PlainSite :: Ang Jiang Liu et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Case No. CGC-14-536979 Document 1: Complaint

Page 1 EA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jan-27-2014 10:42 am

Case Number: CGC-14-536979
Filing Date: Jan-27-2014 10:30 am
Filed by: ELIAS BUTT
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04354971
COMPLAINT

ANG JIANG LIU et al VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al

instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.

Page 2 oo wn nn vn F&F WO NY
Ny NO NO NY NO WN NH KH HO §— FR = §—& FF FF HF Fe =|
ont DH WN BF WwW NY KF oF oO mw Dn BF Ww NY KH CS

© oni soni
Christopher B. Dolan (SBN 165358) Su Ld che
Emile A. Davis (SBN 208394) .
THE DOLAN LAW FIRM JAN 272014
Market Street
San Francisco, California 94102 we OFT COURT
Telephone: (415) 421-2800 cay Cect
Facsimile: (415) 421-2830
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ANG JIANG LIU, HUAN HUA KUANG, ANTHONY LIU
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
ANG JIANG LIU, AS ANINDIVIDUAL | CaseNo. CGC-14-536979
AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR
ANTHONY LIU, AND SUCCESSOR IN | |
INTEREST ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE | COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
OF SOFIA LIU, HUAN HUA KUANG, DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
ANTHONY LIU 1. WRONGFUL DEATH. NEGLIGENCE — MOTOR VEHICLE
Plaintiffs, 3. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
So , EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
v. 4. NEGLIGENCE. NEGLIGENCE PER SE
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER 6. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LLC, RASIER-CA LLC, SYED - 7. NEGLIGENT HIRING RETENTION
MUZZAFAR, and DOES 1-30, AND SUPERVISION
. 8. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Defendants. 9. WRONGFUL DEATH SURVIVAL
ACTION
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

-l-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 3 Co Oo NAW BR wD |=
Ro A F&F WHO NYO =H ODO 0 OW TD NDB A fF WY NY F- SO

©
PARTIES
. Plaintiff ANG JIANG LIU is an adult male. He is the husband of Plaintiff HUAN
KUANG and father of Plaintiff ANTHONY LIU and decedent SOFIA LIU. |
. Plaintiff HUAN KUANG is an adult female. She is the wife of Plaintiff ANG JIANG
LIU, and Mother of Plaintiff ANTHONY LIU and decedent SOFIA LIU.
| 3. Plaintiff ANTHONY LIU is a minor. He is the brother of the decedent SOFIA LIU.
. Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC (hereinafter “UBER”) is a Delaware
Corporation and or Does 1-10 are corporations and/or business entities of a form unknown,
which run a Transportation Network Company (TNC) known as UBER which provide a
number of transportation options and vehicles for users of their service, including a low cost
option called Uber X, through an online-enabled application (hereinafter ““APP”). UBER has its
principal place of business in and conducts business in San Francisco, California.
. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on the basis of said information and belief allege
that RASIER LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company which is a wholly owned
subsidiary of UBER and the parent. company of RASIER-CA LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company. RASIER LLC & RASIER-CA LLC have their principal place of business
in and conducts business in San Francisco, California.
. UBER and DOES 1-10, use RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 21-30
to operate a TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY (TNC) known as Uber X, a
division of UBER and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30’s commercial enterprise.
. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of information and belief allege that
RASIER-CA LLC has been assigned Carrier ID PSG0032512 by the PUC and that UBER,
RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 use Carrier ID
PSG0032512 to operate its TNC, Uber X in California.
. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of information and belief allege that
RASIER-CA LLC is the insurance certificate holder for the insurance that UBER is required to
carry as a TNC by the PUC, which it uses for its Uber X operations.

-2- .
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 4 o fo SN DBD WN FF WwW YP —
N N NO No No N No —= _ _ _ — —_ _ —_ _ —_
aN ws - Ww NO —_ Oo ‘© Co ~] N ws & Oe N —_ So

o ©
. Defendant SYED MUZZAFAR is an adult male. On December 31, 2013, he was the
driver of the vehicle which killed SOPHIA LIU, and injured HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY
LIU.
. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and the basis of said information and belief, allege,
that on December 31, 2013, at the time of this collision, Defendant MUZZAFAR was a
driver/transportation provider who was operating his vehicle utilizing the UBER APP and as
such was an agent and/or employee and/or partner of UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or
RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and/or Does 21-30. |
. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and the basis of said information and belief, allege,
at all times material to this complaint, UBER and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC
and/or Does 1-10 and/or Does 21-30 were the employer of Defendant MUZZAFAR, and/or his
partner and/or an agency relationship existed between them.
. Does 11-20 are believed to be the owners of the vehicle driven by MUZZAFAR at the
time of the collision. | |
. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the names of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through, inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will
amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are
informed and believe and thereon allege that each of said fictitiously named Defendants is
responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ injuries
herein alleged were caused by the aforementioned Defendants.
. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of said information and belief
allege, that at all times herein material to this matters alleged in this Complaint, each of the
Defendants was the agent and/or employee and/or partner of each of the remaining Defendants
and, in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such agency
and/or employment, and/or aided and/or abetted the others and/or ratified the acts of the others
so as to make them liable for the Plaintiffs’ damages.
. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of said information and belief
allege, that there is a unity of interest and operation between UBER, RAISER LLC, RAISER-

-3-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 5 oe Oo nN DBD OW FP WY NO
BO NO NR NN KO KN KROQ ROR Se Se me
Nn A F&F WYO NY KF& DOD OD DQ DH WA BP WOW NY KF CO

Tek: (415) 421-2800
Fao (415) 421-2830
© ©o
CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 such that their separate and independent classification is but
a fiction and that each is the alter-ego of the other.. Defendants are liable for the acts of each other through principals of respondeat
superior, agency, ostensible agency, partnership, alter-ego and other forms of vicarious liability.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
. Venue in this court is appropriate as the injuries to the Plaintiffs occurred in San
Francisco County.. Jurisdiction is proper in this case in that the amount in controversy is in excess of the
statutory requirements of this court.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
. On December 31, 2013, at just before 8:00pm, HUAN KUANG was walking home in
San Francisco with her two children, ANTHONY LIU, who was 5 years old, and SOFIA LIU,
who was 6 years old. |
_ 20. They approached the intersection of Polk Street and Ellis Street. When the light was
green for them to walk, they began to cross Polk Street within the crosswalk.
. As they were in the cross-walk, with the signal green for them to walk, a vehicle driven
by Defendant SYED MUZZAFAR turned right from Ellis Street and collided with HUAN
KUANG, ANTHONY LIU and SOFIA LIU.
. The collision caused the wrongful death of SOFIA LIU, and caused serious and
significant physical and mental injuries to the other Plaintiffs in this action.
. UBER, RAISER LLC, RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 and their Uber X
service have been classified by the California Public Utilities Commission (hereinafter “PUC”)
asa TNC.

-4-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 6 —_
NO NY NY NY NO NY NO | KF | =| Fe Fe Fe ee Se
DH vn & WwW HNO —-§ CF ODO FH TD HD vA FP WD NY —& CO

Ted: (415) 421-2800
Pax: (415) 424-2830
© o
. UBER, RAISER LLC, RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30, through its
services, including Uber X, provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using
its APP or platform to connect persons wanting to procure transportation (hereinafter
“USERS”), with those who, utilizing their own personal vehicles, want to provide transportation
ion exchange for compensation (hereinafter “DRIVERS”.
. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of said information and belief
allege, that MUZZAFAR was logged on to the UBER APP at the time that the collision
occurred and was appearing as a UBER and/or Uber X DRIVER available for providing
transportation services to USERS and/or was viewing, monitoring and/or interacting with his
wireless communications device/smartphone/GPS at or near the time of the collision.
. Before USERS can utilize the APP, USERS must become “partners” of UBER, UBER,
RAISER LLC, RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30by logging into UBER’s APP or
web based portal and provide information about themselves to UBER including their name, e-
mail, credit card number, mobile telephone number, etc. Only registered USERS can use
UBER’s APP to prearrange transportation service.
. Before DRIVERS can participate in UBER’S, RASIER LLC’S, RAISER-CA LLC’S
and Does 1-10 and 21-30’s prearranged transportation service, including but not limited to Uber
X, they must apply to be a DRIVER by logging into UBER’s APP or web based portal and
providing information including but not limited to their name, phone number, address, e-mail,
banking information, vehicle registration, insurance, vehicle description, and have their vehicle
inspected. UBER, RASIER LLC and RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 are required
to conduct a background investigation of their DRIVERS including but not limited to their
driving and criminal history (and thereafter conduct periodic reviews of their driving history).
UBER, RASIER LLC and RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 then evaluate the driver
and only permit those drivers it finds suitable to become registered DRIVERS on its APP.
UBER, RASIER LLC and RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 reserve the right to
remove or delete DRIVERS from their system at their discretion. Therefore UBER, RASIER

