notice of filing of notice of removal to federal courtCal. Super. - 1st Dist.June 22, 2021 NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JESSE STOUT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GRUBHUB INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant. Case No. CGC-21-591204 NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Assigned to: Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo Complaint Filed: May 3, 2021 Amy P. Lally (SBN 198555) alally@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 595-9500 Facsimile: (310) 595-9501 Stacy Horth-Neubert (SBN 214565) shorthneubert@sidley.com Farrah Vazquez (SBN 327371) farrah.vazquez@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 Attorneys for Defendant Grubhub Inc. 269763199 ELECTRONICALLY F I L E D Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 06/22/2021 Clerk of the Court BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE Deputy Clerk 2 NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND TO PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD HEREIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a Notice of Removal of Action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446 was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 22, 2021, under Federal Case No. 3:21-cv-04745, effectuating the removal of the above- captioned action to federal court. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the case before this Court therefore is stayed as to all parties and may not proceed further unless and until this action is remanded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d); see also California Rules of Court, Rule 3.650. A copy of the Notice of Removal, including all exhibits and associated filings, is attached hereto and is served and filed herewith. DATED: June 22, 2021 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP By: /s/ Amy P. Lally Amy P. Lally Stacy Horth-Neubert Farrah Vazquez Attorneys for Defendant Grubhub, Inc. DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1441 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Amy P. Lally (SBN 198555) alally@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: +1 310 595 9662 Facsimile: +1 310 595 9501 Stacy Horth-Neubert (SBN 214565) shorthneubert@sidley.com Farrah Vazquez (SBN 327371) farrah.vazquez@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: +1 213 896 6036 Facsimile: +1 213 896 6600 Attorneys for Defendant Grubhub Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JESSE STOUT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GRUBHUB INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 3:21-cv-04745 DEFENDANT GRUBHUB INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 State Action Filed: May 3, 2021 State Action Served: May 24, 2021 Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 7 1 1 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1441 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1441, 1446, and 1453, Defendant GRUBHUB INC. (“Grubhub” or “Defendant”) hereby removes to this Court the above- styled action, pending as Case No. CGC-21-591204 in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco (the “Action”). As grounds for removal, Grubhub states as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. On May 3, 2021, Plaintiff Jesse Stout filed the Action in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco. The Complaint claims that “Grubhub fails to honor its promise of unlimited free delivery” for Grubhub+ subscribers “by charging CA Driver Benefits Fees.” Complaint ¶¶ 31 - 35. Plaintiff asserts claims for: (1) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”); (2) violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”); (3) violation of California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”); and (4) unjust enrichment. Id. at ¶¶ 55 -92. Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts claims on behalf of himself and “[a]ll consumers in California who, within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action to the date of class certification, signed up for Grubhub+ and paid a CA Driver Benefits Fee.” Id. at ¶ 46. 2. This Action is a civil class action over which this Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A) (“Class Action Fairness Act” or “CAFA”), and is one that may be removed to this Court pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446 and 1453. This Action (i) seeks relief on behalf of a purported class of persons; (ii) in which at least one member is a citizen of a state different from that of Defendant; (iii) the number of affected people is not less than 100; and (iv) the amount allegedly in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (d)(5)(B). Grubhub generally denies the allegations made by Plaintiff, disputes the claims asserted by Plaintiff, and disputes that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief on an individual or class-wide bases. Grubhub discusses the allegations and claims made by Plaintiff herein solely to demonstrate the propriety of removal. Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 7 2 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1441 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CAFA ELEMENTS 3. CAFA provides for original federal jurisdiction “of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is a class action in which any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant.” 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2)(A). 4. Covered Class Action. A case satisfies CAFA’s class action requirement if it is “filed under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or similar State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action to be brought by 1 or more representative persons as a class action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B). The present action satisfies this definition, as Plaintiff’s suit is brought “on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,” including those who “signed up for Grubhub+ and paid a CA Driver Benefits Fee.” Compl. ¶ 46. The Complaint itself is also styled as a “Class Action Complaint,” and contains an entire section devoted to “Class Allegations.” Id. at ¶¶ 46 - 54. 5. Diversity. The diversity requirement of § 1332(d) is satisfied when “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant.” a. The citizenship of a corporation for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction is based on the place of incorporation and the principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); see also Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 557 F.3d 1026, 1028 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, this requirement is met as there is complete diversity of citizenship between named Plaintiff and Grubhub. Grubhub is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Compl. ¶ 11. Accordingly, Grubhub is a citizen of Delaware and Illinois. b. Plaintiff “is a citizen of the State of California who resides in the County of San Francisco, State of California.” Id. at ¶ 10. Thus, at least one member of the class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state (California) different from that of Defendant (Delaware and Illinois). 6. The Proposed Class Allegedly Exceeds 100 Members. Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that the total number of class members are “well into the thousands.” Id. at ¶ 48. As Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 3 of 7 3 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1441 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 discussed infra ¶ 7(a), Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks damages on behalf of himself and a putative so- called class of “[a]ll consumers in California.” Compl. ¶ 46. Several thousand Grubhub+ subscribers in California have been charged a CA Driver Benefits Fee. Declaration of TJ Koreis (“Koreis Decl.”) ¶ 3. Thus, based on Plaintiff’s own allegations, the CAFA jurisdictional requirement regarding the size of the putative class is satisfied. 7. Amount in Controversy. CAFA requires that the “aggregate[]” “matter in controversy exceed[] the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), (6). Removal is proper if it is demonstrated, “by a preponderance of evidence, that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds” $5,000,000. Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2013). The amount in controversy is determined by accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true. See, e.g., Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 402 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he amount in controversy is met by the express allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint.” (quotation omitted)); Nguyen v. Ericsson, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-06453, 2018 WL 2836076 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2018) (“The amount in controversy is calculated by assuming the allegations of the complaint are true and assuming a jury will find for the plaintiff on all claims.”). While Grubhub denies Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief sought in the Complaint, the relief that Plaintiff seeks through restitution, damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees exceeds CAFA’s $5,000,000 amount-in-controversy requirement. a. Restitution. Plaintiff seeks to represent “[a]ll consumers in California who…signed up for Grubhub+ and paid a CA Driver Benefits Fee,” Compl. ¶ 46, and prays for “an order requiring Defendant to disgorge and make restitution of all monies it acquired by means of the unlawful practices set forth above.” Prayer for Relief ¶ c. Since the CA Driver Benefits Fee was implemented in December 2020, the number of delivery orders placed by Grubhub+ members for which the CA Driver Benefits Fee was charged exceeded 1.7 million, and more than 99,000 diners have paid for Grubhub+ membership. See Koreis Decl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff alleges Grubhub charged a $2.50 CA Driver Benefits Fee. Compl. ¶ 24. Plaintiff also alleges that Grubhub charged Grubhub+ members $9.99 per month. Compl. ¶ Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 4 of 7 4 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1441 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25. Therefore, standing alone, a recovery of $2.50 per order and $9.99 per member would exceed $5,000,000. b. Injunctive Relief. Costs of compliance with an injunction are relevant in ascertaining whether the amount in controversy is satisfied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (excluding only interest and costs from the aggregated amount in controversy); see also Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 700 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff seeks an order “enjoining Defendant from continuing to engage” in the alleged misconduct. Compl. ¶¶ 71, 78, 84; see also Prayer for Relief ¶ a. An injunction would impose additional costs on Grubhub to the extent it would be required to change its terms of service or revise promotional materials and other sales-related materials. c. Attorneys’ Fees. Finally, Plaintiff is seeking an award of attorneys’ fees under the CLRA. Prayer for Relief ¶ f. An award of attorneys’ fees, if such fees are specifically authorized by statute, may be considered for purposes of calculating the amount in controversy. See Kroske v. US Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, if Plaintiff and/or the class succeeds on the CLRA claim, recovery of attorneys’ fees may be statutorily authorized. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(e). A potential award of attorneys’ fees further increases the amount in controversy. For the reasons explained above, the estimated amount in controversy in the instant action (for restitution, damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees) exceeds $5,000,000. This amount satisfies CAFA’s $5,000,000 amount-in-controversy requirement based on the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 8. No CAFA Exceptions. This case does not fall within any exclusion to removal jurisdiction recognized by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because Grubhub is not a citizen of California, the state in which the action originally was filed, and no other exclusion applies. REMOVAL IS OTHERWISE PROCEDURALLY PROPER 9. Removal is Timely. Service on Grubhub was completed on May 24, 2021. See Declaration of Amy P. Lally (“Lally Decl.”) ¶ 2, Exh. G (Notice and Acknowledgement of Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 5 of 7 5 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1441 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Receipt-Civil). Thus, this Notice of Removal is timely, as the 30-day period for removal has not expired. 10. Removal to Proper Court. This Court is part of the “district and division embracing the place where” the State Court Action was filed - San Francisco County, California. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 11. Pleadings and Process. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), attached hereto is “a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon” Grubhub. Lally Decl. ¶ 2, Exhs. A - H. 12. Filing and Service. A copy of this Notice of Removal is being filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, and is being served on all counsel of record, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). The Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco is located within this district. 13. Arbitration. Grubhub reserves any and all contractual right to require arbitration of this controversy. This Notice of Removal is filed without prejudice to the exercise of such contractual right. WHEREFORE, Grubhub respectfully removes this action, now pending in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Date: June 22, 2021 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP By: /s/ Amy P. Lally Amy P. Lally Stacy Horth-Neubert Farrah Vazquez Attorneys for Defendant Grubhub Inc. Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 6 of 7 6 6 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1441 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90013. On June 22, 2021, I served the foregoing document(s) described as DEFENDANT GRUBHUB INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on all interested parties in this action as follows: Jeffrey D. Kaliel jkaliel@kalielpllc.com Sophia Gold sgold@kalielgold.com KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel.: (202) 280-4783 Attorneys for Plaintiffs I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 22, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. (VIA U.S. MAIL) I served the foregoing document(s) by U.S. Mail, as follows: I placed true copies of the document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed to each interested party as shown above. I placed each such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing at Sidley Austin LLP, Century City, California. I am readily familiar with Sidley Austin LLP’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited in the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. (VIA E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. Claudia Espinoza Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 7 of 7 (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) (If Known) (Place an “X” in One Box Only) (U.S. Government Not a Party) (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) or and (Place an “X” in One Box Only) (Place an “X” in One Box Only) (specify) (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity) (See instructions): JESSE STOUT GRUBHUB INC. San Francisco Cook County Jeffrey D. Kaliel, SBN 238293, Sophia Goren Gold, SBN 307971, KALIEL GOLD PLLC, 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Fl., WDC 20005; Tel. 202.350.4783 Amy P. Lally, SBN 198555, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor, LA, CA 90067; Tel. 310.595.9500 Stacy Horth-Neubert, SBN 214565, Farrah Vazquez, (SBN 327371), SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, 555 W. Fifth St., Suite 4000, LA, CA 90013; Tel. 213.896.6000 [Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441] Plaintiff's causes of action for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ( CA Bus. & Prof. Code 17200), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code 1750), and False Advertising Law (CA Bus. & Prof. Code 17500). [Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1441] Plaintiff's causes of action for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ( CA Bus. & Prof. Code 17200), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code 1750), and False Advertising Law (CA Bus. & Prof. Code 17500). ✔ 06/22/2021 /s/ Amy P. Lally Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 2 3 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90013. On June 22, 2021, I served the foregoing document(s) described as CIVIL COVER SHEET on all interested parties in this action as follows: Jeffrey D. Kaliel jkaliel@kalielpllc.com