taxicabs v chicago
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
1/169
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Illinois Transportation Trade Association,)
Yellow Group LLC, Yellow Cab )
Affiliation Inc., Taxi Affiliation Services )
LLC, YC1 LLC, YC2 LLC, YC17 LLC, )
YC18 LLC, YC19 LLC, YC20 LLC, )
YC21 LLC, YC22 LLC, YC25 LLC, )
YC26 LLC, YC29 LLC, YC32 LLC, )YC37 LLC, YC49 LLC, YC51 LLC, )
YC52 LLC, YC56 LLC, Transit Funding )
Associates LLC, 5 Star Flash, Inc., )
Chicago Medallion Six LLC, Chicago )
Carriage Cab Corporation, Royal 3CCC )
Chicago Taxi Association, Tri Global )
Financial Services, Inc., Chicago Elite )
Cab Corporation, Chicago Medallion )
Brokers One Hundred Eleven Corporate )
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 1 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
2/169
(CM6), Chicago Carriage Cab Corporation (Carriage), Royal 3CCC Chi
Association (Royal), Tri Global Financial Services, Inc. (Tri Global), Chicago
Corporation (Elite), Chicago Medallion Brokers (Brokers), One Hundred Eleven
Medallion Owners Association (111 Medallion Owners), Emilys Limousin
Company (Limousine), Francis Koblah (Koblah), Emanuel Ofosu (Ofosu)
Saul (Saul) (ITTA, Yellow Group, Yellow Affiliation, TAS, the YC Medallio
Funding, Flash, CM6, Carriage, Royal, Tri Global, Elite, Brokers, 111 Medallio
Limousine, Koblah, Ofusu and Saul are collectively referred to herein as Plain
Plaintiffs other than Saul are collectively referred to as Transportation Plaintiffs)
against defendant City of Chicago (City) as follows:
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 2 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
3/169
transportation by taxi. Taxi owners and operators worked in a competitive enviro
subject to the same regulations until the advent of the unregulated providers that g
this Complaint.
3. An established market for the purchase, sale and financing of medallthat is recognized, supported and regulated by City ordinances and regulations. In
this structure, taxi owners, operators, lenders and others, including the YC Medallio
CM6, 111 Medallion Owners, Koblah, Ofosu and others similarly situated, have
medallions and operated taxis, directly or through leases to drivers. The City has i
from time to time sold some of) the approximately 6,800 medallions in the Chicago m
Plaintiffs Funding, Tri Global and others like it are in the business of lending to
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 3 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
4/169
City of Chicago created for its citizens a public market place for the assignmenits taxicab licenses. Thus, the taxicab licenses in reality became more than j
mere personal permits granted by a governmental body to a person to pursome occupation or to carry on some business subject to regulation under police power. . . . In a functional sense, the taxicab licenses embraced the esseof property in that they were securely and durably owned and marketable.
Since Boonstra, the City has created and supported an additional twenty-two
investment-backed expectations, now totaling over $2 billion in property value, in the
based market.
6. Starting in approximately 2011, certain transportation providers begtaxi and limousine services in Chicago in open and blatant disregard of applicable
ordinances and regulations. These providers (referred to in this Complaint as the
Transportation Providers) include Uber Technologies Inc (Uber) Lyft Inc (
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 4 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
5/169
services they offer are actually de facto taxi services because their fare structure is
based on time and distance, as in the case of taxis.
8. Despite the fact that there is no meaningful difference between licbusinesses and the businesses of Uber, Lyft and Sidecar, the City has applied virtua
the requirements of the City Taxi Regulations to the Unlawful Transportation Prov
described later, this has apparently been due to a directive from the Office of the Mayo
9. The Citys decision not to apply the City Taxi Regulations in any meanto the Unlawful Transportation Providers has disrupted long-settled expectations an
very serious adverse consequences for the Transportation Plaintiffs, who have enga
taxi and limousine business in Chicago in costly reliance upon and in complianc
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 5 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
6/169
medallion market the City created. Because most purchasers of medallions must fi
investment, taxi medallion lenders, such as Plaintiffs Funding and Tri Global, that ho
interests in medallions will see the value of their collateral fall if the City permits the
Transportation Providers to continue to operate outside the law. There are currently o
over $700 million in loans to Chicago taxi owner-operators to finance the purchase of
Those loans were made in reliance on the continued application of the City Taxi R
which assure exclusivity and City enforcement of the Regulations. If the medal
continue to drop, these owners may either have to provide cash or other collateral to
may default, and in many cases become liable personally to lenders under personal
Many of these individual owners are immigrants and other small entrepreneurs, lik
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 6 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
7/169
(iii) assuring that taxi and limousine services are available to persons whonot have smartphones, internet access or credit cards, including eld
and low-income persons;
(iv) assuring that taxi and limousine services are provided exclusivelyindividuals possessing chauffers licenses who have no criminal rec
are tested annually for drug usage, and are properly insured for
commercial use of their vehicles;
(v) assuring that such services are provided only in safe and inspecvehicles that are four model-years old or newer;
(vi) establishing standardized rates in order to prevent price-gouging or in-
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 7 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
8/169
minimum charge of $4.00. Uber advertises that an individual with a private ca
transportation to the public at a price determined by adding to a base fare a metered r
can be found on Ubers website) based on the time and distance travelled. Such s
provided in vehicles that do not satisfy the insurance, inspection, accessibility or drive
requirements applicable to licensed taxi or limousine operators.
