Malden Transp., Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc.

286 F.Supp.3d 264

MALDEN TRANSPORTATION, INC. et al., Plaintiffs,

v.UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant.

Anoush Cab, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant.

Dot Ave Cab, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant.

Max Luc Taxi, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant.

Gill & Gill, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Uber Technologies, Inc. et al, Defendant.

Sycoone Taxi, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant.

Taxi Maintenance, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Uber Technologies, Inc., Travis Kalanick, and Garrett Camp, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 16–12538–NMG

Civil Action No. 17–10142–NMG

Civil Action No. 17–10180–NMG

Civil Action No. 17–10316–NMG

Civil Action No. 16–12651–NMG

Civil Action No. 17–10586–NMG

Civil Action No. 17–10598–NMG

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Signed December 29, 2017

Darin M. Colucci, Brendan R. Pitts, Paul K. Flavin, Colucci, Colucci, Marcus & Flavin, P.C., Milton, MA, for Plaintiffs.

Michael Sheetz, Adam S. Gershenson, Michael E. Welsh, Timothy W. Cook, Cooley LLP, Joshua N. Ruby, T. Christopher Donnelly, Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar, LLP, Boston, MA, Beatriz Mejia, Cooley LLP, Melinda Haag, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Walter Brown, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA, Robin Linsenmayer, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

GORTON, J.

This case involves seven consolidated actions by various taxi medallion holders in the Greater Boston area ("plaintiffs") who allege that Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber" or "defendant") and two of its founders, Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp (the "individual defendants") competed unlawfully in the on-demand, ride-hail ground transportation market in and around Boston, Massachusetts. Plaintiffs in all seven actions allege that Uber competed unfairly in violation of the common law and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. Certain plaintiffs also allege that Uber violated state and federal antitrust law, interfered with advantageous business relationships, engaged in a civil conspiracy and aided and abetted unfair competition.

Before the Court are 1) a motion to dismiss of individual defendants Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp (Docket No. 70) and 2) defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints (Docket No. 72).

I. Background

The City of Boston has traditionally regulated taxis under a set of municipal rules, ordinances and regulations collectively known as "Taxi Rules". The Police Commissioner for the City of Boston ("the Commissioner") is authorized by statute to regulate all vehicles that fall under those rules. Boston Police Department Rule 403 ("Rule 403") requires that

[i]n the City of Boston, no person, firm, or corporation driving or having charge of a taxicab or other private vehicle shall offer the vehicle for hire for the purpose of transporting, soliciting and/or picking up a passenger or passengers unless said person is licensed as a hackney driver and said vehicle is licensed as a hackney carriage by the Police Commissioner.

City of Boston Code 16–15.05: Vehicle for Hire Ordinance (Appendix I to Rule 403).

Rule 403 applies to all vehicles "used or designed to be used for the conveyance of persons for hire from place to place" within the city of Boston.¹ The Taxi Rules impose certain regulations on taxi cabs, such as requiring possession of a taxi medallion, maintaining a properly equipped taxicab and belonging to an approved dispatch service or radio association.

Uber entered the Boston market for private transportation services in 2011 and launched its UberX service in 2013. The company provides a digital tool for requesting private vehicles-for-hire by users who download Uber's free "smart phone application" ("the Uber app"). Users who open the Uber app on their mobile phones are shown a map of their location or designated pick-up point and the available Uber-affiliated vehicles in that vicinity.

In August, 2016, Massachusetts enacted the Transportation Network Companies Act ("the TNC Act"). See M.G.L. c. 159A ½. The statute defines a TNC as an "entity that uses a digital network to connect riders to drivers to pre-arrange and provide transportation." M.G.L. c. 159A ½ § 1. The law preempts municipalities from regulating TNCs through local Taxi Rules. M.G.L. c. 159A ½ § 10 ("[N]o municipality or other local or state entity, ... may subject a [TNC]" to requirements besides the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities and the Massachusetts Port Authority.).

In the "Taxi Maintenance" action plaintiffs assert claims against Travis Kalanick, Uber's co-founder and former CEO, and Garrett Camp, an Uber co-founder and a current director. The complaint names both individuals as defendants.

