Other Non Exempt Complaints, Complaint Filed By Plaintiff Taranto, Barry , Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated As To Defendant Washio, Inc. Summons Issued, Judicial Council Civil Case Cover Sheet Filed Case Management Conference Scheduled For Dec-02-2015 Proof Of Service Due On Aug-28-2015 Case Management Statement Due On Nov-09-2015
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. !f you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. If you cannot afford an attomney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www./awhelpcalifomia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
{AVISO! Lo han demandado. Sino responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versién. Lea la informacion a
continuacion.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefénica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacion en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en Ia corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario de fa corte
que le dé un formulario de exencién de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le
podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que ilame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede flamar a un servicio de
remisién a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,
(www.lawhelpcalifomia.org), en e! Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniéndose en contacto con la corte o e!
colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
cualquier recuperacién de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesién de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que
pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: CASE NUMBER:
(El nombre y direccién de la corte es): San Francisco Superior Court eet: 1 5 5 46584
400 McAllister St., San Francisco, CA 94102
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(El nombre, la direccién y el ndmero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
Carlson Legal Services, 100 Pine St., Ste. 1250, San Francisco, CA 94111; Ph - 519-239-4710
. a .D
(Fecha) JUN 29 2015 CLERK OF THE COURT ler by Victo pik nay
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
(Para prueba de entrega de esta citatién use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
1. [__] as an individual defendant.
2. [[_] as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
3. on behalf of (specify): Washio, Inc.
under: CCP 416.10 (corporation) [__] CCP 416.60 (minor)
[__] CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) [__] CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
[__] CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) [__] CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
[-] other (specify):
4. [__] by personal delivery on (date):
Page 1 of 1
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465
Judicial Council of California SUMMONS ww coartinte-ca gov
SUM-100 {Rev. July 1, 2009]Page 3 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN, pro hac vice anticipated
(sliss@llrlaw.com)
ADELAIDE PAGANO, pro hac vice anticipated
(bweber@llrlaw.com) E ania
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. s oe Ge hy ancievo
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116 JUN 29 2015
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 CLERK DF THE COURT
BY: Buty Clerk
MATTHEW CARLSON (SBN 273242)
(mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com)
Carlson Legal Services
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 817-1470
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CGC 15-546584
BARRY TARANTO, individually and on Case No.
behalf of all others similarly situated,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND
. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs,
v. 1. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE FOR
BUSINESS EXPENSES IN
WASHIO, INC., VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE
§2802
Defendant. 2. UNLAWFUL AND/OR UNFAIR
BUSINESS PRACTICES (CAL. BUS.
& PROF. CODE §§17200-17208)
I, INTRODUCTION
1. This case is brought on behalf of individuals who have worked as Washio drivers.
Washio is a laundry service that provides dry cleaning and wash and fold delivery service
through a mobile phone application.
2. Plaintiff brings this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of other similarly
situated Washio drivers (referred to by the company as “Ninjas”), who have been misclassified
as independent contractors and thereby required to pay business expenses (such as for their
vehicles, gas, and maintenance) in violation of California Labor Code Section 2802.
I. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Barry Taranto is an adult resident of San Francisco, California, where he
has worked as a Washio driver.
4, Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, namely all other individuals who have worked as Washio drivers across the United
States.
5. Defendant Washio, Inc. (““Washio”) is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Santa Monica, California.
Tr JURISDICTION
6. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs and class members’ claims for failure
to reimburse for business expenses under Labor Code § 2802, enforceable pursuant to Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
7. Washio provides a laundry service that offers dry cleaning and wash and fold
delivery service through a mobile phone application in cities across the country, including Los
Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, and Washington DC.
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMANDPage 5 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8. Washio offers customers the ability to schedule a pick-up and delivery of their
laundry on a mobile phone application.
9. Washio’s website advertises: “Better. Faster. Cleaner. Premium Dry Cleaning and
Laundry Delivery.”
10. | Washio delivery drivers receive a fee for each pick-up or delivery of clothing they,
make during their assigned shifts. They are not paid an hourly wage.
11. Although classified as independent contractors, Washio drivers are employees.
They are required to follow a litany of requirements imposed on them by Washio, and are subject
to termination based on their failure to adhere to these requirements (such as rules regarding how
they store clothes in their vehicles, their timeliness in picking up and dropping off clothing, how
they interact with customers, etc.).