15. Unlike taxis owned by medallion owners, the Unlawful Transportationdo not require drivers or operators to obey City Taxi Regulations that require them to
calls from persons in underserved areas or to serve passengers with disabilities. R
drivers are free to turn down calls and thereby cherry-pick the customers and areas
they deem most desirable, which benefits the affluent in and near downtown to the d
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 8 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
9/169
property under Illinois law, medallion owners, and lenders holding security i
medallions, own property that may not be taken by the City without payme
compensation. Before the City allowed the invasion of the Unlawful Transportation P
someone wanted to provide taxicab services in the City, he or she had to buy or lease a
and comply with City Taxi Regulations. In return, the medallion owner received th
right to provide taxi services in Chicago. Exclusivity was an essential element of the
owners property rights and determined its value. Without compensation to the
owners or the lenders holding security interests in the medallions, the City has per
continues to permit the Unlawful Transportation Providers to usurp and trespass
exclusive property rights of medallion owners by providing those services without
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 9 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
10/169
inspected vehicles; satisfy driver-licensing requirements, and pay thousands of dolla
per medallion in City and State taxes (totaling about $24 million) measured solel
operation of the same sort of taxi businesses that the Unlawful Transportation Pro
permitted to operate without paying such taxes. Taxes paid to the City and State by li
operators aggregate more than $24 million annually. An estimate of those annual rev
forth in the following chart:
Estimated Annual City Taxi Tax Revenues
City share of state useTax
$290,000
Medallion Transfer
Tax
$8,795,000 Actual number from
2012MPEA Ai t T $2 920 000 A
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 10 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
11/169
Transportation Providers keep the unpaid taxes as profit, on top of the additional p
garner by not being required to comply with the myriad other regulations requirin
obtain commercial insurance, submit to inspections, maintain their vehicles, and op
newer cars.
21. Additionally, the Citys failure to apply the City Taxi Regulations to thTransportation Providers violates the equal protection rights of persons with disabiliti
Plaintiff Saul and others similarly situated, who are in need of accessible transporta
City. By refusing to require the Unlawful Transportation Providers to provide
vehicles to persons with disabilities pursuant to the City Taxi Regulations, the City is
treating this population differently from the non-disabled population, permitting th
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 11 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
12/169
24. Count IV seeks damages for the Citys breach of its contracts withThose contracts require that the City limit the conduct of the taxi business exclusively
who hold medallions or other taxi-service related licenses as affiliations or dispatch
and otherwise require compliance with the City Taxi Regulations.
25. The City Taxi Regulations grant the exclusive rights to operate taxrelated businesses only to licensed providers of public transportation services. Their d
comprehensive provisions include guarantees of exclusivity and support for the
system.
26. City Taxi Regulations include the following ordinance provisions regexclusive rights of the owners of medallions to operate taxis:
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 12 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
13/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
14/169
to this section. This subsection shall not apply if the vehicle used in the violawas stolen at that time and the theft was reported to the appropriate po
authorities within 24 hours after the theft was discovered or reasonably shohave been discovered.
Chicago Mun. Code 9-112-640(a). This and other enforcement provisions constitu
the promise by the City to medallion purchasers and lenders that the City will s
exclusivity and market value provisions by removing unlawful taxicabs from the
fining violators heavily.
29. By permitting the Unlawful Transportation Providers to operate wicomplying with City Taxi Regulations, the City has breached its contract with the YC
Owner Plaintiffs, CM 6, the 111 Medallion Owners, Koblah, Ofosu and all othe
situated medallion owners It has also breached its contracts based on taxi and limo
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 14 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
15/169
Plaintiffs to provide wheelchair accessible vehicles and to accept government
vouchers in partial payment of taxi fares. By failing to enforce regulations intended to
transportation more accessible to persons with disabilities, the City has breached its
obligations to them.
31. Count V is pleaded in the alternative to Count IV and seeks damaprinciples of promissory estoppel. For many years the City has sold and taxed t
medallions as part of the comprehensive regulatory program it established and fos
among other things, establishes the total number of medallions and guarantees medall
the exclusive right to provide taxi services in Chicago. This regulatory program con
Citys promise to medallion owners and lenders holding security interests in meda
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 15 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
16/169
constitute affirmative acts by the City upon which the Transportation Plaintiffs reason
to their detriment as summarized in the preceding paragraph. The City is estopped fro
a de factosystem under which the Unlawful Transportation Providers are allowed to p
services without being required to comply with the obligations imposed upon Tra
Plaintiffs, who undertook such obligations in reliance on the exclusive, regulated
system.
33. The City has drafted an ordinance that might purport to create a separsmartphone-dispatched transportation providers to accommodate the Unlawful Tra
Providers. If enacted, such an ordinance would merely ratify and codify the Citys
state law violations described herein.