-5-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 7 o fo HN DB vA BP WW LP =
wo BO NYO PO NW NH WH NH NY Bo = ew met
o —l A wn & (ox i) -_- © 0 oo ~] an Nm - WwW NN — So
THE
DOLAN
LAW FIRM
The Dolan Building Market Street
‘San Francisco, CA.
Ted: (415) 421-2800
Fax: (415) 421-2830
© °
LLC and RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 are entirely in control of who can use
their system as either a DRIVER or USER.
. Only after USERS and DRIVERS have provided the information required by UBER,
RASIER LLC and RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 can they participate in the pre-
arranged transportation service.
. USERS seeking transportation services provided by UBER, RASIER LLC and
RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30, such as Uber x and its DRIVERS, log on to the |
APP which is under the URL, www.uber.com, and arrive at a main screen that says UBER.
From that main screen they can navigate among different types of transportation services
(generally distinguished by type of vehicle) including Uber X which is touted as “the low cost
UBER.”
. USERS who chose Uber X are shown a GPS looking screen which displays vehicles
available to provide transportation services in their area. After requesting a DRIVER, the APP
alerts nearby DRIVERS who must timely indicate their acceptance of the USER’S
transportation request by manually interfacing with the APP. Once the DRIVER accepts the
USER’s request that drivers name, photo, vehicle description, user rating, and time from pickup
are displayed to the USER.
. DRIVERS, in order to be available to provide USERS transportation services in
exchange for compensation, must log on to the UBER and/or Uber X APP and indicate their
availability. Their location and information is then visible to USERS and DRIVERS can access
a screen on their electronic communication device/smart phone/GPS called a “God View”
which shows them a map of where others using the system are located.
. The PUC has found that, “clearly, each TNC is receiving either an economic benefit or
a business benefit. At a minimum, they are receiving increased patronage with the growth of
their businesses.” |
. UBER and Uber X’s brand and value to USERS, and potential USERS, is enhanced by
having a significant number of DRIVERS registered, visible to the USERS on the UBER APP,
and available in close proximity to USERS so as to provide transportation services. Indeed

-6-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 8 —
NH NO NH NY NYO NH NH HN NO | | FF = =| Se Re ee ee
oo ND A fF WD NY K§ DB Oo OW DT DH nN BP W NH K& OC
THE
DOLAN
LAW FIRM
The Dolan Building Market Steoet
‘San Francisco, CA
Ted: (415) 42¢-2800
Fax. (415) 421-2830
oO won nn & WwW WN

© | °
UBER states on its website “When you request a driver we’ll find a driver and let track their
location on the map. Your driver’s name and car details appear in the app and you can message
or call if you need to”. “UBER’S, and/or RASIER LLC’s and/or RAISER-CA LLC’s and/or
Does 1-10 and 21-30’s competitive advantage in the transportation industry is fostered by
having an APP that shows both DRIVERS and USERS where the other is, providing
information and reviews about the DRIVER and USER, permitting communication by text and _
phone between DRIVER and USER and by demonstrating the large number of available
DRIVERS which are logged on to the UBER APP.
. UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30
derive an economic benefit from not only having USERS transported by DRIVERS collecting a
portion of the charge for transportation, it derives an economic benefit, and competitive
advantage, by displaying the location of available vehicles near the USER’s location. USERS
seeing the ready supply of UBER and/or Uber X vehicles have greater consumer confidence
that they will be able to obtain one-to-one prearranged transportation services rapidly and are
therefore more likely to be repeat customers. In this way UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or
RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and. 21-30 enhance their business by attracting a larger
number of USERS to their services and, therefore, increase their market share of the
transportation industry and commerce in the business sector in which they are providing service.
Therefore, regardless of whether a DRIVER actually has a USER in their car, is on the way to a
USER who has engaged the DRIVER through the APP, or simply is logged on to the APP as an
available DRIVER, UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10
and 21-30 derives an economic benefit from having DRIVERS registered on the service.
. The nature of the APP and its interface is both visual and tactile. Therefore, DRIVERS
must monitor their wireless communications device/smartphone/GPS so as to be aware of the
location of other UBER and/or Uber X vehicles so they can position themselves near areas of
high USER demand. The APP. provides for texting and phone calling and instant messaging
between the DRIVER and the USER.

-7- .
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 9 oO Oo JN DBD DW FF WY LPO —
No NY DS NH NH NY NY DR Rm mee
ao NN AW FP WD HSH S& OD 60 OH HD DO mH BB Ww NHN FH OC
THE
DOLAN
LAW FIRM
The Dotan Building. Market Stren.
‘San Francisco, CA
Ted: (415) 421-2800
Fax: (415) 421-2830

© | ©
. UBER and/or Uber X DRIVERS must respond quickly to a USER request for service by
physically interfacing with the APP thereby leading to distraction while a DRIVER monitors
and/or uses the APP on their wireless communications device/smartphone/GPS. Defendants
UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 knew, or
should have known use of the APP by DRIVERS, including but not limited to MUZZARAE, in
the manner intended and actually required by UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA
LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30, would be in violation of California Vehicle Code 23123
which, in subsection (a) states “A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless
telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free
listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.”
. Defendant UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10
and 21-30 knew, or should have known that use of the APP by DRIVERS, including but not
limited to MUZZARAF, in the manner intended and actually required by UBER, and/or
RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30, and/or RASIER LLC
and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30, would be in violation of California
Vehicle Code Section 23123.5 which, states “(a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while
{| using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based
communication, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed
and configured to allow voice operated and hands-free operation to dictate, send, or listen to a
text-based communication, and it is used in that manner while driving. (b) As used in this
section “write, send, or read a text-based communication” means using an electronic wireless
communications device to manually communicate with any person using a text-based
communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message,
instant message, or electronic mail.” .
. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 26708 any portable Global Positioning
System (GPS), may only be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the
|| windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the
windshield nearest to the driver and outside-of an airbag deployment zone,” if the system is

a
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 10 Oo Oo SI DH WA BB WH NO -
NO nN No bo bo bho NO No — — — — ~— — — — —_ —
SN va) & YW bw KF CO oOo sa HN we - ww N _ So

Ted: (415) 421-2800
Fax (415) 421-2830

e eo
used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated.” The
UBER APP is, by its nature, a GPS.
. Use by UBER and Uber X DRIVERS of a GPS while engaged in the business activity
of being a UBER or Uber X DRIVER is not door-to-door navigation and, therefore, violates
California Vehicle Code Section 26708.
. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of said information and belief
allege that the status of MUZZARAF as an UBER and/or Uber x DRIVER, including but not
limited to the use and/or monitoring of the APP and its interface, was a proximate cause of this
collision including but not limited to its causing MUZZARAF to be distracted while driving.
. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of said information and belief. -
alleges that the design of the UBER APP and DRIVER interface, requires drivers to use the
APP in such a manner as to violate the law, including but not limited to CA. Vehicle Code ~
Sections 23123, 23123.5 and/or 26708, the legislative history of which is discussed, in part, in
People v. Spriggs, (2013) 215 CalApp.4™ Supp.1, thereby causing distraction to DRIVERS,
including MOZZARAF and, further, that MUZZARAF’s distraction was a substantial factor in
causing the subject accident and resultant harm.
. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Wrongful Death
By Plaintiffs ANG JIAN LIU and HUAN KUANG
Against All Defendants
. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents of
Paragraphs | through 41. .
. Defendants and each of them owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable/due care as well as
statutory duties established in California Vehicle Codes, 21950, 23123, 23 123.5 and/or 26708.
. Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10
and 21-30 were negligent in their development, implementation, and use of the APP in the
provision of prearranged transportation services in such a manner so as to lead to DRIVERS,
including MUZZARAF, to be distracted and/or inattentive, while driving.