Sophia Gold sgold@kalielgold.com KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel.: (202) 280-4783 Attorneys for Plaintiffs I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 22, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. (VIA U.S. MAIL) I served the foregoing document(s) by U.S. Mail, as follows: I placed true copies of the document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed to each interested party as shown above. I placed each such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing at Sidley Austin LLP, Century City, California. I am readily familiar with Sidley Austin LLP’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited in the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. (VIA E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. Claudia Espinoza Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 2 DECLARATION OF THOMAS J. KOREIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GRUBHUB INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Amy P. Lally (SBN 198555) alally@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: +1 310 595 9662 Facsimile: +1 310 595 9501 Stacy Horth-Neubert (SBN 214565) shorthneubert@sidley.com Farrah Vazquez (SBN 327371) farrah.vazquez@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: +1 213 896 6036 Facsimile: +1 213 896 6600 Attorneys for Defendant Grubhub Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JESSE STOUT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GRUBHUB INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 3:21-cv-04745 DECLARATION OF THOMAS J. KOREIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GRUBHUB INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 State Action Filed: May 3, 2021 State Action Served: May 24, 2021 269701084 Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-2 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 3 1 1 DECLARATION OF THOMAS J. KOREIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GRUBHUB INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF THOMAS J. KOREIS I, Thomas J. Koreis, declare the following: 1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, or I have knowledge of such facts based on my review and knowledge of the business records and files of Defendant Grubhub Inc. (“Grubhub”), and I could testify to the same if called as a witness in this matter. I make this declaration in support of Grubhub’s Notice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 2. I am currently the Senior Director of Pricing for Grubhub Holdings, Inc. Grubhub Holdings, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Grubhub Inc., which is a non-operating holding company. 3. In June 2021, in connection with my job responsibilities, I and my colleagues under my direction reviewed the business records of Grubhub kept in the ordinary course and determined the following: a. In California, the number of delivery orders placed by Grubhub+ members for which the CA Driver Benefits Fee was charged since December 2020 exceeded 1.7 million. b. In California, more than 99,000 diners have paid for Grubhub+ membership since December 2020. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing statements are true and correct. Executed on this __ day of June 2021, in ___________, Illinois. Thomas J. Koreis Chicago22 Doc ID: a964de807125d2b161b02ad640cfab61df27b0e6 Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-2 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 3 2 DECLARATION OF THOMAS J. KOREIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GRUBHUB INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90013. On June 22, 2021, I served the foregoing document(s) described as DECLARATION OF THOMAS J. KOREIS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GRUBHUB INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on all interested parties in this action as follows: Jeffrey D. Kaliel jkaliel@kalielpllc.com Sophia Gold sgold@kalielgold.com KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel.: (202) 280-4783 Attorneys for Plaintiffs I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 22, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. (VIA U.S. MAIL) I served the foregoing document(s) by U.S. Mail, as follows: I placed true copies of the document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed to each interested party as shown above. I placed each such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing at Sidley Austin LLP, Century City, California. I am readily familiar with Sidley Austin LLP’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited in the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. (VIA E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. Claudia Espinoza Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-2 Filed 06/22/21 Page 3 of 3 DECLARATION OF AMY P. LALLY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Amy P. Lally (SBN 198555) alally@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: +1 310 595 9662 Facsimile: +1 310 595 9501 Stacy Horth-Neubert (SBN 214565) shorthneubert@sidley.com Farrah Vazquez (SBN 327371) farrah.vazquez@sidley.com SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: +1 213 896 6036 Facsimile: +1 213 896 6600 Attorneys for Defendant Grubhub Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JESSE STOUT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GRUBHUB INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 3:21-cv-04745 DECLARATION OF AMY P. LALLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GRUBHUB INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 State Action Filed: May 3, 2021 State Action Served: May 24, 2021 269761370 Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-3 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 3 2 DECLARATION OF AMY P. LALLY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF AMY P. LALLY I, Amy P. Lally, declare the following: 1. I am a partner at Sidley Austin LLP, counsel for Defendant Grubhub Inc. (“Grubhub”) in this matter. I submit this declaration in support of Grubhub’s Notice of Removal of Action Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration. If called upon, I could competently testify thereto. 2. Below and attached hereto is the entire state court record in the matter of Jesse Stout v. Grubhub Inc., No. CGC-21-591204, as of June 22, 2021. a. Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit A. b. Civil Case Cover Sheet, attached hereto as Exhibit B. c. Summons on Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit C. d. Application for Complex Case Treatment, attached hereto as Exhibit D. e. Declaration of Plaintiff Jesse Stout Regarding Proper Venue Under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code §1780(D), attached hereto as Exhibit E. f. Notice to Plaintiff, attached hereto as Exhibit F. g. Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt-Civil, attached hereto as Exhibit G. h. Order Granting Complex Designation and for Single Assignment, attached hereto as Exhibit H. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing statements are true and correct. Executed on this 22nd day of June 2021, in Los Angeles, California. /s/ Amy P. Lally Amy P. Lally Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-3 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 3 3 PLEADING TITLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90013. On June 22, 2021, I served the foregoing document(s) described as DECLARATION OF AMY P. LALLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GRUBHUB INC.’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on all interested parties in this action as follows: Jeffrey D. Kaliel jkaliel@kalielpllc.com Sophia Gold sgold@kalielgold.com KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel.: (202) 280-4783 Attorneys for Plaintiffs I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 22, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. (VIA U.S. MAIL) I served the foregoing document(s) by U.S. Mail, as follows: I placed true copies of the document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed to each interested party as shown above. I placed each such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing at Sidley Austin LLP, Century City, California. I am readily familiar with Sidley Austin LLP’s practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited in the United States Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. (VIA E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. Claudia Espinoza Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-3 Filed 06/22/21 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 17 1 Jeffrey D. Kaliel (SBN 238293) jkaliel@kalielpllc.com 2 Sophia Goren Gold (SBN 307971) 3 sgold@kallelgold.com KALIEL GOLD PLLC 4 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 5 Tel: (202) 350-4783 6 Attorneys.for Plaintiff 7 -mm ,,,,"Wfll ,a.,..,.._,_, \ MAYO 8 2021 CLERK OF THE COURT BY: ANGELICA SUNGA ~a.ti 8 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF' THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOll THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 JESSE STOUT, on behalf of hims~lf and all others similarly situated, 12 13 Plaintiff~ Ca~eNo. CIC•21•59120/a CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT , . '. ,. 