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 16 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
17/169
fairness; (v) the proposed ordinance would impose sharply reduced public safety requi
the Unlawful Transportation Providers, as compared to the Transportation Plaintiffs
vehicle age and other operating requirements; and (vi) the proposed ordinance, when
with the influx of hundreds or thousands of drivers who would pay virtually nothing
to operate as de factotaxis, would destroy the $2.4 billion investment of persons and
have expended large sums to purchase and operate under the Citys long-standing
medallion system. If such an ordinance is adopted, unless its final terms preserve a le
field and the investment-backed expectations of medallion owners and lenders, incl
exclusivity rights to operate taxis, it will violate Plaintiffs rights. Plaintiffs will see
this Complaint accordingly.
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 17 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
18/169
ordinance violations that are the subject of the claims at issue here. Ex. 2 at 2. H
shown in this Complaint, Judge Colemans assumption that the City would enforce it
incorrect: she was unaware that, upon information and belief, the Office of the
quietly handcuffed the Commissioner of Business Affairs and Consumer
(Commissioner) from taking steps to regulate the Unlawful Transportation Provi
result, the City in fact has not been regulating the practices of Uber and other
Transportation Providers, and the harms recognized by Judge Coleman from the
violations have not been and will not be remedied by the City regulatory enforc
assumed would occur.
36. It should be noted that the record developed before Judge Colem
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 18 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
19/169
Transportation Providers. The Citys secret hold had the effect of aiding Uber
position before Judge Coleman, as Uber had asked her to defer entering any injunctio
City acts on its regulations, while the City was quietly holding its regulations in
pending the outcome of that litigation.
39. The Citys secret hold on enforcing the City Taxi Regulations aUnlawful Transportation Providers has enabled the Unlawful Transportation Pr
continue to dispatch well over a million illegal rides in the City, to the financial detrim
Transportation Plaintiffs and to the detriment of public safety, while costing the City
dollars of medallion, tax and fee revenue.
40. The extent of the Citys failure to apply the City Taxi Regulations to th
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 19 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
20/169
The City has applied the City Taxi Regulations to virtually none of these rides, w
collectively now substantially exceed one million rides per year.
41. An additional exhibit introduced at the preliminary injunction hearinghow Ubers rides are heavily concentrated downtown and in affluent wards of the
neglecting poorer and minority wards. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a demonstrative exhib
ride statistics generated by Uber itself are superimposed on a census tract map of Ch
larger colored dots and lines show the greatest frequency of Uber rides. With
exception of Midway Airport, the rides are heavily concentrated in the darker ce
containing the highestper capitaincome. Vast stretches of the south, southwest, sout
and northwest sides have virtually no service from Uber. By City ordinance, the Tra
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 20 of 67 PageID
il d / / f
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
21/169
include representing and furthering the interests of its members in, among other thing
uniform enactment and enforcement of laws governing the transportation industry.
43. Plaintiff Yellow Group is a limited liability company organized anunder the laws of the State of Delaware. Yellow Group has its principal place of
3351 W. Addison Street, Chicago, Illinois. Yellow Groups principal business activ
of providing taxi transportation services to the Chicago public through its who
subsidiaries.
44. Plaintiff Yellow Affiliation is a corporation organized and existing undof the State of Illinois. Yellow Affiliation has its principal place of business at 3351 W
Street, Chicago, Illinois. Yellow Affiliation is a licensed taxi affiliation in the City
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 21 of 67 PageID
C 1 14 00827 D t # 1 Fil d 02/06/14 P 22 f 67 P ID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
22/169
licensed medallion owner owning multiple medallions in the City of Chicago and a
Yellow Affiliation.
47. Plaintiff Funding is a limited liability company organized and existinglaws of the State of Delaware. Its principal place of business is at 3351 W. Addi
Chicago, Illinois. Funding is in the business of providing loans to finance the p
Chicago taxi medallions.
48. Plaintiff Flash is a corporation organized and existing under the laws oof Illinois. Flash has its principal place of business at 9696 W. Foster, Chicago, Illino
principal business activity is as a taxi affiliation providing services, including a com
scheme, dispatch and insurance, to its licensed medallion members.
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 22 of 67 PageID
C 1 14 00827 D t # 1 Fil d 02/06/14 P 23 f 67 P ID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
23/169
affiliation is to provide services, including a common color scheme, dispatch and in
its licensed medallion members.
52. Plaintiff Tri Global is a corporation organized and existing under the State of Illinois. Tri Global has its principal place of business at 2617 S. Wabash Ave
Illinois. Tri Global is in the business of providing loans to finance the purchase of C
medallions.
53. Plaintiff Elite is a corporation organized and existing under the laws oof Illinois. Elite has its principal place of business at 2617 S. Wabash Ave., Chicag
Elite is a licensed taxicab medallion manager in the City of Chicago.
54. Plaintiff Brokers is a corporation organized and existing under the l
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 23 of 67 PageID
Case: 1:14 cv 00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 24 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
24/169
about April 2013, he pursued the American Dream by purchasing a medallion and op
own taxi. He bought the medallion from a private party for $370,000 and paid the
transfer tax of $18,500. The purchase was financed by a loan secured by the meda
Koblahs revenues have declined materially since the Unlawful Transportation Provi
operating, threatening his ability to continue to make payments on his loans and
business. He and his wife, a nursing student, depend on his taxi earnings.