-9.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 11 oO fo NN WN ON FF WW NYO
N N tN N NHN -b i) No ho — —_ —_ —_ — — ~— — — —
oo —~] an a & we i) — So \o oo ~] an Wr > eo No — oS
© - °
. Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10
and 21-30 are, as more fully set forth below, liable in strict product liability, for the defective
APP and/or user interface.
. Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10
and 21-30, and each of them, through their wrongful acts, as set forth above, breached their
duties of care and said breach was the proximate cause of the death of SOFIA LIU.
. As a proximate result the negligence of Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or
RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30, and each of them, Plaintiffs ANG LIU and
HUAN KUANG have suffered great loss and harm, including but not limited to funeral and
burial expenses, loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection,
society and moral support in an amount to be established at the time of trial.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence —Motor Vehicle
"By Plaintiffs HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY LIU
Against All Defendants
. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents of
Paragraphs 1 through 47.
. Defendants and each of them owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable/due care as well as
statutory duties established in California Vehicle Codes, 21950, 23123, 23123.5 and/or 26708.
. Defendant MUZZARAF, on December 31, 2013, while operating his vehicle in the
scope and course of his employment/agency/partnership with UBER, and/or RASIER LLC
and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30, was negligent and did breach one or
more of those duties and said breach was the proximate cause of personal injuries to Plaintiffs
HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY LIU.
. Defendants 11-20 were negligent in their entrustment of the vehicle being driven by
MUZZARAF on December 31, 2013.
. As a proximate result the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have
suffered significant general and special damages in amounts to be determined at trial.

-10-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 12 Oo fo NI DH WA FBP WY NHN =
N N No N bo N No _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ —_
nH vA F&F B&B NO &S&§ DBD ODO BAN DH WH FP WO NY KF OS

oO ©
. The conduct of the Defendants and each of them was engaged in with fraud, oppression
and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but
not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant
to California Civil Code Section 3294.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
By Plaintiffs HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY LIU
Against All Defendants
. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents of
Paragraphs 1-54.
. Plaintiffs HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY LIU, mother and brother to decedent
SOFIA LIU, were with SOPHIA and, therefore, in the legally recognized “zone of danger”
created by the Defendants, and each of them, when they wrongfully caused the death of
decedent SOFIA LIU and the physical injuries to HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY LIU.
. Plaintiffs HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY LIU were aware of, and did witness the
injuries sustained by each other and SOFIA LIU so as to suffer the negligent infliction of
emotional distress as recognized in the case of Dillon v Legg, (1968) 68 Cal.2™ 728.
. As a proximate result the negligence of Defendants and each of them, Plaintiffs HUAN
KUANG and ANTHONY LIU have suffered significant general and special damages in
amounts to be determined at trial. |
. The conduct of the Defendants and each of them was engaged in with fraud, oppression
and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but
not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant
to California Civil Code Section 3294.
V\A
\\\

-ll-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 13 oO me SN HD A FB WD HO
NH NO BD NHN NH ND ND NY RO meme ees
oo nN DN NW FF WH NY KF SG OC HH H Uw RF WH HB KF OC
THE
DOLAN
LAW FIRM
The Dolan Building, Market Street
San Francisco, CA
Tet: (415) 421-2800
Fax: (415) 421-2830
© oO
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence
By all Plaintiffs
Against Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC
and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30
. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents
of Paragraphs 1-58.
- 60. Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10
and 21-30 and DOES 1-10 were negligent in their development, implementation, and use of the
APP in the provision of prearranged transportation services in such a manner so as to lead to
DRIVERS, including MUZZARAF, to be distracted and/or inattentive, while driving.
. Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10
and 21-30 required its DRIVERS to use a smartphone APP and/or GPS that causes, and did
cause, driver distraction and inattention to the roadway, such that it was the proximate cause of
the subject accident and resulting personal injuries to Plaintiffs HUAN KUANG and |
ANTHONY LIU.
- 62. As a proximate result the negligence of Defendant UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or
RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30, and each of them, Plaintiffs have suffered
significant special and general damages in amounts to be determined at trial.
. As a proximate result the negligence of Defendants and each of them, Plaintiffs ANG
JIANG LIU and HUAN KUANG suffered wrongful death damages.
. The conduct of the Defendants and each of them was engaged in with fraud, oppression
and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but .
not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant
to California Civil Code Section 3294: | |
\\\
\\\

-12-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 14 mo Oo SN DW A BR WH PO —
~ an Nn & oOo do -&§ © © o ~~ aH wr a= no nN — So

THE
Tet: (415) 421-2800
Fax (415) 421-2830
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligence Per Se
By Plaintiffs
Against ALL DEFENDANTS
. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents
of Paragraphs 1-64.
. California Vehicle Codes, 21950, 23123, 23123.5 and/or 26708 were laws implemented
by the State of California to protect individuals from injury or death due to inattentive or
distracted drivers. Plaintiffs and each of them were of the class of persons intended to be
protected by these laws.
. Defendants and each of them therefore owed Plaintiffs a duty to conduct their affairs in
accordance with California Vehicle Codes, 21950, 23123, 23123.5 and/or 26708.
. Defendants and each of them breached one or more of the duties established by
California Vehicle Codes, 21950, 23123, 23123.5 and/or 26708. Such conduct constitutes
negligence per se.
. Asa direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs, and each of them, suffered significant
general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
. The conduct of the Defendants and each of them was engaged in with fraud, oppression
and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but
not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant
to California Civil Code Section 3294.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Strict Products Liability- Bystander Theory
By All Plaintiffs
Against UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or
RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30
. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents
of Paragraphs 1-70. .. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon said information and belief allege,
that Defendant UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and

-13-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY.

Page 15 Oo Oo N DA WwW Fk WD NO
NY NY NY NY NY NY NN YN Be Re ee ee eS Oe OL
~~ nN GN & w bo —_= am) \o of ~ aN A a we N — So

Tek (415) 421-2800
Fax: (415) 421-2830
o °
-30 designed and/or distributed the APP and/or GPS interface/system that UBER DRIVERS,
including MUZZARAF, were required to use and furthermore trained or failed to adequately
train them on how to use the APP and interface.
. In doing so UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10
and 21-30 did place the APP and GPS system into use and on the market.
. UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30
had, or should have had, knowledge that the APP and/or GPS interface would be used without
inspection for defects and would be used in such a way as to violate one or more provisions of
the California Vehicle Code and/or to create a significant risk of the type of harm suffered by
the Plaintiffs in this action.
. The defects in the APP and/or GPS interface were the direct and proximate cause of
harm to all of the Plaintiffs including the physical and emotional injuries suffered by HUAN
KUANG and ANTHONY LIU and the wrongful death of SOPHIA LIU and the injuries that
flow therefrom to all Plaintiffs. Strict liability extends not only in favor of the users and
consumers, but also in favor of bystanders such as pedestrians. (Elmore v. American Motors
Corp., (1969) 70 Cal.2d 578, 585-587; Baker v. Chrysler Corp., (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 710,, Preissman v. Ford Motor Co., (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 841, 855.)
. The APP and/or GPS interface was defective.
. As a proximate result of the product defect, Plaintiffs, and each of them, suffered
significant general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
. The conduct of the Defendants and each of them was engaged in with fraud, oppression
and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but
not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant
to California Civil Code Section 3294.
\\\
\\\

-14-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 16 oOo eo NN DN A FF WD HBO
No NY NY DH DB DD DO RD meee a
an A FF Ww NY FK DBD CO wO It HD NH BRB WH YB K& CO

Tek: (415) 421-2800
Pax: (415) 421-2830
oO. o
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training and Supervision
By all Plaintiffs
Against UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or
RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30
. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein Paragraphs 1-78.
. UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30
owed the general public a duty of reasonable care in the hiring, training and supervision of its
DRIVERS. |
. UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 did
breach that duty of care in the hiring, retention, training and/or supervision of Defendant
MUZZARAF who was unfit to be a provider of transportation, and who was not adequately
trained or supervised in his driving and/or use of the APP and the dangers inherent therein.
UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 knew or
should have known that Defendant MUZZARAF would be using the APP in a manner which
would distract him and lead to a risk of the very type of danger and harm that occurred on
December 31, 2013.
. The breach of that duty was the proximate cause of harm to the Plaintiffs causing them
to suffer significant special and general damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
. The conduct of the Defendants and each of them was engaged in with fraud, oppression
and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but
not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant
to California Civil Code Section 3294. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth
herein, paragraphs 1-48 as if fully set forth herein. |
\\\
\\\