The present litigation involves seven different groups of plaintiffs that represent over 700 holders of taxi medallions in the Greater Boston area. The various complaints were filed in this district between December, 2016, and April, 2017. The Court consolidated the cases pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2) on October 5, 2017. On November 13, 2017, this Court entered an order explaining in detail how the cases were to proceed consistent with judicial economy and due process for all parties.

Before the Court are two omnibus motions to dismiss filed by defendants: one with respect to Uber and the other with respect to the individual defendants.

II. Analysis

A. The Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Travis Kalanick and Garrett Camp

Only the Taxi Maintenance plaintiffs pursue a claim against the individual defendants. Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss is directed only at the Taxi Maintenance Corrected Amended Complaint.

Personal Jurisdiction

On a motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction, plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the Court has authority to exercise jurisdiction over defendants. See Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. ABA, 142 F.3d 26, 33–34 (1st Cir. 1998). The Court must take facts alleged by plaintiff as true and construe disputed facts favorably toward plaintiff. See Ticketmaster–New York, Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201, 203 (1st Cir. 1994).

In a diversity suit, this Court acts as "the functional equivalent of a state court sitting in the forum state." See Astro–Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden America, Inc., 591 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2009). As such, this Court must determine whether (1) jurisdiction is permitted by the Massachusetts long-arm statute and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction coheres with the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Id.

The Massachusetts long-arm statute, M.G.L. c. 223A, § 3, extends jurisdiction to the limits of the United States Constitution. See Tatro v. Manor Care, Inc., 416 Mass. 763, 771, 625 N.E.2d 549 (1994). Accordingly, this Court need not further consider the statute's applicability and may proceed to the due process question. See Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42, 52 (1st Cir. 2002).

Due process demands a showing of general or specific personal jurisdiction by plaintiff. See Negron–Torres v. Verizon Commc'n, Inc., 478 F.3d 19, 24 (1st Cir. 2007). Plaintiffs must demonstrate that defendants have made sufficient contacts with the forum state to justify the exercise of that jurisdiction. Id.

1. General Jurisdiction

This Court may assert general jurisdiction over a defendant who maintains continuous and systematic activity in the forum state. See United Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers of Am. v. 163 Pleasant St., 960 F.2d 1080, 1088 (1st Cir. 1992). General jurisdiction is only appropriate where the defendant's activity renders him "essentially at home in the forum state". Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011).

The Taxi Maintenance complaint states, in conclusory fashion, that the individual defendants are subject to general personal jurisdiction within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by "regularly engaging in persistent courses of conduct in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" through the Uber ride-hailing service. Plaintiffs fail, however, to allege specific facts demonstrating that the individual defendants, as opposed to the corporate defendant with which they are associated, should be considered "at home" in Massachusetts. See id. The plaintiffs' threadbare statement is insufficient to establish this Court's general jurisdiction.

2. Specific Jurisdiction

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a defendant have "minimum contacts" with the forum state such that the "maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). The plaintiff must allege that (1) the claim underlying the litigation arises directly out of, or relates to the defendant's forum-state activities, (2) the defendant's in-state contacts represent a purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. Sawtelle v. Farrell, 70 F.3d 1381, 1389 (1st Cir. 1995) (citing United Electrical Workers v. 163 Pleasant St. Corp., 960 F.2d 1080, 1089 (1st Cir. 1992) ).

"The relatedness requirement focuses on the nexus between the defendant's contacts and the plaintiff's cause of action." Nowak v. Tak How Investments, Ltd., 94 F.3d 708, 714 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing Ticketmaster–New York, Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201, 206 (1st Cir. 1994) ) (internal quotation omitted). Personal jurisdiction over an employee does not follow from the fact jurisdiction over the employer exists. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 781 n. 13, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984). Instead, there must be "an independent basis for jurisdiction based on an individual's actions." Rissman Hendricks & Oliverio, LLP v. MIV Therapeutics Inc., 901 F.Supp.2d 255, 263 ...