12. | Washio may also terminate drivers in its discretion for any reason.
13. In addition, Washio is in the business of providing laundry delivery service to
customers, and that is the service that Washio delivery drivers or “Ninjas,” provide. The drivers’
services are fully integrated into Washio’s business, and without the drivers to pick up and
deliver laundry, Washio’s laundry delivery business would not exist.
14. __ As part of their contract, Washio drivers agree to an exclusivity arrangement, in
which they agree not to provide services for any similar business.
15. Based on their misclassification as independent contractors, Washio drivers are
required to bear many of the expenses of their employment, including expenses for their
vehicles, gas, parking, and other expenses. California law requires employers to reimburse
employees for such expenses, which are for the benefit of the employer and are necessary for the
employees to perform their jobs.
16. | Washio requires all its drivers to agree to a contract as a condition of
employment, which states that the “Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMANDPage 6 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
with the internal laws of the State of California without giving effect to any choice or conflict of
law provision or rule (whether of the State of California or any other jurisdiction) that would
cause the application of laws of any jurisdictions other than those of the State of California.”
Thus, California law applies to the drivers’ challenge to their classification as independent
contractors under their contract with Washio.
Vv. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
17. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc.
§382 on behalf of Washio drivers across the United States.
18. Plaintiff and other class members have uniformly been misclassified as
independent contractors.
19. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all class members is
impracticable.
20. | Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the class who have
been misclassified as independent contractors. Among the questions of law and fact that are
common to these drivers are:
a. Whether class members have been required to follow uniform procedures and
policies regarding their work for Washio;
b. Whether the work performed by class members—providing laundry delivery
service to customers—is within Washio’s usual course of business, and whether
such service is fully integrated into Washio’s business;
c. Whether these class members have been required to bear the expenses of their
employment, such as expenses for their vehicles, gas, and other expenses.
21. The named plaintiff is a member of the class, who suffered damages as a result of
Defendant’s conduct and actions alleged herein.
22. The named plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the class, and the named
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMANDPage 7 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
plaintiff has the same interests as the other members of the class.
23. The named plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests
of the class. The named plaintiff has retained able counsel experienced in class action litigation.
The interests of the named plaintiff are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, the interests of
the other class members.
24. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual issues relating
to liability and damages.
25. Aclass action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all class members is impractical. Moreover,
since the damages suffered by individual members of the class may be relatively small, the
expense and burden of individual litigation makes it practically impossible for the members of
the class individually to redress the wrongs done to them. The class is readily definable and
prosecution of this action as a class action will eliminate the possibility of repetitive litigation.
There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.
COUNT I
Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802
Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, in misclassifying Washio delivery drivers, or
“Ninjas”, as independent contractors, and failing to reimburse them for expenses they paid that
should have been borne by their employer, constitutes a violation of California Labor Code
Section 2802.
COUNT II
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, violates the California Unfair Competition Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seg. (“UCL”). Defendant’s conduct constitutes unlawful
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMANDPage 8 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
business acts or practices, in that Defendant has violated California Labor Code Section 2802. As
a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and class members suffered injury in fact and
lost money and property, including, but not limited to business expenses that drivers were
required to pay. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17203, Plaintiffs and
class members seek declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendant’s unlawful conduct and to
recover restitution. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, Plaintiffs and class
members who worked for Washio are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and
expenses incurred in bringing this action.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs request a trial by jury on all their claims.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court certify this case as a national class
action (applying California law), pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382; award
reimbursement for all expenses that drivers who were misclassified as independent
contractors were required to bear; award pre- and post-judgment interest; award
reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses; and award any other relief to which
the plaintiffs may be entitled.