- 15-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 17 Cc OND DA AW BB WH NH =
NON NH HB NY NY DY PB PB NO wm me ee eo
on DN AW FF YH NH -§— SG GO we Ht DH BB WwW YB KF OCS
THE
DOLAN
LAW FIRM
The Dolan Building Market Street
San Francisco, CA
Tek: (413) 421-2800
Fax (415) 421-2830
o x
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Loss of Consortium
By Plaintiff ANG JIAN LIU
Against all Defendants
. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents
of Paragraphs 1-83.
. Plaintiff ANG J IANG LIU because of the wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of
them, suffered a loss of consortium with his wife HUAN KUANG.
. As a proximate result of the acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff ANG
JIANG LIU suffered significant special and general damages in an amount to be determined at
trial.
. The conduct of the Defendants and each of them was engaged in with fraud, oppression
and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but
not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant
to California Civil Code Section 3294.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Wrongful Death - Survival Action
By ANG LIU AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST
Against all Defendants
. Plaintiff ANG LIU, as Successor in Interest,.on behalf of the Estate of Sophia Liu,
hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-87 as if fully set forth herein.
. Prior to her death, Sofia Liu suffered losses and damages including but not limited to’
significant medical expense.
. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.30 Plaintiff ANG LIU, as
Successor in Interest on behalf of the Estate of Sophia Liu, seeks recovery of those damages
provided for pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.34 including punitive
damages allowable pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294.
\\A

- 16-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 18 oO Oo SN DN AWA FF WD NO
NW NY ND WD DD DD DR i i
na nA FF YW YS —-§ SG 0D OBA DBD WwW BR WwW HB KF OC

Ted: (415) 421-2800
Fax: (415) 421-2830
\\\
\\\
—
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows;
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Those damages provided for in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.61;
For costs of suit herein incurred;
Prejudgment interest; and
For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
SECOND THROUGH EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION.
For special and general damages as allowed by law;
. For Punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294;
.
Prejudgment interest;
. For costs of suit herein incurred; and
. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION.
For Damages provided for in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.34;
. Punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294;
.
Prejudgment interest;
. For costs of suit herein incurred; and

-17-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 19 1 5. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. || Dated: January 24, 2014 THE DOLAN LAWFIRM. By: Christopher B. Dolan Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs ANG JIAN LIU, HUAN HUA KUANG, ANTHONY LIU
and the of ESTATE OF SOPHIA LIU Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury. || Dated: January 24, 2014 By:
Christopher B. Dolan, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs ANG JIAN LIU,
HUAN HUA KUANG, ANTHONY LIU and the of ESTATE OF SOPHIA LIU .
26—
TRE
DOLAN
elo = 18-
fas Francine CA COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Page 20 © - @Qg _CH-010
|_ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
Christopher B. Dolan, Esq. (SBN 165358)
The Dolan Law Firm Market Street.

San Francisco, CA 94102 : F I
TELEPHONENO.: (415) 421-2800 Faxno: (415) 421-2830 "Chant of See Salmi
ATTORNEY FOR (Nemo): Plaintiffs ” nty of San Francisco

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Franc isco JA 2
street appress:400 McAllister Street N 72014
MAILING ADDRESS:
cryanozecove:San Francisco, 94102 CLERK OF T COURT
BRANCHNAME: UN Limited Civil Division BY: a
CASE NAME: = Ang Jiang Liu, et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser LLC, Raiser-CA LLC, Syed puty Clerk
Muzzafar, and Does 1-30

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET __ Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER:
[x] Unlimited — mort ["] Counter [| Joinder
oun moun Filed with first appearance by defendant DG
demanded manded is 4
exceeds $25, 000) gor 000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) ¢ ¢ * 1 4 z 5 3 6 9 ( 9

items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:

Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
Lx_| Auto (22) [__] Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
Uninsured motorist (46) |__| Rule 3.740 collections (09) L__] Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)
Damage/Wrongfal Death) Tet [__] Other collections (09) (__] Construction defect (10)
| _] Insurance caverage (18) [__] Mass tort (40)
[__] Asbestos (04) , - [__] Other contract (37) _[_] Securities litigation (28)
L_] Product liability (24) Real Property [__] Environmental/Toxic tort (30)
| Medica! malpractice (45) LJ Eminent domain/Inverse L Insurance coverage claims arising from the
[_] Other P/PD/WD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case
Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort [__] Wrongful eviction (33) types (41)
[__] Business tort/unfair business practice (07) [___] Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
L | ewil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer L__] Enforcement of judgment (20)
| Defamation (13) [| Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Compiaint
(_] Fraud (16) [__] Residential (32) [__] RIco (27)
[_] intellectual property (19) - L__] Drugs (38) [__] Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
[] Professional negligence (25) . Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition —
[_] Other non-Pl/PD/WD tort (35) [] Asset forfeiture (05) [___] Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Employment Lj Petition re: arbitration award (11) LC] ' Other petition (not specified above) (43)
[_] Wrongfut termination (36) (| Writ of mandate (02)
L__] Other employment (15) [_] Other judicial review (39)

. Thiscase [is [LX] 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 4d. (| 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. [-_] Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision

. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. [X_] monetary b. (__] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. [__] punitive. Number of causes of action (specify): 9. Thiscase [_] is [X] isnot aclass action suit.. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.)
le
topher B. D V7 241. ory Babialy o Usnishyaier 6
(TYPE a ue NAME). (SIGNATURE © OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR an fotn
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.
e File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by Jocal court rule.
e 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.
e Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. -
Page 1 of 2
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET sche Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740;

Judicial Council of Califomia Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10
CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007] Lo

Page 21 structs ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE cove Peer CM-010
To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must
complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile
statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check
one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1,
check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action.
To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover
sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its
counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court.
To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed
in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than. $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which
property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort
damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment.
The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service
requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject
to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740.
To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the .
case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by
completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the
complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the
plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not com
the case is complex.
Auto Tort
Auto (22)—Personal Injury/Property
Damage/Wrongful Death
Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the
case involves an uninsured
motorist claim subject to
arbitration, check this item
instead of Auto)
Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/
Property Damage/Wrongful Death)
Tort
Asbestos (04)
Asbestos Property Damage
. Asbestos Personal Injury/
Wrongful Death
Product. Liability (not asbestos or
toxic/environmental) (24)
Medical Maipractice (45)
Medical Malpractice~
Physicians & Surgeons
Other Professional Health Care
Malpractice
Other PI/PD/WD (23)
Premises Liability (e.g., slip
and fall)
Intentional Bodily injury/PD/WD
(e.g., assault, vandalism)
Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress
Negligent Infliction of
Emotional Distress
Other PI/PD/WD
Non-Pl/PD/WD (Other) Tort
Business Tort/Unfair Business
Practice (07)
Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination,
false arrest) (not civil
harassment) (08)
Defamation (e.g., slander, libel)
Intellectual Property (19)
Professionai Negligence (25)
Legal Malpractice
Other Professional Malpractice
(not medical or legal)
Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort (35)
Employment
Wrongful Termination (36)
Other Employment (15)
CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007]
CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
Contract
. Breach of Contract/Warranty (06)
Breach of Rental/Lease
Contract (not unlawful detainer
or wrongful eviction)
Contract/Warranty Breach—Seller
Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence)
Negligent Breach of Contract/
Warranty
Other Breach of Contract/Warranty |
Collections (e.g., money owed, open
book accounts) (09)
Collection Case—Seller Plaintiff
Other Promissory Note/Collections
Case / :
Insurance Coverage (not provisionally
complex) (18)
Auto Subrogation
Other Coverage
Other Contract (37)
Contractual Fraud
Other Contract Dispute
Real Property
Eminent Domain/Inverse
Condemnation (14)
Wrongful Eviction (33)
Other Real Property (6.g., quiet title) (26)
Writ of Possession of Real Property
Mortgage Foreclosure
Quiet Titie
Other Real Property (not eminent
domain, landlord/ftenant, or
foreclosure)
Unlawful Detainer
Commercial (31)
Residential (32)
Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal
drugs, check this item; otherwise,
report as Commercial or Residential)
Judicial Review
Asset Forfeiture (05)
Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11)
Writ of Mandate (02)
Writ-Administrative Mandamus
Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court
Case Matter
Writ-Other Limited Court Case
Review
Other Judicial Review (39)
Review of Health Officer Order
Notice of Appeal—Labor
Commissioner Appeals
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
plex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that
Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal.
Rules of Court Rules 3.400--3.403)
Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03)
Construction Defect (10)
Claims Involving Mass Tort (40)
Securities Litigation (28)
Environmental/Toxic Tort (30)
Insurance Coverage Claims
(arising from provisionally complex
case type listed above) (41)
Enforcement of Judgment
Enforcement of Judgment (20)
Abstract of Judgment (Out of
County)
Confession of Judgment (non-
domestic relations)
Sister State Judgment
Administrative Agency Award
(not unpaid taxes)
Petition/Certification of Entry of
Judgment on Unpaid Taxes
Other Enforcement of Judgment
Case
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
RICO (27)
Other Complaint (not specified
above) (42)
Declaratory Relief Only
Injunctive Relief Only (non-
harassment)
Mechanics Lien
Other Commercial Complaint
Case (non-tort/non-complex)
Other Civil Complaint
(non-tort/non-complex)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition
Partnership and Corporate
Governance (21)
Other Petition (not specified
above) (43)
Civil Harassment
Workplace Violence
Elder/Dependent Adult
Abuse
Election Contest |
Petition for Name Change
Petition for Relief from Late
Claim
Other Civil Petition
Page 2 of 2