58. Unlike the drivers deployed by the Unlawful Transportation Providenot only made a substantial investment in a medallion and paid substantial taxes to the
required to comply with the City Taxi Regulations. For example, when he sought
medallion with his 2009 Toyota Camry Hybrid, the City refused because of its rule
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 24 of 67 PageID
Case: 1:14 cv 00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 25 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
25/169
sustain his business. On a typical day his revenues have declined 30-40%. He
marked decline in street hails since the Unlawful Transportation Providers began
Unlike the Unlawful Transportation Providers, he pays approximately $146 per w
affiliation in order to carry the commercial liability insurance required by the
Regulations.
60.
Plaintiff Saul is a Chicago resident, successful entrepreneur and
advocate for the rights of disabled persons. Among his many accomplishmen
following: He is the founder and CEO of Matrix Media, United Broadcasting Co
WebTalkRadio.net, and pioneered a number of broadcast firsts. Traditional
accomplishments include the creation of the Sears College Football Game of the We
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 25 of 67 PageID
Case: 1:14 cv 00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 26 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
26/169
61. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation created pursuanlaw. The City is authorized by statute to regulate taxis and all others pursuing like o
See 65 ILCS 5/11-42-6.
62. The Commissioner is the highest-ranking City administrative officer rfor the enforcement of the City Taxi Regulations. The Commissioner is not formall
her official capacity because it would be duplicative of joining the City.
Transportation Services Provided
by the Unlawful Transportation Providers
63. Uber is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of thDelaware. Uber maintains its principal place of business at 182 Howard St. #8, San
California Uber currently offers three forms of taxi service in Chicago through a
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 26 of 67 PageID
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 27 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
27/169
UberX were: $3.15 base fare, plus $0.40 per minute for speeds unde
per hour, $1.75 per mile for speeds above 11 miles per hour, with a $6
fare and a $5 cancellation fee. On or about January 9, 2014, Uber
standard UberX rates to a $2.40 base fare, plus $0.24 per minute plus $
with a $3.20 minimum fare and a $5 cancellation fee. However, as
described below, through its surge pricing program, Uber regula
these rates by factors of two to eight during periods of high dem
comparison, the Citys established base taximeter rates for licensed tax
date for a single passenger were: $3.25 base fare, $1.80 for each mile
for each 36 seconds of time elapsed, with no minimum (other than the
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 27 of 67 PageID
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 28 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
28/169
$0.85 per minute for speeds under 11 miles per hour, $3.50 per mile for speed
miles per hour, with a $15 minimum fare and a $10 cancellation fee. On or abo
9, 2014, Uber adjusted the UberBlack minute and distance rates to $0.35 per m
$3.25 per mile. Prior to January 9, 2014, the standard rates in Chicago for Ube
a $14 base fare, plus $1.05 per minute for speeds under 11 miles per hour, $4.5
for speeds above 11 miles per hour, with a $25 minimum fare and a $10 cance
On or about January 9, 2014, Uber adjusted the UberSUV minute and distan
$0.55 per minute plus $4.05 per mile. The fare is paid to Uber via the passen
card registered with Uber. Upon information and belief, Uber remits 80% of the
driver and keeps 20% as its fee.
Case: 1:14 cv 00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 28 of 67 PageID
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 29 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
29/169
Pursuant to this provision, at certain times Uber charges its customers fares to ride
UberX cars or UberBlack or UberSUV cars at double or even higher rates than
permissible under the taximeter rates established by the City Taxi Regulations. Ube
this practice after gouging customers in New York City following Hurricane Sandy in
Uber continues to employ surge pricing in Chicago, and did so, for example, on Fr
September 27, 2013, at which time some UberX riders were surprised to be notifie
were being charged double the ordinary UberX rates, which was about double
permissible taximeter rates. In other instances of high demand, such as the recen
snowy New Years Eve, Uber has charged as much as eight times its regular rates duri
periods with much higher minimum fares, such that customers were charged well ov
Case: 1:14 cv 00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 29 of 67 PageID
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 30 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
30/169
administrative fee of up to 20% of each donation. (See Exhibit 6.) Recently, L
away from the fictitious donation system. In Chicago, Lyft now charges based on
distance calculation. As of February 4, 2014, Lyfts charge per mile is $1.25, the cost
is $.30, there is a $2.00 pickup fee and a $1.00 Trust & Safety Fee (Lyft mark
supporting its purported safety standards), with a $4.00 minimum fare and a $5.00 c
fee. Lyft also has its own version of surge pricing, which it refers to as Prime T
During busy peak times, Lyft uses the Prime Time Tips system, under w
determines a mandatory tip percentage to be charged for rides. (See Exhibit 7.) L
customers before they confirm a ride that Prime Time Tips are in effect and the percen
tip. During the December 2013 holiday-period, Lyft advertised that Prime Time
Case: 1:14 cv 00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 30 of 67 PageID
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 31 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
31/169
suggested donation within 24 hours, the passengers card was charged the
donation. According to the Sidecar app, the suggested donation was calculated bas
others are paying for trips of similar distance and time travelled. Sidecar retained a
of the donation. (SeeExhibit 8.) Upon information and belief, Sidecar ended the
fiction, and charges fares in a manner similar to that used by UberX and Lyft.