14 v. [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL] 15 GRUBHUB INC., and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, 16 17 Defond~.p.t. 18 ~ 19 20 21 22 ' 23 24 25 26 27 28 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 2 Plaintiff JESSE STOUT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, complains and alleges upon information and belief based, among other things, upon the investigation made by Plaintiff and through his attorneys as follows: NATURE OF ACTION 1. This is a proposed class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant Grubhub Inc. (“Defendant” or “Grubhub”), arising from Grubhub’s deceptive and untruthful advertising related to Grubhub’s promise to provide “Unlimited Free Delivery” to Grubhub+ subscribers. 2. Since it began offering the service in 2020, Grubhub has marketed its Grubhub+ monthly subscription service as a flat, low-cost way to receive “Unlimited Free Delivery.” For $9.99/month, Grubhub promised users that if they signed up for Grubhub+, they would receive unlimited free delivery on Grubhub orders over $12. 3. Thousands of Californians availed themselves of that offer and continue to do so every day. 4. However, in December 2020, Grubhub began adding additional delivery fees to the orders placed by Grubhub+ users. 5. To conceal the true nature of these additional delivery fees, Grubhub styled the fee a “CA Driver Benefits Fee,” which it began adding to every Grubhub+ order in December 2020. 6. The CA Driver Benefits Fee is a delivery fee. This fee, which is tacked on to every delivery order (but not to orders through Grubhub that are picked up in store) is, by definition, a delivery fee. 7. But for Plaintiff and other Grubhub+ subscribers, who signed up for Grubhub+ based on the promise of “Unlimited Free Delivery,” the imposition of a delivery fee to every order fundamentally undermines the benefit of their bargain and amounts to a bait & switch. 8. Plaintiff and other Grubhub+ subscribers were lured into signing up for a Grubhub+ subscription based on the promise of Unlimited Free Delivery. Grubhub failed to honor that promise, however, by adding a CA Driver Benefits Fee to every Grubhub order. Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 3 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 3 9. Plaintiff and the Class members have been injured by Grubhub’s practices. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, the putative Class, and the general public. Plaintiff seeks actual damages, punitive damages, restitution, and an injunction on behalf of the general public to prevent Grubhub from continuing to engage in its illegal practices described herein. PARTIES 10. Plaintiff Jesse Stout is a citizen of the State of California who resides in the County of San Francisco, State of California. 11. Defendant, Grubhub Inc., is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal business offices in Chicago, Illinois. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant and the claims set forth below pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10 and the California Constitution, Article VI § 10, because this case is a cause not given by statute to the other trial courts. 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the State of California has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant named in the action because Defendant is a California corporation authorized to conduct and does conduct business in this State. 14. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Grubhub Lobbied for Proposition 22, And Then Didn’t Want to Pay the Costs Associated with Its Passage 15. Proposition 22 was a ballot initiative in California in the November 2020 election which aimed to exempt app-based transportation and delivery companies from AB5. AB5 would have required Grubhub and other delivery companies to classify their drivers as employees rather than independent contractors. Had AB5 remained the law, all Grubhub drivers would have been guaranteed a variety of extensive benefits under state law, including overtime, sick time, health care, bargaining rights, and unemployment insurance, among others. Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 4 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 4 16. When AB5 passed in September 2019, app-based food delivery companies, including Grubhub, publicly protested in every forum available to them, decrying the law as incompatible with their business model. 17. Desperate to avoid the profit-cutting implications of AB5, the app-based food delivery companies devised Proposition 22. 18. Proposition 22 aimed to exempt app-based food delivery companies from the scope of AB5. But in a concession to labor advocates, and in an effort to gain public buy-in, the Proposition also provided certain minimum protections and benefits to drivers. Those protections-while not nearly as extensive as those which would have been afforded to drivers had they been deemed employees-did guarantee drivers a higher level of benefits than they had been receiving as independent contractors prior to the passage of AB5. For example, under Proposition 22, drivers would receive 120% of the local minimum wage for each hour spent driving. Drivers would also receive limited expense reimbursement as well as a health insurance stipend, among other benefits. 19. Grubhub and other app-based food delivery companies poured millions of dollars into the Proposition 22 campaign. Proposition 22 quickly became the most expensive measure in California history, with over $200 million contributed to the campaign effort. 20. Grubhub and other app-based food delivery companies sold California voters on the idea that Proposition 22 was a “compromise” that would “create a third employment classification” allowing drivers “more perks than the average independent contractor but wouldn’t entitle workers to the full benefits of an employee” that they otherwise would have been entitled to under AB5.1 Proposition 22, these companies argued, was the way to ensure adequate protections to drivers, while also keeping their businesses afloat. 21. After months of extensive campaigning, advertising, and lobbying, Grubhub and the other app-based food delivery companies ultimately got their way, and California voters passed Proposition 22, exempting Grubhub and other companies from AB5. 1 https://www.wired.com/story/uber-lyft-fight-law-say-doesnt-apply/ Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 5 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 5 22. Shortly after the passage of Proposition 22, however, Grubhub was faced with a problem. Proposition 22-hailed as the “compromise” that would largely exempt Grubhub from paying for the extensive benefits that otherwise would be required under California employment law-still required Grubhub to pay for certain benefits and protections that it had not previously been covering. These benefits posed a threat to Grubhub’s profit margin. 23. Despite spending millions of dollars campaigning for the passage of Proposition 22, Grubhub didn’t want to pay the costs associated with its passage. 