PDF Page 1	PlainSite Cover Page

PDF Page 2	EA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jan-27-2014 10:42 am Case Number: CGC-14-536979 Filing Date: Jan-27-2014 10:30 am Filed by: ELIAS BUTT Juke Box: 001 Image: 04354971 COMPLAINT ANG JIANG LIU et al VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al 001004354971 instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.

PDF Page 3	oo wn nn vn F&F WO NY Ny NO NO NY NO WN NH KH HO §— FR = §—& FF FF HF Fe =\| ont DH WN BF WwW NY KF oF oO mw Dn BF Ww NY KH CS © oni soni Christopher B. Dolan (SBN 165358) Su Ld che Emile A. Davis (SBN 208394) . THE DOLAN LAW FIRM JAN 272014 1438 Market Street San Francisco, California 94102 we OFT COURT Telephone: (415) 421-2800 cay Cect Facsimile: (415) 421-2830 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANG JIANG LIU, HUAN HUA KUANG, ANTHONY LIU IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ANG JIANG LIU, AS ANINDIVIDUAL \| CaseNo. CGC-14-536979 AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR ANTHONY LIU, AND SUCCESSOR IN \| \| INTEREST ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE \| COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OF SOFIA LIU, HUAN HUA KUANG, DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY ANTHONY LIU 1. WRONGFUL DEATH 2. NEGLIGENCE — MOTOR VEHICLE Plaintiffs, 3. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF So , EMOTIONAL DISTRESS v. 4. NEGLIGENCE 5. NEGLIGENCE PER SE UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER 6. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LLC, RASIER-CA LLC, SYED - 7. NEGLIGENT HIRING RETENTION MUZZAFAR, and DOES 1-30, AND SUPERVISION . 8. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Defendants. 9. WRONGFUL DEATH SURVIVAL ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL -l- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 4	Co Oo NAW BR wD \|= Ro A F&F WHO NYO =H ODO 0 OW TD NDB A fF WY NY F- SO © PARTIES 1. Plaintiff ANG JIANG LIU is an adult male. He is the husband of Plaintiff HUAN KUANG and father of Plaintiff ANTHONY LIU and decedent SOFIA LIU. \| 2. Plaintiff HUAN KUANG is an adult female. She is the wife of Plaintiff ANG JIANG LIU, and Mother of Plaintiff ANTHONY LIU and decedent SOFIA LIU. \| 3. Plaintiff ANTHONY LIU is a minor. He is the brother of the decedent SOFIA LIU. 4. Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC (hereinafter “UBER”) is a Delaware Corporation and or Does 1-10 are corporations and/or business entities of a form unknown, which run a Transportation Network Company (TNC) known as UBER which provide a number of transportation options and vehicles for users of their service, including a low cost option called Uber X, through an online-enabled application (hereinafter ““APP”). UBER has its principal place of business in and conducts business in San Francisco, California. 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and on the basis of said information and belief allege that RASIER LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of UBER and the parent. company of RASIER-CA LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company. RASIER LLC & RASIER-CA LLC have their principal place of business in and conducts business in San Francisco, California. 6. UBER and DOES 1-10, use RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 21-30 to operate a TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY (TNC) known as Uber X, a division of UBER and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30’s commercial enterprise. 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of information and belief allege that RASIER-CA LLC has been assigned Carrier ID PSG0032512 by the PUC and that UBER, RASIER LLC and/or RASIER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 use Carrier ID PSG0032512 to operate its TNC, Uber X in California. 8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of information and belief allege that RASIER-CA LLC is the insurance certificate holder for the insurance that UBER is required to carry as a TNC by the PUC, which it uses for its Uber X operations. -2- . COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 5	o fo SN DBD WN FF WwW YP — N N NO No No N No —= _ _ _ — —_ _ —_ _ —_ aN ws - Ww NO —_ Oo ‘© Co ~] N ws & Oe N —_ So o © 9. Defendant SYED MUZZAFAR is an adult male. On December 31, 2013, he was the driver of the vehicle which killed SOPHIA LIU, and injured HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY LIU. 10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and the basis of said information and belief, allege, that on December 31, 2013, at the time of this collision, Defendant MUZZAFAR was a driver/transportation provider who was operating his vehicle utilizing the UBER APP and as such was an agent and/or employee and/or partner of UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and/or Does 21-30. \| 11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and the basis of said information and belief, allege, at all times material to this complaint, UBER and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and/or Does 21-30 were the employer of Defendant MUZZAFAR, and/or his partner and/or an agency relationship existed between them. 12. Does 11-20 are believed to be the owners of the vehicle driven by MUZZAFAR at the time of the collision. \| \| 13. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the names of the Defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of said fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ injuries herein alleged were caused by the aforementioned Defendants. 14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of said information and belief allege, that at all times herein material to this matters alleged in this Complaint, each of the Defendants was the agent and/or employee and/or partner of each of the remaining Defendants and, in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the course and scope of such agency and/or employment, and/or aided and/or abetted the others and/or ratified the acts of the others so as to make them liable for the Plaintiffs’ damages. 15. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of said information and belief allege, that there is a unity of interest and operation between UBER, RAISER LLC, RAISER- -3- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 6	oe Oo nN DBD OW FP WY NO BO NO NR NN KO KN KROQ ROR Se Se me Nn A F&F WYO NY KF& DOD OD DQ DH WA BP WOW NY KF CO 27 Tek: (415) 421-2800 Fao (415) 421-2830 © ©o CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 such that their separate and independent classification is but a fiction and that each is the alter-ego of the other. 16. Defendants are liable for the acts of each other through principals of respondeat superior, agency, ostensible agency, partnership, alter-ego and other forms of vicarious liability. VENUE AND JURISDICTION 17. Venue in this court is appropriate as the injuries to the Plaintiffs occurred in San Francisco County. 18. Jurisdiction is proper in this case in that the amount in controversy is in excess of the statutory requirements of this court. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 19. On December 31, 2013, at just before 8:00pm, HUAN KUANG was walking home in San Francisco with her two children, ANTHONY LIU, who was 5 years old, and SOFIA LIU, who was 6 years old. \| _ 20. They approached the intersection of Polk Street and Ellis Street. When the light was green for them to walk, they began to cross Polk Street within the crosswalk. 21. As they were in the cross-walk, with the signal green for them to walk, a vehicle driven by Defendant SYED MUZZAFAR turned right from Ellis Street and collided with HUAN KUANG, ANTHONY LIU and SOFIA LIU. 22. The collision caused the wrongful death of SOFIA LIU, and caused serious and significant physical and mental injuries to the other Plaintiffs in this action. 23. UBER, RAISER LLC, RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 and their Uber X service have been classified by the California Public Utilities Commission (hereinafter “PUC”) asa TNC. -4- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 7	—_ NO NY NY NY NO NY NO \| KF \| =\| Fe Fe Fe ee Se DH vn & WwW HNO —-§ CF ODO FH TD HD vA FP WD NY —& CO 27 Ted: (415) 421-2800 Pax: (415) 424-2830 © o 24. UBER, RAISER LLC, RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30, through its services, including Uber X, provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using its APP or platform to connect persons wanting to procure transportation (hereinafter “USERS”), with those who, utilizing their own personal vehicles, want to provide transportation ion exchange for compensation (hereinafter “DRIVERS”. 25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of said information and belief allege, that MUZZAFAR was logged on to the UBER APP at the time that the collision occurred and was appearing as a UBER and/or Uber X DRIVER available for providing transportation services to USERS and/or was viewing, monitoring and/or interacting with his wireless communications device/smartphone/GPS at or near the time of the collision. 26. Before USERS can utilize the APP, USERS must become “partners” of UBER, UBER, RAISER LLC, RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30by logging into UBER’s APP or web based portal and provide information about themselves to UBER including their name, e- mail, credit card number, mobile telephone number, etc. Only registered USERS can use UBER’s APP to prearrange transportation service. 27. Before DRIVERS can participate in UBER’S, RASIER LLC’S, RAISER-CA LLC’S and Does 1-10 and 21-30’s prearranged transportation service, including but not limited to Uber X, they must apply to be a DRIVER by logging into UBER’s APP or web based portal and providing information including but not limited to their name, phone number, address, e-mail, banking information, vehicle registration, insurance, vehicle description, and have their vehicle inspected. UBER, RASIER LLC and RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 are required to conduct a background investigation of their DRIVERS including but not limited to their driving and criminal history (and thereafter conduct periodic reviews of their driving history). UBER, RASIER LLC and RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 then evaluate the driver and only permit those drivers it finds suitable to become registered DRIVERS on its APP. UBER, RASIER LLC and RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 reserve the right to remove or delete DRIVERS from their system at their discretion. Therefore UBER, RASIER -5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 8	o fo HN DB vA BP WW LP = wo BO NYO PO NW NH WH NH NY Bo = ew met o —l A wn & (ox i) -_- © 0 oo ~] an Nm - WwW NN — So THE DOLAN LAW FIRM The Dolan Building 1438 Market Street ‘San Francisco, CA. 94102 Ted: (415) 421-2800 Fax: (415) 421-2830 © ° LLC and RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 are entirely in control of who can use their system as either a DRIVER or USER. 28. Only after USERS and DRIVERS have provided the information required by UBER, RASIER LLC and RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30 can they participate in the pre- arranged transportation service. 29. USERS seeking transportation services provided by UBER, RASIER LLC and RAISER-CA LLC and Does 1-10 and 21-30, such as Uber x and its DRIVERS, log on to the \| APP which is under the URL, www.uber.com, and arrive at a main screen that says UBER. From that main screen they can navigate among different types of transportation services (generally distinguished by type of vehicle) including Uber X which is touted as “the low cost UBER.” 30. USERS who chose Uber X are shown a GPS looking screen which displays vehicles available to provide transportation services in their area. After requesting a DRIVER, the APP alerts nearby DRIVERS who must timely indicate their acceptance of the USER’S transportation request by manually interfacing with the APP. Once the DRIVER accepts the USER’s request that drivers name, photo, vehicle description, user rating, and time from pickup are displayed to the USER. 31. DRIVERS, in order to be available to provide USERS transportation services in exchange for compensation, must log on to the UBER and/or Uber X APP and indicate their availability. Their location and information is then visible to USERS and DRIVERS can access a screen on their electronic communication device/smart phone/GPS called a “God View” which shows them a map of where others using the system are located. 