Uber, Lyft and Sidecar Operate Unlicensed Taxi Businessesin Violation of the City Taxi Regulations
67. Uber, Lyft and Sidecar operate unlicensed taxi businesses providing seare identical in all material respects to the services offered by the Transportation Pla
other firms and individuals that operate in compliance with the City Taxi Regula
Unlawful Transportation Providers do so by providing the following services to the pu
Case c 008 ocu e t ed 0 /06/ age 3 o 6 age
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 32 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
32/169
service requests per month through smartphone apps, as well as nearly
web or text message;
iii) Like the Transportation Plaintiffs, Uber uses a metering system based and time to determine the fare; Ubers metering system is GPS-based
smartphone as the hardware;
iv)
Lyft and, on information and belief, Sidecar also determine the fare ba
time and distance calculation; Lyft and Sidecar charge a fee for arr
transportation;
v) Like the Transportation Plaintiffs, Uber, Lyft and Sidecar accept payment for the fare; all three require payment by credit card prearrang
g g
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 33 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
33/169
ii) UberTaxi imposes, in addition to the meter rate, an additional bookingdefault gratuity, of which Uber receives at least the booking fee a
card processing fee; the City has permitted Uber to charge the bookin
though it rejected previous requests by some Transportation Plaintiffs
booking fee;
iii) City Taxi Regulations require affiliations, medallion owners and taxicash and debit cards from the Taxi Accessible Program (as well as ot
programs), not just payment by credit cards (id. 9-112-510; City
Taxicab Medallion License Holder Rules and Regulations (Ta
TX5.07); Uber, Lyft and Sidecar accept only credit card payments, a
g g
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 34 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
34/169
(Mun. Code 9-112-550; Dispatcher Regs. R. Nos. 1-2, 6); the
Transportation Providers do not have such agreements, yet dispatch to d
vii) City Taxi Regulations require a two-way radio dispatch system (Mun112-320; Dispatcher Regs. R. No. 1(d)); the Unlawful Transportation
have only one-way text transmissions by smartphone (which inevita
incidents of driving-while-texting);
viii) City Taxi Regulations require every taxi driver to have their dispatch raon, and taximeters must be connected to an active dispatch radio (Mun
112-320(c); Taxi Regs. TX5.02(c)(4), 5.10); the Unlawful Tra
Providers do not meet any such requirements;
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 35 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
35/169
Transportation Providers dispatch to drivers who do not hold a chauff
or have insurance covering rides for hire;
xii) City Taxi Regulations require medallion owners to carry public liabilitwith a minimum coverage for each taxicab of $350,000 per occurrence
workers compensation insurance (Mun. Code Sec. 9-112-330); The
Transportation Providers are not required to carry insurance co
commercial, for hire use of the cars or workers compensation
covering the drivers of the cars they operate;
xiii) City Taxi Regulations require affiliations to provide continuing eddrivers (Mun. Code 9-112-350; City of Chicago Rules and Regu
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 36 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
36/169
Code 9-112-180; Chauffeur Regs. Rule CH5.02.); the Unlawful Tra
Providers are, upon information and belief, operating in violation
Regulations in various respects:
(1)their drivers may choose to reject passengers based on destination;(2)the rating systems of the smartphone apps result in passeng
different grades from drivers, thereby encouraging subsequent
reject certain lower-rated passengers in favor other others wit
ratings; and
(3)Lyfts profile of each passenger includes a picture of the passengenabling their drivers to either avoid or prefer certain passenger
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 37 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
37/169
xviii) City Taxi Regulations require medallion owners to submit to regperformed vehicle inspections (Mun. Code 9-112-050, 060, 070;
TX3.03); the Unlawful Transportation Providers do not submi
inspections;
xix) City Taxi Regulations require medallion owners to meet specific drequipment requirements (Mun. Code 9-112-140; Taxi Regs. TX6.01
Unlawful Transportation Providers do not;
xx) City Taxi Regulations prohibit medallion owners from leasing to drivenot licensed chauffeurs in good standing or are otherwise below a c
have negative driving records or criminal records, or who fail an annua
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 38 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
38/169
(Mun. Code 9-112-250); upon information and belief, the
Transportation Providers do not impose such restrictions or monitor wh
drivers work excessive hours;
xxiii) City Taxi Regulations require medallion owners to equip all taxis with meet standards published by the National Institute of Standards and T
and that must be active whenever the taxi is engaged for hire in the C
have the meters inspected and tested annually (Mun. Code 9-112
Regs. TX5.02-5.05); the Unlawful Transportation Providers use smart
as the metering device that are not subject to use limits or calibration te
xxiv)
City Taxi Regulations require medallion owners to collect taxi data, to
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 39 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
39/169
i) The Unlawful Transportation Providers are subject to Illinois law requirinwith the State of proof of commercial liability insurance (625 ILCS 5/8-10
information and belief, the Unlawful Transportation Providers have not com
ii) The Unlawful Transportation Providers do not comply with the Illinois TAct of 2007, which requires that the taxi drivers picture, license or
number, and exterior identification number be visibly posted in each cab;
telephone number for the passenger to call be visibly posted so that the pas
report reckless driving. 625 ILCS 55/5. The cars dispatched by UberX
Sidecar have no driver identification, photograph or phone number posted
indistinguishable from ordinary passenger cars (except that Lyft u
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 40 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
40/169
The Citys Discrimination On the Basis of Disability, Race and Other Fact
73. The City Taxi Regulations contain several regulations intended to services more accessible to persons with disabilities. Plaintiff Saul and other pe
disabilities are the intended beneficiaries of these accessibility provisions.