24. That is why, in December 2020, one month after the passage of Proposition 22, Grubhub began charging a “CA Driver Benefits Fee.” The CA Driver Benefits Fee is $2.50 and is added to all California orders. Consumers have no option to opt out of paying the CA Driver Benefits Fee. Grubhub does not add the CA Driver Benefits Fee to orders made through Grubhub that are picked up in-store. B. California Consumers Subscribe to Grubhub+ Based on the Promise of Free Delivery 25. Grubhub markets its Grubhub+ monthly subscription service as a flat, low-cost way to receive “Unlimited Free Delivery.” For $9.99/month, Grubhub promises users that if they sign up for Unlimited, they will receive “unlimited free delivery at your favorite restaurants” so long as the order size met a certain monetary minimum. Thousands of Californians availed themselves of that offer, and continue to do so every day. 26. Grubhub prominently advertises Grubhub+ as a way to “Get free delivery on all your orders.” On its website, https://www.grubhub.com/plus, Grubhub promises: GRUBHUB + Get free delivery on all your orders Join Grubhub+ and get unlimited free delivery at your favorite restaurants, exclusive rewards, and more. Try it free Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 6 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 6 27. That same homepage further states: 28. Grubhub plasters its “Unlimited Free Delivery” promise in every advertisement on its website and on its app discussing Grubhub+. Indeed, Grubhub advertised its program consistently across all marketing channels. 29. In the app, Grubhub advertises its offer in the same way: u..., Unlimited free delivery Get free delivery on orders of +$12 from GH+ restaurants Monthly membership 2 weeks free! $9.99/month ~ Unlimited free delivery on orders of $12+ (!I Save $10 or get the difference back in Perks ~ Get a free pickup Perk up to $10 every month a) Cancel anytime-it's quick, easy and fee free! We'll automatically renew your Grubhub+ membership each month. Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 7 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 7 30. In short, in every advertisement and description of the service, Grubhub always uses the same “Unlimited free delivery” promise. C. Grubhub’s Assessment of a CA Driver Benefits Fee Amounts to a Bait & Switch 31. The CA Driver Benefits Fee undermines Grubhub promise to provide “Unlimited Free Delivery” and amounts to a bait & switch. 32. Grubhub+ users signed up for, and Grubhub promised to provide, Unlimited Free Delivery for $9.99/month. The promise of “unlimited free delivery” is material to all Grubhub+ subscribers because that is the entire point of the subscription. 33. But Grubhub fails to honor its promise of unlimited free delivery by charging CA Driver Benefits Fees. 34. The CA Driver Benefits Fee is a delivery fee. Indeed, Grubhub does not charge this fee to orders placed through the app and picked up in store. As indicated by its name, the CA Driver Benefits Fee is used to pay drivers for the benefits they are afforded under Proposition 22. A fee that is tacked on to every order to compensate drivers in exchange for their delivery of food is, by definition, a delivery fee. 35. In luring Unlimited consumers into the promise of Unlimited Free Delivery, and then reneging on that promise by adding a CA Driver Benefits Fee to every order, Grubhub deceives consumers and is unjustly enriched. D. Grubhub’s App Fails to Bind Users to the Terms of Service. 36. When a consumer downloads the Grubhub app, or uses the Grubhub website, he or she is required to create an account in order to sign up for Grubhub+. 37. In order to do so, a user enters in a name and contact information. 38. While the account creation screen contains a small hyperlink to view Grubhub’s Membership Terms, users are not required affirmatively consent to such terms, such as by clicking a check box. 39. Moreover, the Membership Terms is a contract that exists separate and apart from Grubhub’s Terms of Use, and supersede Grubhub’s Terms of Use to the extent there is a conflict between them. Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 8 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 8 40. When signing up for Grubhub, consumers never agree to Grubhub’s Terms of Service or any arbitration clause therein. 41. Grubhub+ subscribers are also never emailed the Terms of Service after signing up for the program. 42. Moreover, the Terms of Service are unenforceable to the extent they attempt to prohibit users from seeking public injunctive relief in any forum, in violation of the California Supreme Court’s holding in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017). For avoidance of doubt, by way of this action, Plaintiff seeks public injunctive relief in order to prevent Grubhub from continuing to deceive California consumers. E. Plaintiff’s Experience 43. Plaintiff signed up for the Grubhub+ service based on the representations described above, and specifically based on the promise that he would receive “Unlimited Free Delivery” with a Grubhub+ subscription. 44. Plaintiff has since paid the CA Driver Benefits Fee on several occasions, including for example, in March 2021. 45. Plaintiff would not have signed up for Grubhub+ if he knew he would not really be receiving unlimited free delivery. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 46. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 382, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a Class of similarly situated persons defined as follows: All consumers in California who, within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action to the date of class certification, signed up for Grubhub+ and paid a CA Driver Benefits Fee. 47. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, any entities in which they have a controlling interest, any of their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees and members of such persons’ immediate families, and the presiding judge(s) in this case, and their staff. Plaintiff reserves the right to expand, limit, modify, or amend this class definition, including the addition of one or more Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 9 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 9 subclasses, in connection with his motion for class certification, or at any other time, based upon, inter alia, changing circumstances and/or new facts obtained during discovery. 48. Numerosity: At this time, Plaintiff does not know the exact size of the Class; however, due to the nature of the trade and commerce involved, Plaintiff believes that the Class members are well into the thousands, and thus are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical. The number and identities of Class members is administratively feasible and can be determined through appropriate discovery in the possession of the Defendant. 49. Commonality: There are questions of law or fact common to the Class, which include, but are not limited to the following: a. Whether during the class period, Defendant deceptively represented its Grubhub+ program; b. Whether Defendant’s alleged misconduct misled or had the tendency to mislead consumers; c. Whether Defendant engaged in unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business practices under the laws asserted; d. Whether Defendant’s alleged conduct constitutes violations of the laws asserted; e. Whether Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by Defendant’s misrepresentations; f. Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched; g. Whether Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged, and if so, the proper measure of damages; and h. Whether an injunction is necessary to prevent Defendant from continuing to engage in the wrongful conduct described herein. 50. Typicality: Like Plaintiff, many other consumers signed up for Grubhub+ based on Defendant’s representations. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class because Plaintiff and each Class member was injured by Defendant’s false representations Plaintiff and the Class have suffered the same or similar injury as a result of Defendant’s false, deceptive and misleading representations. Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 10 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 10 Plaintiff’s claims and the claims of members of the Class emanate from the same legal theory, Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class, and, therefore, class treatment is appropriate. 51. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff is committed to pursuing this action and has retained counsel competent and experienced in prosecuting and resolving consumer class actions. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class and does not have any interests adverse to those of the Class. 52. The Proposed Class and Satisfies the Rule 23(b)(2) Prerequisites for Injunctive Relief. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and equitable relief with respect to the Class as a whole. Plaintiff remains interested in remaining a Grubhub+ subscriber, provided he is actually provided the Unlimited Free Delivery, as promised. 