32. The PUC has found that, “clearly, each TNC is receiving either an economic benefit or a business benefit. At a minimum, they are receiving increased patronage with the growth of their businesses.” \| 33. UBER and Uber X’s brand and value to USERS, and potential USERS, is enhanced by having a significant number of DRIVERS registered, visible to the USERS on the UBER APP, and available in close proximity to USERS so as to provide transportation services. Indeed -6- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 9	— NH NO NH NY NYO NH NH HN NO \| \| FF = =\| Se Re ee ee oo ND A fF WD NY K§ DB Oo OW DT DH nN BP W NH K& OC THE DOLAN LAW FIRM The Dolan Building 1438 Market Steoet ‘San Francisco, CA 94102 Ted: (415) 42¢-2800 Fax. (415) 421-2830 oO won nn & WwW WN © \| ° UBER states on its website “When you request a driver we’ll find a driver and let track their location on the map. Your driver’s name and car details appear in the app and you can message or call if you need to”. “UBER’S, and/or RASIER LLC’s and/or RAISER-CA LLC’s and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30’s competitive advantage in the transportation industry is fostered by having an APP that shows both DRIVERS and USERS where the other is, providing information and reviews about the DRIVER and USER, permitting communication by text and _ phone between DRIVER and USER and by demonstrating the large number of available DRIVERS which are logged on to the UBER APP. 34. UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 derive an economic benefit from not only having USERS transported by DRIVERS collecting a portion of the charge for transportation, it derives an economic benefit, and competitive advantage, by displaying the location of available vehicles near the USER’s location. USERS seeing the ready supply of UBER and/or Uber X vehicles have greater consumer confidence that they will be able to obtain one-to-one prearranged transportation services rapidly and are therefore more likely to be repeat customers. In this way UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and. 21-30 enhance their business by attracting a larger number of USERS to their services and, therefore, increase their market share of the transportation industry and commerce in the business sector in which they are providing service. Therefore, regardless of whether a DRIVER actually has a USER in their car, is on the way to a USER who has engaged the DRIVER through the APP, or simply is logged on to the APP as an available DRIVER, UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 derives an economic benefit from having DRIVERS registered on the service. 35. The nature of the APP and its interface is both visual and tactile. Therefore, DRIVERS must monitor their wireless communications device/smartphone/GPS so as to be aware of the location of other UBER and/or Uber X vehicles so they can position themselves near areas of high USER demand. The APP. provides for texting and phone calling and instant messaging between the DRIVER and the USER. -7- . COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 10	oO Oo JN DBD DW FF WY LPO — No NY DS NH NH NY NY DR Rm mee ao NN AW FP WD HSH S& OD 60 OH HD DO mH BB Ww NHN FH OC THE DOLAN LAW FIRM The Dotan Building 1438. Market Stren. ‘San Francisco, CA Ted: (415) 421-2800 Fax: (415) 421-2830 © \| © 36. UBER and/or Uber X DRIVERS must respond quickly to a USER request for service by physically interfacing with the APP thereby leading to distraction while a DRIVER monitors and/or uses the APP on their wireless communications device/smartphone/GPS. Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 knew, or should have known use of the APP by DRIVERS, including but not limited to MUZZARAE, in the manner intended and actually required by UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30, would be in violation of California Vehicle Code 23123 which, in subsection (a) states “A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.” 37. Defendant UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 knew, or should have known that use of the APP by DRIVERS, including but not limited to MUZZARAF, in the manner intended and actually required by UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30, would be in violation of California Vehicle Code Section 23123.5 which, states “(a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while {\| using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voice operated and hands-free operation to dictate, send, or listen to a text-based communication, and it is used in that manner while driving. (b) As used in this section “write, send, or read a text-based communication” means using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with any person using a text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail.” . 38. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 26708 any portable Global Positioning System (GPS), may only be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the \|\| windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside-of an airbag deployment zone,” if the system is a COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 11	Oo Oo SI DH WA BB WH NO - NO nN No bo bo bho NO No — — — — ~— — — — —_ — SN va) & YW bw KF CO oOo sa HN we - ww N _ So 28 Ted: (415) 421-2800 Fax (415) 421-2830 e eo used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated.” The UBER APP is, by its nature, a GPS. 39. Use by UBER and Uber X DRIVERS of a GPS while engaged in the business activity of being a UBER or Uber X DRIVER is not door-to-door navigation and, therefore, violates California Vehicle Code Section 26708. 40. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of said information and belief allege that the status of MUZZARAF as an UBER and/or Uber x DRIVER, including but not limited to the use and/or monitoring of the APP and its interface, was a proximate cause of this collision including but not limited to its causing MUZZARAF to be distracted while driving. 41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on the basis of said information and belief. - alleges that the design of the UBER APP and DRIVER interface, requires drivers to use the APP in such a manner as to violate the law, including but not limited to CA. Vehicle Code ~ Sections 23123, 23123.5 and/or 26708, the legislative history of which is discussed, in part, in People v. Spriggs, (2013) 215 CalApp.4™ Supp.1, thereby causing distraction to DRIVERS, including MOZZARAF and, further, that MUZZARAF’s distraction was a substantial factor in causing the subject accident and resultant harm. . FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Wrongful Death By Plaintiffs ANG JIAN LIU and HUAN KUANG Against All Defendants 42. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents of Paragraphs \| through 41. . 43. Defendants and each of them owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable/due care as well as statutory duties established in California Vehicle Codes, 21950, 23123, 23 123.5 and/or 26708. 44. Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 were negligent in their development, implementation, and use of the APP in the provision of prearranged transportation services in such a manner so as to lead to DRIVERS, including MUZZARAF, to be distracted and/or inattentive, while driving. -9. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 12	oO fo NN WN ON FF WW NYO N N tN N NHN -b i) No ho — —_ —_ —_ — — ~— — — — oo —~] an a & we i) — So \o oo ~] an Wr > eo No — oS © - ° 45. Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 are, as more fully set forth below, liable in strict product liability, for the defective APP and/or user interface. 46. Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30, and each of them, through their wrongful acts, as set forth above, breached their duties of care and said breach was the proximate cause of the death of SOFIA LIU. 47. As a proximate result the negligence of Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30, and each of them, Plaintiffs ANG LIU and HUAN KUANG have suffered great loss and harm, including but not limited to funeral and burial expenses, loss of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society and moral support in an amount to be established at the time of trial. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence —Motor Vehicle "By Plaintiffs HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY LIU Against All Defendants 48. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents of Paragraphs 1 through 47. 49. Defendants and each of them owed Plaintiffs a duty of reasonable/due care as well as statutory duties established in California Vehicle Codes, 21950, 23123, 23123.5 and/or 26708. 50. Defendant MUZZARAF, on December 31, 2013, while operating his vehicle in the scope and course of his employment/agency/partnership with UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30, was negligent and did breach one or more of those duties and said breach was the proximate cause of personal injuries to Plaintiffs HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY LIU. 51. Defendants 11-20 were negligent in their entrustment of the vehicle being driven by MUZZARAF on December 31, 2013. 52. As a proximate result the negligence of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have suffered significant general and special damages in amounts to be determined at trial. -10- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 13	Oo fo NI DH WA FBP WY NHN = N N No N bo N No _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ —_ nH vA F&F B&B NO &S&§ DBD ODO BAN DH WH FP WO NY KF OS oO © 53. The conduct of the Defendants and each of them was engaged in with fraud, oppression and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress By Plaintiffs HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY LIU Against All Defendants 54. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents of Paragraphs 1-54. 55. Plaintiffs HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY LIU, mother and brother to decedent SOFIA LIU, were with SOPHIA and, therefore, in the legally recognized “zone of danger” created by the Defendants, and each of them, when they wrongfully caused the death of decedent SOFIA LIU and the physical injuries to HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY LIU. 56. Plaintiffs HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY LIU were aware of, and did witness the injuries sustained by each other and SOFIA LIU so as to suffer the negligent infliction of emotional distress as recognized in the case of Dillon v Legg, (1968) 68 Cal.2™ 728. 57. As a proximate result the negligence of Defendants and each of them, Plaintiffs HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY LIU have suffered significant general and special damages in amounts to be determined at trial. \| 58. The conduct of the Defendants and each of them was engaged in with fraud, oppression and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294. V\A \\\ -ll- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 14	oO me SN HD A FB WD HO NH NO BD NHN NH ND ND NY RO meme ees oo nN DN NW FF WH NY KF SG OC HH H Uw RF WH HB KF OC THE DOLAN LAW FIRM The Dolan Building, 1438 Market Street San Francisco, CA Tet: (415) 421-2800 Fax: (415) 421-2830 © oO FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence By all Plaintiffs Against Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 59. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents of Paragraphs 1-58. - 60. Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 and DOES 1-10 were negligent in their development, implementation, and use of the APP in the provision of prearranged transportation services in such a manner so as to lead to DRIVERS, including MUZZARAF, to be distracted and/or inattentive, while driving. 61. Defendants UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 required its DRIVERS to use a smartphone APP and/or GPS that causes, and did cause, driver distraction and inattention to the roadway, such that it was the proximate cause of the subject accident and resulting personal injuries to Plaintiffs HUAN KUANG and \| ANTHONY LIU. - 62. As a proximate result the negligence of Defendant UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30, and each of them, Plaintiffs have suffered significant special and general damages in amounts to be determined at trial. 63. As a proximate result the negligence of Defendants and each of them, Plaintiffs ANG JIANG LIU and HUAN KUANG suffered wrongful death damages. 64. The conduct of the Defendants and each of them was engaged in with fraud, oppression and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but . not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294: \| \| \\\ \\\ -12- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 15	mo Oo SN DW A BR WH PO — ~ an Nn & oOo do -&§ © © o ~~ aH wr a= no nN — So 28 THE Tet: (415) 421-2800 Fax (415) 421-2830 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence Per Se By Plaintiffs Against ALL DEFENDANTS 65. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents of Paragraphs 1-64. 66. California Vehicle Codes, 21950, 23123, 23123.5 and/or 26708 were laws implemented by the State of California to protect individuals from injury or death due to inattentive or distracted drivers. Plaintiffs and each of them were of the class of persons intended to be protected by these laws. 67. Defendants and each of them therefore owed Plaintiffs a duty to conduct their affairs in accordance with California Vehicle Codes, 21950, 23123, 23123.5 and/or 26708. 68. Defendants and each of them breached one or more of the duties established by California Vehicle Codes, 21950, 23123, 23123.5 and/or 26708. Such conduct constitutes negligence per se. 69. Asa direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs, and each of them, suffered significant general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 70. The conduct of the Defendants and each of them was engaged in with fraud, oppression and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Strict Products Liability- Bystander Theory By All Plaintiffs Against UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 71. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents of Paragraphs 1-70. . 72. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based upon said information and belief allege, that Defendant UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and -13- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY.