74. As noted above, a licensee that owns or controls 20 or more licensewheelchair accessible vehicles for at least five percent of its fleet. (Mun. Code 9-1
Upon information and belief, each of the Unlicensed Transportation Providers contrac
controls more than 20 vehicles, each of which should be licensed under the City Tra
Regulations. However, probably none is wheelchair accessible, and, in any ev
Providers currently have no means on their systems to dispatch such accessible vehicle
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 41 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
41/169
subsidized by PACE. Such persons can pay $5.00 for a credit of up to $13.50 per ta
and redeem the subsidy by swiping a debit card in the credit card reader taxicabs are
maintain under the City Taxicab Regulations. Compliance with T.A.P. includes acc
processing T.A.P. forms of payment, such as the T.A.P. swipe card. (Id.) The Tra
Plaintiffs typically do not receive payment from PACE for rides provided to T.A.P.
for 30-45 days. Moreover, because PACE sometimes determines that certain rider
qualified for the subsidy, the reimbursement rate is less than 100%, and the Tra
Plaintiffs lose thousands of dollars each year for such unreimbursed rides.
77. The City is not requiring the Unlawful Transportation Providers to cothese accessibility obligations. They do not provide wheelchair accessible vehicles, a
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 42 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
42/169
first of whom can only request rides from and obtain governmental subsidies t
Transportation Plaintiffs and other regulated taxicab services, while the second of
request rides from any taxicab, whether or not regulated.
80. As stated above, the City is also failing to require the Unlawful TraProviders to comply with the provisions in the City Taxi Regulations that taxicabs co
all Federal, State and City anti-discrimination laws, respond to dispatches to anyw
City, accept cash, and not refuse a ride based on the passengers destination. Th
Transportation Providers are free to pick and choose passengers based on who they
they will be picked up and where they will be dropped off. This enables the Provid
riders and neighborhoods based on perceived race and ethnicity. Additionally, the Ci
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 43 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
43/169
Plaintiffs, to be required to compete against unlawful taxi services that do not comp
regulations. 1 Referring to companies like Lyft and Sidecar, Kalanick said that
engaging in regulatory arbitrage, and that each ride they arranged in violation
constituted a separate criminal misdemeanor. He complained that they opera
carrying insurance. Because they operate outside the regulatory structure and the co
imposed he said that they eat you up from the bottom up.
83. Rather than insist on compliance with the law, Mr. Kalanick admittedhas developed a playbook under which it would (and did) join the other lawb
markets, like Chicago, where they operate. Uber notified municipal authorities that
not enforce the law within thirty days against the violators (Lyft and Sidecar), U
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 44 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
44/169
transportation by working exclusively with unlicensed, non-commercially insured ve
drivers. Uber stated:
Over the last year, new startups have sought to compete with Uberby offering transportation services without traditional commercialinsurance or licensing. Uber refrained from participating in thistechnology sector known as ridesharing due to regulatoryrisk that ridesharing drivers may be subject to fines or criminalmisdemeanors for participating in non-licensed transportation forcompensation.
In most cities across the country, regulators have chosen not toenforce against nonlicensed transportation providers usingridesharing apps. This course of non-action resulted in massiveregulatory ambiguity leading to one-sided competition which Uberhas not engaged in to its own disadvantage. It is this ambiguitywhich we are looking to address with Ubers new policy onridesharing:
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 45 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
45/169
services without complying with the City Taxi Regulations. The City has provid
approval by not taking meaningful action to enforce the City Taxi Regulations in t
Ubers public challenge to regulators stated in the White Paper, and repeated re
enforcement from Plaintiffs and others. The Citys tacit approval is also reflected by
public statement of Spielfogel that enforcing rules against Uber and other
Transportation Providers had been put on indefinite hold. The actions of Uber an
constitute and reflect the existence of an agreement between them not to enforce the
Regulations against Uber and other Unlawful Transportation Providers.
88. Contrary to Ubers assertion in the White Paper, there has not been anyambiguity concerning the relevant law and regulations. The extensive City Taxi Regu
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 46 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
46/169
expressly state in capital letters that Uber will not conduct background
be liable for any injury caused by their drivers: THE COMPA
INTRODUCE YOU TO THIRD PARTY TRANSPORTATION PR
FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION.