53. Defendant’s ongoing and systematic practices make declaratory relief with respect to the Class appropriate. 54. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Rule 23(b)(3) Prerequisites for Damages. The common questions of law and fact enumerated above predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Class, and a class action is the superior method for fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The likelihood that individual members of the Class will prosecute separate actions is remote due to the extensive time and considerable expense necessary to conduct such litigation, especially when compared to the relatively modest amount of monetary, injunctive, and equitable relief at issue for each individual Class member. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. 55. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding allegations by reference as if fully set forth herein. 56. California Business & Professions Code § 17200 prohibits acts of “unfair competition,” including any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Grubhub’s conduct related to deceptively representing that it would provide “unlimited free delivery” to Grubhub+ subscribers violates each of the statute’s “unfair,” “unlawful,” and “fraudulent” prongs. Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 11 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 11 57. The UCL imposes strict liability. Plaintiff need not prove that Grubhub intentionally or negligently engaged in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices-but only that such practices occurred. 58. A business act or practice is “unfair” under the UCL if it offends an established public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers, and that unfairness is determined by weighing the reasons, justifications, and motives of the practice against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victims. 59. A business act or practice is “fraudulent” under the UCL if it is likely to deceive members of the public. 60. A business act or practice is “unlawful” under the UCL if it violates any other law or regulation. 61. Grubhub committed unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., by affirmatively and knowingly misrepresenting on its website and mobile app that it would provide Unlimited Free Delivery to Grubhub+ subscribers, when, in reality, it adds a delivery fee through the assessment of the CA Driver Benefits Fee to every order. 62. Defendant’s acts and practices offend an established public policy of fee transparency in the marketplace, and constitute immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous activities that are substantially injurious to consumers. 63. The harm to Plaintiff and the Class outweighs the utility of Defendant’s practices. There were reasonably available alternatives to further Defendant’s legitimate business interests, other than the misleading and deceptive conduct described herein. 64. Defendant’s conduct also constitutes an “unlawful” act under the UCL because, as detailed in Plaintiff’s Second Claim for Relief below, it also constitutes a violation of sections 1770(a)(5) and (a)(9) of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., infra, in that Grubhub deceptively represents that it provides Unlimited Free Delivery to Grubhub+ subscribers; in reality, however, this marketing message is false because Grubhub charges a CA Driver Benefits Fee which is a fee meant to compensate drivers for delivering food, i.e. a delivery fee Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 12 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 12 65. Grubhub’s business practices have misled Plaintiff and the proposed Class and will continue to mislead them in the future. 66. Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations about the Grubhub+ subscription program, believing he would receive “Unlimited Free Delivery” as promised, while a Grubhub+ subscriber. 67. By falsely marketing “Unlimited Free Delivery,” Grubhub deceived Plaintiff and Class members into signing up for Grubhub+, only to renege on that promise by charging a CA Driver Benefits Fee. Grubhub’s conduct amounted to a bait & switch. 68. Had Plaintiff known the truth, he would not have become a Grubhub+ subscriber. 69. As a direct and proximate result of Grubhub’s unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful practices, Plaintiff and Class members suffered and will continue to suffer actual damages. Defendant’s fraudulent conduct is ongoing and present a continuing threat to Class members that they will be deceived into signing up for Grubhub+ under the false belief that they will receive “Unlimited Free Delivery.” 70. As a result of its unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful conduct, Grubhub has been unjustly enriched and should be required to disgorge its unjust profits and make restitution to Plaintiff and Class members pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 and 17204. 71. Pursuant to Business & Professions Code §§ 17203 and 17500, Plaintiff and the members of the Class, on behalf of the general public, seek an order of this Court enjoining Defendant from continuing to engage, use, or employ their unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent practices. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. 72. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding allegations by reference as if fully set forth herein. 73. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code § 1750, et seq. Plaintiff and each member of the proposed Class are “consumers” as defined by California Civil Code § 1761(d). Defendant’s sale of food products to consumers for delivery ordered through its website and mobile app were “transactions” within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1761(e). Grubhub+ is a “service” within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1761(b). Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 13 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 13 74. Defendant violated and continues to violate the CLRA by engaging in the following practices proscribed by California Civil Code § 1770(a) in transactions with Plaintiff and the Class which were intended to result in, and did result in, the sale of the Grubhub+ service: a. “Representing that goods or services have . . . characteristics . . . that they do not have” (a)(5); and b. “Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised” (a)(9). 75. Specifically, Grubhub advertised to customers that it would provide Unlimited Free Delivery to Grubhub+ subscribers, when, in reality, it adds a delivery fee through the assessment of the CA Driver Benefits Fee to every order. 76. By falsely marketing “Unlimited Free Delivery,” Grubhub deceived Plaintiff and Class members into signing up for Grubhub+, only to renege on that promise by charging a CA Driver Benefits Fee. Grubhub’s conduct amounted to a bait & switch. 77. Grubhub continues to violate the CLRA and continues to injure the public by misleading consumers about its delivery fees. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the general public to prevent Grubhub from continuing to engage in these deceptive and illegal practices. Otherwise, Plaintiff, the Class members, and members of the general public may be irreparably harmed and/or denied effective and complete remedy if such an order is not granted. 78. In accordance with Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(a), Plaintiff and the Class members seek injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of the general public for violations of the CLRA, including restitution and disgorgement. 79. Pursuant to § 1782(a) of the CLRA, Plaintiff’s counsel notified Defendant in writing by certified mail of the particular violations of §1770 of the CLRA and demanded that it rectify the problems associated with the actions detailed above and give notice to all affected consumers of Defendant’s intent to act. If Defendant fails to respond to Plaintiff’s letter or agree to rectify the problems associated with the actions detailed above and give notice to all affected consumers within 30 days of the date of written notice, as proscribed by §1782, Plaintiff will move to amend his Complaint to pursue claims for actual, punitive and statutory damages, as appropriate against Defendant. As to this cause of action, at this time, Plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief. Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 14 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 14 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF False and Misleading Advertising [Business & Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq.] 80. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 81. California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, states that “[i]t is unlawful for any ... corporation ... with intent … to dispose of ... personal property ... to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated ... from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the Internet, any statement...which is untrue or misleading and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading....” 82. Defendant’s material misrepresentations and omissions alleged herein violate Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. 83. Defendant knew or should have known that its misrepresentations and omissions were false, deceptive, and misleading. 84. Pursuant to Business & Professions Code §§ 17203 and 17500, Plaintiff and the members of the Class, on behalf of the general public, seek an order of this Court enjoining Defendant from continuing to engage, use, or employ their practice of misrepresenting their delivery fees. 85. Further, Plaintiff and the members of the Class seek an order requiring Defendant to disclose such misrepresentations, and additionally request an order awarding Plaintiff restitution of the money wrongfully acquired by Defendants by means of said misrepresentations. 86. Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class members seek an order requiring Defendant to pay attorneys’ fees pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1021.5. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Unjust Enrichment 87. Plaintiff repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 15 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 15 88. To the detriment of Plaintiff and the Class, Defendant has been, and continues to be, unjustly enriched as a result of its wrongful conduct alleged herein. 89. Plaintiff and the Class conferred a benefit on Defendant when they paid Defendant the CA Driver Benefits Fee, when they were promised unlimited free delivery as Grubhub+ subscribers. 90. Defendant unfairly, deceptively, unjustly, and/or unlawfully accepted said benefits, which under the circumstances, would be unjust to allow Defendant to retain. 91. Defendant’s unjust enrichment is traceable to, and resulted directly and proximately from, the conduct alleged herein. 92. Plaintiff and the Class, therefore, seek disgorgement of all wrongfully obtained fees received by Defendant as a result of its inequitable conduct as more fully stated herein. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the Class seeks judgment in an amount to be determined at trial, as follows: (a) For public injunctive relief, enjoining Defendant from continuing the unlawful practices set forth above; (b) For declaratory and injunctive relief as set forth above; (c) For an order requiring Defendant to disgorge and make restitution of all monies it acquired by means of the unlawful practices set forth above; (d) For compensatory damages according to proof; (e) For punitive damages according to proof; (f) For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; (g) For pre-judgment interest; and (h) Awarding such other and further relief as this Court deems just, proper and equitable. /// /// /// /// /// Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 16 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 16 JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all claims so triable. Dated: April 22, 2021 KALIEL GOLD PLLC By: Jeffrey D. Kaliel Sophia G. Gold Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-4 Filed 06/22/21 Page 17 of 17 EXHIBIT B Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-5 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 3 u OM-010 I\TTORHEY 0fl PAATV V..llfOUT ATTORNEY (lnrr», Slai. tar nc.allller, •lid aclcwui: FORCOURTIISl!ONL.Y Jeffrey O. Kallel (SBN 238293); Sophia G. Gold (SBN 307971) KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor, Washington, OC 20005 nrl'B mEPHONE NO.: (202) 35()..4783 FAX HP. (Opllo,,,~: ATTORNEY FOR D Product llab!llty t2'4) D Other QOn~t (37) Real Property D Med~ malpractice ('45) c:J Eminent d;,maln/lnverse D Other PI/POM'D (23) ccmdemnatlcn (14) Non-PUPDIWD (other) Tort ~ INroogful vlctk>n (33) @ (kJslness tort/Uflfalr b1$1nes$ practice (07) 0th.er ntal property (26) D Civil rights (08) nlawful lletalner O Defamation (1~) D Comme.rclal (~1) D Fraud (18) D Resldonllal ('J2) D lntellec.1ual property (19) D Drug (38) O Profenlon111 nogllgeru;e (25) Judi<:! I Rev'-w D Other n011-PIIPDMIO tl>l1 (35) D Aseet fol'ffltur.o (01.i) Emp'°YmQnt D Petition re: amil~l!Qn award (11) D 'M'ongful termlnauon (36) 0 Writ or matl~l.8 (0~) CJ OtMr employment (1~) 0 Other judicial re1.-tew (39) Provfalonally Com le!( Clvll Lltl9atlon (cal. Rll es of CQurt, rules 3.40W.403) c:::J Anlitl'\.ISI/Ttade regulatlon (03) D Conatnu:tion defect (10) D Mau tort (40) D Secur!tieslfflgaUon(28) CJ EnvitQnmentaVToxlc tort (30) D lnturarn:e coverJge dalm& !Irising from the al;>ove listed provls Qnally complex case types (41) Enforcement of Judgment 0 EnfQreement of judgm$Rt (20) Mlacelfane~u• Clvll Complaint 0 RIC0{27) CJ Other complaint (not t,peclfied aboll'lt) (42) Mllcell neOIJ• Clvll Petition D Part,ie,..hlp ~d oorporate gQvemance (21) c;J Olher petiUon (not $/JBGl/ed lboV$) (43) 2. This case 0 i.- D is not complex under rul 3.400 of the Cellfomia Rules of Court. If the ca,e la compl x, rmirk the factors requiring exceptional judiciol m,n119ement: a. D Large number of separately represented parti d. O Lsrg number of witnesses b. []] Extensive motion practice raising difficult or povel e. D CC>Ordlmrtion wlttl related l!dions pending In one or more Issues thet wlll bl! time-consuming to resolve courts In other counties, states, or countries, or In a federal c. 00 Substantial amount of documentary evidence court . ' f. __ D Substantial posljudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. CK] monetary b. [BJ nonmooet!ilry; declaratory or injunctive relief c. [BJ punitive 4. Number of causes of action (speclfyJ: (1) Violation of Ctl. Bu . & Prof. Co~§ 17200 (2) Violation of CLRA Civ. Code§ 1750 5. This case o::J Is O Is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and aerve a notice of related caee. (You ma~use fom, CM-015,) Date: April 22, 2021 ~ ~ JEFFREY D. KAUEL ~ ~ OR PRINT ~ME ...._ __ _.._NA_..,..,RE_O_F P.-.:AA-lY-.O_R_li._TTORH ____ l!Y_F __ OR_P_~--R -- • Plalntlff must file lttls cover sheot wttt, the first paper fltscl In the aetlon or pr-oceedin9 (~xcept smell cla ms cases or cases filed tinder the Probata CQde, Famlly Code, « Welfare and lnstitvtlorts Code). (Cai. Rules of Court, rule 3,220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions. • File thla cover sheet In addition to any eover sheet required l)y local court rule. • If this cue Ill complex under rule 3,400 et seq. of the Qalifornia Rule1 of Court, you must serve a copy of thl3 cover sheet on ~U other parties tQ the aetlon or proceodlr,g. • Un Ill$$ this 1.$ J col~ctlon$ ~ e undQr rule ~-140 or e c;ompl@x case, thifi eovtr aheet will bo used for statistical purposes i:,nly. , _ . . P•a•1 of2 ,._ MopllMI lotl.llll!Clo!IY u.. Juclk:ial Cciunr.!l ol ClaSfomla CM-010 fR9',, Jlh 1, 2007) Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-5 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 3 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET 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. 7 40. 