PDF Page 16	Oo Oo N DA WwW Fk WD NO NY NY NY NY NY NY NN YN Be Re ee ee eS Oe OL ~~ nN GN & w bo —_= am) \o of ~ aN A a we N — So 28 Tek (415) 421-2800 Fax: (415) 421-2830 o ° 21-30 designed and/or distributed the APP and/or GPS interface/system that UBER DRIVERS, including MUZZARAF, were required to use and furthermore trained or failed to adequately train them on how to use the APP and interface. 73. In doing so UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 did place the APP and GPS system into use and on the market. 74. UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 had, or should have had, knowledge that the APP and/or GPS interface would be used without inspection for defects and would be used in such a way as to violate one or more provisions of the California Vehicle Code and/or to create a significant risk of the type of harm suffered by the Plaintiffs in this action. 75. The defects in the APP and/or GPS interface were the direct and proximate cause of harm to all of the Plaintiffs including the physical and emotional injuries suffered by HUAN KUANG and ANTHONY LIU and the wrongful death of SOPHIA LIU and the injuries that flow therefrom to all Plaintiffs. Strict liability extends not only in favor of the users and consumers, but also in favor of bystanders such as pedestrians. (Elmore v. American Motors Corp., (1969) 70 Cal.2d 578, 585-587; Baker v. Chrysler Corp., (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 710, 715, Preissman v. Ford Motor Co., (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 841, 855.) 76. The APP and/or GPS interface was defective. 77. As a proximate result of the product defect, Plaintiffs, and each of them, suffered significant general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 78. The conduct of the Defendants and each of them was engaged in with fraud, oppression and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294. \\\ \\\ -14- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 17	oOo eo NN DN A FF WD HBO No NY NY DH DB DD DO RD meee a an A FF Ww NY FK DBD CO wO It HD NH BRB WH YB K& CO 28 Tek: (415) 421-2800 Pax: (415) 421-2830 oO. o SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training and Supervision By all Plaintiffs Against UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 79. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein Paragraphs 1-78. 80. UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 owed the general public a duty of reasonable care in the hiring, training and supervision of its DRIVERS. \| 81. UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 did breach that duty of care in the hiring, retention, training and/or supervision of Defendant MUZZARAF who was unfit to be a provider of transportation, and who was not adequately trained or supervised in his driving and/or use of the APP and the dangers inherent therein. UBER, and/or RASIER LLC and/or RAISER-CA LLC and/or Does 1-10 and 21-30 knew or should have known that Defendant MUZZARAF would be using the APP in a manner which would distract him and lead to a risk of the very type of danger and harm that occurred on December 31, 2013. 82. The breach of that duty was the proximate cause of harm to the Plaintiffs causing them to suffer significant special and general damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 83. The conduct of the Defendants and each of them was engaged in with fraud, oppression and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, paragraphs 1-48 as if fully set forth herein. \| \\\ \\\ - 15- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 18	Cc OND DA AW BB WH NH = NON NH HB NY NY DY PB PB NO wm me ee eo on DN AW FF YH NH -§— SG GO we Ht DH BB WwW YB KF OCS THE DOLAN LAW FIRM The Dolan Building 1438 Market Street San Francisco, CA 34402 Tek: (413) 421-2800 Fax (415) 421-2830 o x EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Loss of Consortium By Plaintiff ANG JIAN LIU Against all Defendants 84. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the contents of Paragraphs 1-83. 85. Plaintiff ANG J IANG LIU because of the wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them, suffered a loss of consortium with his wife HUAN KUANG. 86. As a proximate result of the acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff ANG JIANG LIU suffered significant special and general damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 87. The conduct of the Defendants and each of them was engaged in with fraud, oppression and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, including but not limited to the Plaintiffs herein so as to warrant the imposition of punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Wrongful Death - Survival Action By ANG LIU AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST Against all Defendants 88. Plaintiff ANG LIU, as Successor in Interest,.on behalf of the Estate of Sophia Liu, hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-87 as if fully set forth herein. 89. Prior to her death, Sofia Liu suffered losses and damages including but not limited to’ significant medical expense. 90. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.30 Plaintiff ANG LIU, as Successor in Interest on behalf of the Estate of Sophia Liu, seeks recovery of those damages provided for pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.34 including punitive damages allowable pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294. \\A - 16- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 19	oO Oo SN DN AWA FF WD NO NW NY ND WD DD DD DR i i na nA FF YW YS —-§ SG 0D OBA DBD WwW BR WwW HB KF OC 27 94102 Ted: (415) 421-2800 Fax: (415) 421-2830 \\\ \\\ — PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows; FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Those damages provided for in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.61; For costs of suit herein incurred; Prejudgment interest; and For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. SECOND THROUGH EIGHTH CAUSES OF ACTION 1. For special and general damages as allowed by law; . For Punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294; 2 3. 4 5 Prejudgment interest; . For costs of suit herein incurred; and . For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 1. For Damages provided for in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.34; . Punitive damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3294; 2 3. 4 Prejudgment interest; . For costs of suit herein incurred; and -17- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 20	1 5. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. 2 \|\| Dated: January 24, 2014 THE DOLAN LAWFIRM. 3 4 By: 5 Christopher B. Dolan Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs ANG JIAN LIU, 6 HUAN HUA KUANG, ANTHONY LIU and the of ESTATE OF SOPHIA LIU 7 8 Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury. 9 \|\| Dated: January 24, 2014 10 11 By: Christopher B. Dolan, Esq. 12 Attorney for Plaintiffs ANG JIAN LIU, HUAN HUA KUANG, ANTHONY LIU 13 and the of ESTATE OF SOPHIA LIU 14 . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26— 27 28 TRE DOLAN elo = 18- fas Francine CA COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PDF Page 21	© - @Qg _CH-010 \|_ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Christopher B. Dolan, Esq. (SBN 165358) The Dolan Law Firm 1438 Market Street. San Francisco, CA 94102 : F I TELEPHONENO.: (415) 421-2800 Faxno: (415) 421-2830 "Chant of See Salmi ATTORNEY FOR (Nemo): Plaintiffs ” nty of San Francisco SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Franc isco JA 2 street appress:400 McAllister Street N 72014 MAILING ADDRESS: cryanozecove:San Francisco, 94102 CLERK OF T COURT BRANCHNAME: UN Limited Civil Division BY: a CASE NAME: = Ang Jiang Liu, et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Raiser LLC, Raiser-CA LLC, Syed puty Clerk Muzzafar, and Does 1-30 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET __ Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER: [x] Unlimited — mort ["] Counter [\| Joinder oun moun Filed with first appearance by defendant DG demanded manded is 4 exceeds $25, 000) gor 000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) ¢ ¢ * 1 4 z 5 3 6 9 ( 9 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: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Lx_\| Auto (22) [__] Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) \|__\| Rule 3.740 collections (09) L__] Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) Damage/Wrongfal Death) Tet [__] Other collections (09) (__] Construction defect (10) \| _] Insurance caverage (18) [__] Mass tort (40) [__] Asbestos (04) , - [__] Other contract (37) _[_] Securities litigation (28) L_] Product liability (24) Real Property [__] Environmental/Toxic tort (30) \| Medica! malpractice (45) LJ Eminent domain/Inverse L Insurance coverage claims arising from the [_] Other P/PD/WD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort [__] Wrongful eviction (33) types (41) [__] Business tort/unfair business practice (07) [___] Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment L \| ewil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer L__] Enforcement of judgment (20) \| Defamation (13) [\| Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Compiaint (_] Fraud (16) [__] Residential (32) [__] RIco (27) [_] intellectual property (19) - L__] Drugs (38) [__] Other complaint (not specified above) (42) [] Professional negligence (25) . Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition — [_] Other non-Pl/PD/WD tort (35) [] Asset forfeiture (05) [___] Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment Lj Petition re: arbitration award (11) LC] ' Other petition (not specified above) (43) [_] Wrongfut termination (36) (\| Writ of mandate (02) L__] Other employment (15) [_] Other judicial review (39) 2. Thiscase [is [LX] 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 4d. (\| 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. [-_] Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. [X_] monetary b. (__] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. [__] punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify): 9 5. Thiscase [_] is [X] isnot 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.) le topher B. D V7 241. ory Babialy o Usnishyaier 6 (TYPE a ue NAME). (SIGNATURE © OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR an fotn 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. e File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by Jocal court rule. e 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. e Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. - Page 1 of 2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET sche Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740; Judicial Council of Califomia Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10 CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007] Lo