NOT ASSESS THE SUITABILITY, LEGALITY OR ABILITY
THIRD PARTY TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS AND YOU EX
WAIVE AND RELEASE THE COMPANY FROM ANY A
LIABILITY, CLAIMS OR DAMAGES ARISING FROM OR IN A
RELATED TO THE THIRD PARTY TRANSPORTATION PROVID
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIRD PARTY TRANSPORTATION PR
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 47 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
47/169
CAUSES OF ACTION OR DAMAGES ARISING FROM YOUR US
APPLICATION OR SERVICE, OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO TH
PARTIES INTRODUCED TO YOU BY THE APPLICATION OR SE
b. Contrary to Ubers extensive limitations on its responsibilities to its quoted above, Ubers White Paper states: Innovation and consumer s
the core of Ubers culture. . . . We wanted to set the rules in a p
everyone would agree that safety and welfare of consumers was take
Ex. 9 at 6. This is false. It is contradicted by the language quoted abo
as by additional disclaimers in its apps terms and conditions: THE
OF THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES SCHEDULED THROU
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 48 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
48/169
liability policy provides coverage, which it does not. An agency of t
California recently determined that Ubers excess policy does n
insurance coverage for the UberX drivers, passengers or the public. U
released its insurance policy publicly or filed it (or the policies of its dr
the State as required by 625 ILCS 5/8-101. Even if such covera
existed regarding so-called ridesharing trips, it is misleading and illuso
to tout coverage for liability because the very same disclaimers of liabi
above purport to hold Uber harmless from any potential claim for dama
insurer may have to defend from a passenger involved in an accident.
90. The falsity of Ubers insurance representations was recently e
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
49/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
50/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 51 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
51/169
TRANSPORTATION THAT IS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS, OF
HARMFUL TO MINORS, UNSAFE OR OTHERWISE OBJECTI
AND THAT YOU USE THE APPLICATION AND THE SERVICE
OWN RISK. This language comes from Ubers terms and conditio
above in Paragraph 90.
d. In a tweet on October 25, 2013 (Ex. 10D), she tweeted Its the FridStay safe. Take only licensed taxis! Posted below that text is
Ridesharing: Are you covered? over a photo of a totally wrecked ca
by the caption: Standard Auto Insurance will not pay for loss wh
while [your personal vehicle] is being used as a public or livery convey
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 52 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
52/169
with unlawful, unlicensed operators like the Unlawful Transportation Providers. Th
unlawful discrimination against lawful operators will continue to worsen unless
requires the City apply the City Taxi Regulations impartially and in a non-arbitrary ma
similarly-situated transportation providers while respecting the investment-backed e
the City has created and fostered.
98. The Citys failure to enforce the City Taxi Regulations has alreadyimpact the market value of taxi medallions.
99. As noted above, until recently, the market value of medallions $360,000 or more. In a typical medallion sale, the purchaser would pay 25% of the p
and borrow 75% of the price from entities like Plaintiff Funding, Plaintiff Tri
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 53 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
53/169
collective value of Funding and Tri Globals loan portfolios exceeds $250 million. I
values drop, Funding and Tri Global would be required to post tens of millions of doll
or collateral to avoid default.
101. Because of the Citys failure to require the Unlawful Transportation Pcomply with the City Taxi Regulations, medallion values have already begun to fall
trend continues, the consequences to Transportation Plaintiffs and other medallion o
lenders would be catastrophic: defaults will occur, medallion values will fall further, l
not finance future sales of medallions, medallion owners will be unable to sell, and
including owners, lenders, brokers and affiliations, will collapse.
102. The Unlawful Transportation Providers have not been required to
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
54/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 55 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
55/169
required to provide to their lenders to maintain the loan-to-
required under their financing agreements;
ii. For the Plaintiffs who extended loans to medallion owners secumedallions, an amount of cash sufficient to restore the rat
amount to medallion value that existed prior to the dim
medallion value caused by the Citys failure to require the
Transportation Providers to acquire medallions and otherwise
the City Taxi Regulations against the Unlawful Transportation P
c. An award of the Plaintiffs attorneys fees and litigation expenses;d. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 56 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
56/169
Transportation Plaintiffs so long as it permits de facto taxi operations by the
Transportation Providers on an uneven playing field.
113. The City has not offered any rational justification for the unequal appthe City Taxi Regulations. As described herein, the Citys decision to apply the
Regulations unequally is not rationally related to any legitimate governmental interest
114. Plaintiffs are suffering and will continue to suffer direct and tangibledamages from the Citys actions and inactions in that, without limitation, (i) the m
collateral value of the medallions and their marketability are being or will be redu
unequal application of the City Taxi Regulations, (ii) the Plaintiffs who operate taxis d
being injured in that the revenues derived from their lawful operations will be reduced
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 57 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
57/169
116. Plaintiffs are entitled to the following relief under Count II:a. An injunction enjoining the City from unequal enforcement of the
Regulations;
b. Damages resulting from the Citys unequal enforcement of the Regulations;
c. An award of their attorneys fees and litigation expenses;d. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Count III Violation of Substantive Due Process Rights
117. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-117.118. The Citys administration of the City Taxi Regulations, applyin
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
58/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
59/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
60/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 61 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
61/169
133. The City has materially breached the Regulated Taxi Operators Callowing the Unlawful Transportation Providers to offer services that are virtually iden
services offered by the Transportation Plaintiffs, but without requiring that they obta
or otherwise comply with applicable law and regulations.
