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Lyft’s
terms of service establish that Drivers are employees. This
issue is common to the Settlement Class.
c. Typicality. Named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of
the claims of the Settlement Class Members and satisfy Rule
d. Adequacy: There are no conflicts of interest between Named
Plaintiffs and Settlement Class members and Named Plaintiffs
have retained competent counsel to represent the Settlement
Class. Class Counsel regularly engage in complex litigation
similar to the present case and have dedicated substantial
resources to the prosecution of this matter. The adequacy
requirement is satisfied.
e. Predominance and Superiority: There is predominance and
superiority. A class action is superior to other available
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
controversy. The common legal and factual issue listed in the
preliminary approval papers predominate all over other
issues. Resolution of the common question constitutes a
significant part of Plaintiffs’ and Settlement Class
Pursuant to the stipulation submitted by the parties
concurrently with the submission of the motion for
preliminary approval, the Court granted leave to file the
Fifth Amended Complaint in the form attached to the
Settlement Agreement. Dkt. No. 252.
Court appoints as class representatives, for settlement
purposes only, Named Plaintiffs Patrick Cotter, Alejandra
Maciel, and Jeffrey Knudtson. The Court finds, for settlement
purposes only, that the ...