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 complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Auto Tort Contract Auto (22)-Personal Injury/Property Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Damage/Wrongful Death Breach of Rental/Lease Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the Contract (not unla":f'UI detainer case Involves an uninsured or wrongful eviction) motorist claim subject to Contract/Warranty Breach-Seller arbitration check this item Plalntiff (not fraud or negligence) instead 0/ Auto) Negligent Breach of Contractl Other PI/PDIWD (Personal Injury/ warranty Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Tort Collections (e.g., money owed, open Asbestos (04) book accounts) (09) Asbestos Property Damage Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Asbestos Personal Injury/ Other Promissory Note/Collectlons Wrongful Death Case Product Liability (not asbestos or Insurance Coverage (not provisionally toxic/environmental) (24) complex) (18) Med!cal Malpractice (45) Auto Subrogation Medical Malpractice- Other Coverage Physicians & Surgeons Other Contract (37) Other Professional Health Care Contractual Fraud Malpractice Other Contract Dispute Other Pl/PD/WO (23) Real Property Premises Liability (e.g., sllp Eminent Domal!1'Inverse and fall) Condemnation (14) Intentional Bodily Injury/PD/WO Wrongful Eviction (33) (e.g., assault, vandalism) Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26) Intentional Infliction of Writ of Possession of Real Property Emotional Distress Mortgage Foreclosure Negligent Infliction of Quiet Title Emotional Distress Other Real Property (not eminent Other PI/PD/VVD domain, landlord/tenant, or Non.PUPDIWD (Other) Tort foteclosure) Business Tori/Unfair Business Unlawful Detainer Practice (07) Comme~al (31) Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination, Residential (32) . . false arrest) (not civil Drugs (38) (if th~ ~ase involve~ illegal harassment) (08) drugs, check this item; othe~se •. Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) report as Commerolaf or Resiclent1al) (13) Judlclal Review Fraud (16) Asset Forfeiture (05) Intellectual Property (19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Professional Negligence (25) Writ of Mandate (02) Legal Malpractice Writ-Administrative Mandamus Other Professional Malpractice Writ-Mandamus on Umlled Court (not medical or legal) Case Matter Other Non-Pl/PD/WO Tort (35) Writ-Other Limited Court Case Employment Review Wrongful Termination (36) Other Judlcial Review (39) Other Employment (15) Review of HeaHh Officer Order Notice of AP.peal-Labor Commissioner Appeals CM-010 [Rev. July 1. 2007) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Provlslonally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal Rules of Court Rules 3.408-3.403) Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (1 O) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) EnvlronmentaVToxlc Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Clalms (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) Sisler 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 RIC0(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 Complalnt (non-tortlno1H:0111Plex) Miscellaneous Clvll Peffllon Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not specified above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Pelllion for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late Claim Other Civil Petition Page2of2 Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-5 Filed 06/22/21 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT C Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-6 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 2 SUMMONS (CITACIDN JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DE;Fl;NPANT: {AVISOAL. DEMANDADO): ' GRi.J8HUtl, •~c., ~nonse. You liiill ffl'ld these court torms and mOlll Information at the California Courts Onli~ Self..Help Cetit!:r (~.~rt/n(!),c,.,ov/8fJl!le/p), your QOvnty !IIW l!bfary, or- tile c;:ourttiouee !',treat ypu. If yOU c::annot pay the fll!ng feE!, s~ the court dvrl( for a feQ wit!'ver forrr!. If you do n AA, your mli(lOflte qn time, you n1'1Y luse ttte ®M i,y default, and vour wase,. money, and prof)4rty may be la~n without fut1herW3ming from the c:ot1rt. · • • There are ot,ier l1tgll! requltem81'!l8. You may want tQ call an i!t!OllleY rk!M ,ffflay. If YQ!J do n9t kiiow ail attQmey, you.may want to call an attomeY referral servlCiO, If ydu carmot affo~ an attornw. yep !MY bQ eligible for free legal oarvkies from e nQnprofit leg@I se,vices program. You can locate t11eae nonprofit grQups at ~e Callfomlt LQOal Services Web $Ile (www.lawhe/pc;~litomla.org), the Callfomla Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.oourt/nto.~.gov4elfhe/p), or by contacting your loQal court o, ooiinlY bar ua~at!on. NOTE: The court has a statutory Hen t>r w1.1lved fees and comi on any a,ttlementor altllll'atlon awar y tilenes sin mas ,tdvertencla. . Hay ottw ,equlsit9s legales. ·es ,ei;o.'fltJlldabt& qw 1111-me s IJfl iibogado lnrmwlstamente. Si no e9noc, a un abogadO. p1J9de llama, a un $eNido de reml$/6n a abogados. SJ no p~ pag4r a un abogadQ, e; w:,1/J!t que cumpta mn loa ilK/ulsltos para obten,r seNic/o~ legales gratlJ/tos cit un p,ograrna cit se,vlcio$1Bga1$$ fin finff de tucro. Puede 911COntrar 11~ f11VP01f 13/n nnn de fl,ICIO en el aif/0 web de Cslifomia Legal Services. (www.fawhel~lifomle.org). en el C,mtro (/8 Ayur. de $10,000 6 mds de valor recip/da medlsnttt un ec:uerda o ,ma concesldn .de arbftrs}e en un c;aso (le derecho cMt. .r~ne que pagar et gravamen de fa t;Olte 11ntes do quc, le coJte pueda d~ar el C(ISO. · • · •· T~ name imd addres, of the court 1$: (EJ nombie y dlrecc;lon de ltt cone es): San Francisco County S1.1perlor Court 400 Mc-.Allis~r S~t , . , . San Fran,eltico, e-i1foroio 9410 ' The neme, add~. and ~leptiano r,ymber of plalntifrs att®t&Y ! or p]elntift without sn attor~y. is; (El norrlb~, la d~n y fl/ mimero df1 te1'fono ~I alJc,jJedo de/ demand,nte, e dal : You are s.erved · l~LI 1. p ,t.ts an indivkluQI defend~nt . 2. O ,e the persen slle.d under,ttie tlctltioos name of (specif¥); 3. CB:] f'rt beM!f of (~pecify); l.!nG!ar: CEJ COP jiJ1f3, 10 (c.orpol'Stlofl) c:J CCP 4.16.6() (minor) • Deputy (Adjunto) c:J CCP 416,20 (dtfunot r,orpori\tio11) O CCP41ij.40 (e111~ittlon orpartnershi?) O other (PPBCify): • D CCP '416.70 (con,erva~ea) D CCP 416.90 (authorized person) 4. D by personJJ gellve,y on (api ~ @ d l( -;,. MU% ' '- (l;J)ll!!:'.l O « ¼C .tOW( ,,..,,. _ z IIJMMONS Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-6 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT D Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-7 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 3 Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-7 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 3 2 APPLICATION FOR COMPLEX CASE TREATMENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Remedies Act ("CLRA") when it routinely deceives customers by representing that it provides “Unlimited Free Delivery to Grubhub+ subscribers” on food deliveries ordered through its website and mobile app when, in fact, it adds a “CA Driver Benefits Fee” which is, in fact, a delivery fee in disguise. • Extensive motion practice that will be time-consuming to resolve: Plaintiff anticipates Defendant will file a Demurrer and/or Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, Plaintiff will file a Motion for Class Certification. • Management of a substantial amount of documentary evidence: Since this case is a putative class action on behalf of thousands of Grubhub+ customers/users in California, Plaintiff anticipates substantial discovery. 3. Based upon the above-stated supporting information, there is a reasonable basis for the complex case designation made in the Civil Cover Sheet. The undersigned hereby certifies that the above is true and correct and that I make this certification subject to the applicable provisions in the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 128.7 and/or California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5-200(B). Dated: April 22, 2021 KALIEL GOLD PLLC _____________________________ Jeffrey D. Kaliel Sophia Gold 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 280-4783 jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielgold.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-7 Filed 06/22/21 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT E Case 3:21-cv-04745 Document 1-8 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 3 t Jeffrey O. Kalie! (CA Bar No. 238293) , jkalie_l@_kalle.lpRc.c,;,m 2 SophUt Goren Gol~ (CA Ba.r No. 30797 I) · ·sgo.l~li~lg9.lr,tcom · 3 :KALlEL GOLD PLLC l I 00 15th Street NW, 4th Floor 4 Waahington, O.C, 2.0005 · Tel: (202) 3504783 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6. 7 ' " I• ,,, MAY O S·2021 CLERK OF THE COURT er: ANGELICA SUNGA ' ~Cllll 8 9 10 11 SVPijR,tOtt COURT OF THE STA1'£ OF CALWOR.NIA ,o.a THE COUNT , QF $Al? FRANCISCO 12 JESSE STOUT, on bQhalf ofhimstlfttnd tdl 13 others similarly situited, · 14 .Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 ORUBHUB JNC,, and DOES 1 .. SO, inclusive~ 17 18 Defendant. 19 io 21 22 2J , 24 •. 2.$ : .... 26' 27 , 28 X~•l- ' ' ' . . . . . Case No. Q'..4~,~<;IlOJ\{ .OtCLARATION OF PLAINTIFF .mssi STOUT REGARDING PROPER. VENVE. UNJ>ER TU CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES 4CT, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE§ 1780(0) ;:Jli$'. .