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMANDPage 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated:
June 29, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
BARRY TARANTO, individually, and on behalf of|
all others similarly situated,
By their attorneys,
LLC —
Shannon Liss-Riordan, pro hac vice anticipated
Adelaide Pagano, pro hac vice anticipated
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
(617) 994-5800
Email: sliss@llrlaw.com, apagano@ilrlaw.com
Matthew Carlson, SBN 273242
CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 817-1470
Email: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMANDPage 10 ®@ CM-010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
-— Matthew D. Carlson
Carlson Legal Services
100 Pine St., Ste. 1250 F
San Francisco, CA 94111
TELEPHONE NO: 510-239-4710 FAX NO.: Superior Court of Caitfornia
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff inty of San Francisco
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco
strezr aporess: 400 McAllister St. JUN 29 2015
MAILING ADDRESS:
city ano zip cove: San Francisco, CA 94102 CLERK OF THE COURT
BY: ~
BRANCH NAME: Civil Division
CASE NAME:
Taranto v. Washio, Inc.
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designatl GASE NUMBER:
Unlimited [_] Limited ~_ “CI ne GG 15-546584
(Amount (Amount L_] Counter Tuer:
demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant °
exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT:
items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).
1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Deputy Clerk
Auto Tort Contract Provisionaily Complex Civil Litigation
Auto (22) [_] Breach of contractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
Uninsured motorist (46) {_] Rule 3.740 collections (09) L_] Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)
Other PYPD/WD (Personal Injury/Property L_] other collections (09) [_] Construction defect (10)
Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort | Insurance coverage (18) CJ Mass tort (40)
Asbestos (04) L_] other contract (37) {_] Securities litigation (28) -
Product liability (24) Real Property (C_] Environmental/Toxic tort (30)
Medical malpractice (45) Eminent domain/Inverse [1] insurance coverage claims arising from the
L_] other PyPDIWD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case
Non-PYPD/WD (Other) Tort [—_] Wrongful eviction (33) types (41)
[__] pusiness torv/unfair business practice (07) [__] other reat property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
CJ Civil rights (08) Untawful Detainer LJ Enforcement of judgment (20)
L_] Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
[_] Fraud (16) L_] Residential (32) [_] rico 7)
[_]} intellectual property (19) C7} pe ugs (38) Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
[_] Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition
[_] other non-PvPDIWD tort (35) [_] Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21)
oa Won Petition re: arbitration award (114) L_] Other petition (not specified above) (43)
Wrongful termination (36) | Writ of mandate (02)
Other employment (15) [| Other judicial review (39)
2. Thiscase L_Jis LY] isnot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
a. | Large number of separately represented parties a.L_] Large number of witnesses
b.[__] Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel —_e. [__] Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
c. _] Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. L_] substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
3. Remedies sought (check ail that apply): a. moneta b. nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief __c.[ _] punitive
4. Number of causes of action (specify): 1D a ees ‘|
5. This case is LJ is not aclass action suit.
6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form,CM-015.)
Date: 6/29/15
Matthew D. Carlson »
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME} (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY)
NOTICE
e Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result
in sanctions.
® File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
® If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding.
¢ Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only.
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740;
Judicial Council of California CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10
‘CM-010 (Rev. July 1, 2007)
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jun-29-2015 1:10 pm
Case Number: CGC-15-546584
Filing Date: Jun-29-2015 1:07
Filed by: VICTORIA GONZALEZ
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04971507
COMPLAINT
BARRY TARANTO VS. WASHIO, INC.
001004971507
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN, pro hac vice anticipated
(sliss@llrlaw.com)
ADELAIDE PAGANO, pro hac vice anticipated
(bweber@llrlaw.com) E ania
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. s oe Ge hy ancievo
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116 JUN 29 2015
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 CLERK DF THE COURT
BY: Buty Clerk
MATTHEW CARLSON (SBN 273242)
(mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com)
Carlson Legal Services
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 817-1470
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CGC 15-546584
BARRY TARANTO, individually and on Case No.
behalf of all others similarly situated,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND
. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs,
v. 1. FAILURE TO REIMBURSE FOR
BUSINESS EXPENSES IN
WASHIO, INC., VIOLATION OF CAL. LAB. CODE
§2802
Defendant. 2. UNLAWFUL AND/OR UNFAIR
BUSINESS PRACTICES (CAL. BUS.
& PROF. CODE §§17200-17208)
1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
PDF Page 5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, INTRODUCTION
1. This case is brought on behalf of individuals who have worked as Washio drivers.
Washio is a laundry service that provides dry cleaning and wash and fold delivery service
through a mobile phone application.