134. The Citys breach of the Regulated Taxi Operators Contract has daTransportation Plaintiffs by causing loss of revenues and profits, and reducing the va
businesses, assets and their taxi licenses.
135. Plaintiff Saul and others similarly situated are intended third-party benethe Regulated Taxi Operators Contract. The City has materially breached this C
failing to require the Unlawful Transportation Providers to comply with the a
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
62/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 63 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
63/169
c. An injunction requiring the City to enforce the exclusive licensing rulein the City Taxi Regulations against the Unlawful Transportation Provi
d. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.Count VI Equitable Estoppel
146. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1-146.147. The Citys enactment and past enforcement of the City Taxi Regulatio
as its sales of medallions, constitute affirmative acts by the City over the course of dec
148. The Transportation Plaintiffs substantially and reasonably relied to theiupon these affirmative City acts by, inter alia,investing millions of dollars through
medallions, financing medallions and/or creating and operating taxi affiliations.
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 64 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
64/169
Dated: February 6, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiffs,
By: /s/ Edward W. FeldmanOne of their attorneys
Michael L. ShakmanEdward W. FeldmanStuart M. Widman
Melissa B. PryorMILLER SHAKMAN &BEEM LLP
180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3600Chicago, Illinois 60601312-263-3700
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
65/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 66 of 67 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
66/169
Forcast II Hacking Corp.Funny Monica in Chicago Inc.Gala Cab Corp.
Galina Cab Corp.Gap Cab Corp.Gem and R Cab Corp.Geris Cab Corp.Green Eyes Cab Corp.Green Tea Cab Corp.Hail Hacking Corp.Humidity II Hacking Corp.
I&B Midwest Enterprise, Inc.Jasmin Taxi, Inc.July Cab Corp.June Cab Corp.Killer Dog Cab Corp.King Edward Cab Corp.Koshechka Taxi, Inc.Kukla Cab Corp.
Li ht B C b C
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
67/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
68/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 2 of 10 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
69/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 3 of 10 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
70/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
71/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 5 of 10 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
72/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 6 of 10 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
73/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
74/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 8 of 10 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
75/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 9 of 10 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
76/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 10 of 10 PageI
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
77/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
78/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
79/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
80/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
81/169
E X H I B I T 3
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
82/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 3 of 7 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
83/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 4 of 7 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
84/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 5 of 7 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
85/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 6 of 7 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
86/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 7 of 7 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
87/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
88/169
E X H I B I T 4
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
89/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
90/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
91/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
92/169
E X H I B I T 5
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
93/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 1 of 24 PageI
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
94/169
E X H I B I T 6
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 2 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
95/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 3 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
96/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 4 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
97/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 5 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
98/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 6 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
99/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 7 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
100/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 8 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
101/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 9 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
102/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
103/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 11 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
104/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
105/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
106/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 14 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
107/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
108/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 16 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
109/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
110/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 18 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
111/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 19 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
112/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
113/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
114/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 22 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
115/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 23 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
116/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 24 of 24 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
117/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
118/169
E X H I B I T 7
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
119/169
( f f L ft)
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
120/169
(no fee for Lyft).
We're also transitioning from donations to regular payments in Chicago
starting today, providing peace of mind to drivers. You can always
check prices in the app or our FAQand request a price review through
your ride receipt if you need to.
And when we say all hands on deck, we mean it! Even our co-founder
John Zimmer will be out driving with Lyft on NYE. :)
Happy New Year!
Emily Castor
Lyft Community Team
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
121/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 2 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
122/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 3 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
123/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 4 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
124/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 5 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
125/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 6 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
126/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 7 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
127/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 8 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
128/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 9 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
129/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 10 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
130/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
131/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
132/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 13 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
133/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 14 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
134/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
135/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 16 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
136/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 17 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
137/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
138/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 19 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
139/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
140/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 21 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
141/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
142/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 23 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
143/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 24 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
144/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 25 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
145/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 26 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
146/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 27 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
147/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 28 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
148/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
149/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 30 of 31 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
150/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
151/169
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
152/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-9 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 2 of 7 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
153/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-9 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 3 of 7 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
154/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-9 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 4 of 7 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
155/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-9 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 5 of 7 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
156/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-9 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 6 of 7 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
157/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-9 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 7 of 7 PageID
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
158/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-10 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 1 of 11 PageI
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
159/169
E X H I B I T 10
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-10 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 2 of 11 PageI
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
160/169
E X H I B I T A
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-10 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 3 of 11 Pag
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
161/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-10 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 4 of 11 PageI
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
162/169
E X H I B I T B
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-10 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 5 of 11
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
163/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-10 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 6 of 11 PageI
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
164/169
E X H I B I T C
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-10 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 7 of 11 Pag
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
165/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-10 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 8 of 11 PageI
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
166/169
E X H I B I T D
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-10 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 9 of 11 Pa
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
167/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-10 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 10 of 11 P
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
168/169
Case: 1:14-cv-00827 Document #: 1-10 Filed: 02/06/14 Page 11 of 11 P
-
7/27/2019 Taxicabs v Chicago
169/169