COTTER v. LYFT, INC., 13-cv-04065-VC. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160607932
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jun. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2016
Summary: ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . The parties and the proposed intervenors, Alex Zamora and Rayshon Clark, are directed to file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 10 pages, addressing the following questions: • Assuming that Lyft is correct that it stopped calling its Prime Time premiums "Prime Time Tips" and began instead calling them "Prime Time" in August 2014, not August 2015, such that there was no "Phase Two" as described in the complaint in Zamora
Summary: ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . The parties and the proposed intervenors, Alex Zamora and Rayshon Clark, are directed to file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 10 pages, addressing the following questions: • Assuming that Lyft is correct that it stopped calling its Prime Time premiums "Prime Time Tips" and began instead calling them "Prime Time" in August 2014, not August 2015, such that there was no "Phase Two" as described in the complaint in Zamora v..
More
ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
The parties and the proposed intervenors, Alex Zamora and Rayshon Clark, are directed to file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 10 pages, addressing the following questions:
• Assuming that Lyft is correct that it stopped calling its Prime Time premiums "Prime Time Tips" and began instead calling them "Prime Time" in August 2014, not August 2015, such that there was no "Phase Two" as described in the complaint in Zamora v. Lyft, Inc., No. 16-cv-02558-VC, analyze the strength of the Zamora plaintiffs' claim for restitution of gratuities under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 and Cal. Labor Code § 351.
• Again assuming that there was no "Phase Two," but assuming the Zamora plaintiffs were nonetheless to prevail on their claim for restitution of gratuities under the UCL and section 351, how should the value of this claim be measured? What is its maximum potential value?
• Is Lyft correct as a factual matter that there was, essentially, no "Phase Two"?
• What effect would the proposed release have on the common law claims in the Zamora case?
The supplemental letter briefs are due no later than Monday, June 13, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