PDF Page 22	structs ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE cove Peer CM-010 To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than. $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the . case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not com the case is complex. Auto Tort Auto (22)—Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check this item instead of Auto) Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/ Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage . Asbestos Personal Injury/ Wrongful Death Product. Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Maipractice (45) Medical Malpractice~ Physicians & Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other PI/PD/WD (23) Premises Liability (e.g., slip and fall) Intentional Bodily injury/PD/WD (e.g., assault, vandalism) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Other PI/PD/WD Non-Pl/PD/WD (Other) Tort Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination, false arrest) (not civil harassment) (08) Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) Intellectual Property (19) Professionai Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Termination (36) Other Employment (15) CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007] CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract . Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) Contract/Warranty Breach—Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Warranty Other Breach of Contract/Warranty \| Collections (e.g., money owed, open book accounts) (09) Collection Case—Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory Note/Collections Case / : Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (18) Auto Subrogation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domain/Inverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property (6.g., quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Titie Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/ftenant, or foreclosure) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs, check this item; otherwise, report as Commercial or Residential) Judicial Review Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Writ of Mandate (02) Writ-Administrative Mandamus Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter Writ-Other Limited Court Case Review Other Judicial Review (39) Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal—Labor Commissioner Appeals CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET plex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400--3.403) Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (non- domestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certification of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment Case Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other Complaint (not specified above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only Injunctive Relief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex) Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not specified above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest \| Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief from Late Claim Other Civil Petition Page 2 of 2

Ang Jiang Liu et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al Document 1: Complaint