McKnight v. Uber Technologies

Case # 14-cv-05615
Case Name McKnight v. Uber Technologies
Jurisdiction US District Court for N.D. CA
Summary

The ride-sharing app, Uber, charges all riders a mandatory, undisclosed "safe ride fee" to "support continued efforts to ensure the safest possible platform for Uber riders and drivers, including an industry-leading background check process, regular motor vehicle checks, driver safety education [and] development of safety features in the app."  Plaintiffs allege that the amount collected from these fees far out-weighs the supposed benefits provided and as a result, consumers have been harmed by paying for something that does not provide the stated benefits.

Final Approval Date ongoing
Result
  1. Case is ongoing.
  2. Fairness hearing set for February 8, 2018.
Dismissal of Last Appeal N/A
Attachments Docket Report.pdf
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.pdf
Preliminary Approval Order.pdf
Plaintiffs' Response to Objections.pdf
Wolfson Declaration in Support of Motion for Final Approval.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Gordon Morgan

Objectors Gordon Morgan
Signers Timothy R. Hanigan
Attorneys Timothy R. Hanigan
Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Credits awarded to class members should be considered coupons and the redemption rate should be considered when calculating attorneys' fees.
  2. The 4.28 lodestar multiplier is excessive.
  3. The Court should oversee the distribution of fees.
Attachments Objection of Gordon Morgan.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Robert Hudson

Objectors Robert Hudson
Signers John J. Pentz
Attorneys John J. Pentz
C. Benjamin Nutley
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive and should not rely on the 25% benchmark.
Attachments Objection of Robert Hudson.pdf
Pentz Appearance for Objector Hudson.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Albert Zang

Objectors Albert Zang
Signers Albert Zang
Michael F. Creamer
Attorneys Michael F. Creamer
Summary
  1. Cy pres provisions may direct funds away from the class.
  2. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Albert Zang.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Jennifer Deachin n/k/a Jennifer Hinjosa

Objectors Jennifer Deachin n/k/a Jennifer Hinjosa
Signers Alan J. Sherwood
Attorneys Alan J. Sherwood
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Jennifer Hinojosa.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Patrick Sweeney

Objectors Patrick Sweeney
Signers Patrick Sweeney
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Patrick S. Sweeney.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Sean Cochran

Objectors Sean Cochran
Signers Sean Cochran
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Injunctive relief is inadequate.
  2. Class recovery is inadequate.
  3. Attorneys' fees are excessive.
Attachments Objection of Sean Cochran.pdf
Added to Index
Last Updated