2. Plaintiff brings this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of other similarly
situated Washio drivers (referred to by the company as “Ninjas”), who have been misclassified
as independent contractors and thereby required to pay business expenses (such as for their
vehicles, gas, and maintenance) in violation of California Labor Code Section 2802.
I. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Barry Taranto is an adult resident of San Francisco, California, where he
has worked as a Washio driver.
4, Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, namely all other individuals who have worked as Washio drivers across the United
States.
5. Defendant Washio, Inc. (““Washio”) is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Santa Monica, California.
Tr JURISDICTION
6. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs and class members’ claims for failure
to reimburse for business expenses under Labor Code § 2802, enforceable pursuant to Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
7. Washio provides a laundry service that offers dry cleaning and wash and fold
delivery service through a mobile phone application in cities across the country, including Los
Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, and Washington DC.
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
PDF Page 6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8. Washio offers customers the ability to schedule a pick-up and delivery of their
laundry on a mobile phone application.
9. Washio’s website advertises: “Better. Faster. Cleaner. Premium Dry Cleaning and
Laundry Delivery.”
10. | Washio delivery drivers receive a fee for each pick-up or delivery of clothing they,
make during their assigned shifts. They are not paid an hourly wage.
11. Although classified as independent contractors, Washio drivers are employees.
They are required to follow a litany of requirements imposed on them by Washio, and are subject
to termination based on their failure to adhere to these requirements (such as rules regarding how
they store clothes in their vehicles, their timeliness in picking up and dropping off clothing, how
they interact with customers, etc.).
12. | Washio may also terminate drivers in its discretion for any reason.
13. In addition, Washio is in the business of providing laundry delivery service to
customers, and that is the service that Washio delivery drivers or “Ninjas,” provide. The drivers’
services are fully integrated into Washio’s business, and without the drivers to pick up and
deliver laundry, Washio’s laundry delivery business would not exist.
14. __ As part of their contract, Washio drivers agree to an exclusivity arrangement, in
which they agree not to provide services for any similar business.
15. Based on their misclassification as independent contractors, Washio drivers are
required to bear many of the expenses of their employment, including expenses for their
vehicles, gas, parking, and other expenses. California law requires employers to reimburse
employees for such expenses, which are for the benefit of the employer and are necessary for the
employees to perform their jobs.
16. | Washio requires all its drivers to agree to a contract as a condition of
employment, which states that the “Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
PDF Page 7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
with the internal laws of the State of California without giving effect to any choice or conflict of
law provision or rule (whether of the State of California or any other jurisdiction) that would
cause the application of laws of any jurisdictions other than those of the State of California.”
Thus, California law applies to the drivers’ challenge to their classification as independent
contractors under their contract with Washio.
Vv. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
17. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc.
§382 on behalf of Washio drivers across the United States.
18. Plaintiff and other class members have uniformly been misclassified as
independent contractors.
19. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all class members is
impracticable.
20. | Common questions of law and fact exist as to members of the class who have
been misclassified as independent contractors. Among the questions of law and fact that are
common to these drivers are:
a. Whether class members have been required to follow uniform procedures and
policies regarding their work for Washio;
b. Whether the work performed by class members—providing laundry delivery
service to customers—is within Washio’s usual course of business, and whether
such service is fully integrated into Washio’s business;
c. Whether these class members have been required to bear the expenses of their
employment, such as expenses for their vehicles, gas, and other expenses.
21. The named plaintiff is a member of the class, who suffered damages as a result of
Defendant’s conduct and actions alleged herein.
22. The named plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the class, and the named
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
PDF Page 8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
plaintiff has the same interests as the other members of the class.
23. The named plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests
of the class. The named plaintiff has retained able counsel experienced in class action litigation.
The interests of the named plaintiff are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, the interests of
the other class members.
24. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual issues relating
to liability and damages.
25. Aclass action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy because joinder of all class members is impractical. Moreover,
since the damages suffered by individual members of the class may be relatively small, the
expense and burden of individual litigation makes it practically impossible for the members of
the class individually to redress the wrongs done to them. The class is readily definable and
prosecution of this action as a class action will eliminate the possibility of repetitive litigation.
There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.
COUNT I
Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802
Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, in misclassifying Washio delivery drivers, or
“Ninjas”, as independent contractors, and failing to reimburse them for expenses they paid that
should have been borne by their employer, constitutes a violation of California Labor Code
Section 2802.
COUNT II
Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, violates the California Unfair Competition Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seg. (“UCL”). Defendant’s conduct constitutes unlawful
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
PDF Page 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
business acts or practices, in that Defendant has violated California Labor Code Section 2802. As
a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and class members suffered injury in fact and
lost money and property, including, but not limited to business expenses that drivers were
required to pay. Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 17203, Plaintiffs and
class members seek declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendant’s unlawful conduct and to
recover restitution. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, Plaintiffs and class
members who worked for Washio are entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and
expenses incurred in bringing this action.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs request a trial by jury on all their claims.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court certify this case as a national class
action (applying California law), pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 382; award
reimbursement for all expenses that drivers who were misclassified as independent
contractors were required to bear; award pre- and post-judgment interest; award
reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses; and award any other relief to which
the plaintiffs may be entitled.
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
PDF Page 10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated:
June 29, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
BARRY TARANTO, individually, and on behalf of|
all others similarly situated,
By their attorneys,
LLC —
Shannon Liss-Riordan, pro hac vice anticipated
Adelaide Pagano, pro hac vice anticipated
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
(617) 994-5800
Email: sliss@llrlaw.com, apagano@ilrlaw.com
Matthew Carlson, SBN 273242
CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 817-1470
Email: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
PDF Page 11
®@ CM-010
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
-— Matthew D. Carlson
Carlson Legal Services
100 Pine St., Ste. 1250 F
San Francisco, CA 94111
TELEPHONE NO: 510-239-4710 FAX NO.: Superior Court of Caitfornia
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff inty of San Francisco
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco
strezr aporess: 400 McAllister St. JUN 29 2015
MAILING ADDRESS:
city ano zip cove: San Francisco, CA 94102 CLERK OF THE COURT
BY: ~
BRANCH NAME: Civil Division
CASE NAME:
Taranto v. Washio, Inc.
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designatl GASE NUMBER:
Unlimited [_] Limited ~_ “CI ne GG 15-546584
(Amount (Amount L_] Counter Tuer:
demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant °
exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT:
items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).
1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Deputy Clerk
Auto Tort Contract Provisionaily Complex Civil Litigation
Auto (22) [_] Breach of contractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
Uninsured motorist (46) {_] Rule 3.740 collections (09) L_] Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)
Other PYPD/WD (Personal Injury/Property L_] other collections (09) [_] Construction defect (10)
Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort | Insurance coverage (18) CJ Mass tort (40)
Asbestos (04) L_] other contract (37) {_] Securities litigation (28) -
Product liability (24) Real Property (C_] Environmental/Toxic tort (30)
Medical malpractice (45) Eminent domain/Inverse [1] insurance coverage claims arising from the
L_] other PyPDIWD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case
Non-PYPD/WD (Other) Tort [—_] Wrongful eviction (33) types (41)
[__] pusiness torv/unfair business practice (07) [__] other reat property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
CJ Civil rights (08) Untawful Detainer LJ Enforcement of judgment (20)
L_] Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
[_] Fraud (16) L_] Residential (32) [_] rico 7)
[_]} intellectual property (19) C7} pe ugs (38) Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
[_] Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition
[_] other non-PvPDIWD tort (35) [_] Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21)
oa Won Petition re: arbitration award (114) L_] Other petition (not specified above) (43)
Wrongful termination (36) | Writ of mandate (02)
Other employment (15) [| Other judicial review (39)
2. Thiscase L_Jis LY] isnot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
a. | Large number of separately represented parties a.L_] Large number of witnesses
b.[__] Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel —_e. [__] Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
c. _] Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. L_] substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
3. Remedies sought (check ail that apply): a. moneta b. nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief __c.[ _] punitive
4. Number of causes of action (specify): 1D a ees ‘|
5. This case is LJ is not aclass action suit.
6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form,CM-015.)
Date: 6/29/15
Matthew D. Carlson »
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME} (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY)
NOTICE
e Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result
in sanctions.
® File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
® If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding.
¢ Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only.
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740;
Judicial Council of California CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10
‘CM-010 (Rev. July 1, 2007)
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
Back to 
