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

404 F.Supp.3d 404

MALDEN TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Rasier, LLC, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 16-12538-NMG

DocketNumber : consolidated with: 16-12651-NMG

17-10142-NMG

17-10180-NMG

17-10316-NMG

17-10598-NMG

17-10586-NMG

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Signed September 6, 2019

Christopher G. Timson, Law Offices of Christopher G. Timson, PC, Norwood, MA, Daniel J. McGonagle, Paul J. Hayes, Thomas C. O'Konski, Walter B. Prince, Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Edward F. Haber, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Joseph S. Sano, Prince, Lobel Glovsky & Tye LLP, Boston, MA, Brendan R. Pitts, Colucci, Colucci, Marcus & Flavin, P.C., Milton, MA, for Plaintiffs.

Beatriz Mejia, Lauren Pomeroy, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA, John C. Dwyer, Pro Hac Vice, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Karen L. Dunn, Pro Hac Vice, Kristin Bender, Pro Hac Vice, Meryl Conant Governski, Pro Hac Vice, Stacey K. Grigsby, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Washington, DC, Michael Sheetz, Adam S. Gershenson, Julianne Landsvik, Luke T. Cadigan, Michael E. Welsh, Timothy W. Cook, Bryan Koch, Pro Hac Vice, Cooley LLP, Boston, MA, David A. Barrett, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, New York, NY, Meredith Dearborn, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Oakland, CA, Christopher G. Timson, Law Offices of Christopher G. Timson, PC, Norwood, MA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Nathaniel M. Gorton, United States District Judge This case involves a suit by the Anoush plaintiffs (taxi medallion holders in the Greater Boston) who allege that Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC (collectively "Uber" or "defendants") competed unfairly in the on-demand, ride-hail Boston transportation market in violation of M.G.L. Chapter 93A, § 11 and Massachusetts common law.¹

The Court presided over a seven-day bench trial in late July, 2019, and early August, 2019, and now publishes its findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. Parties

1. The Anoush plaintiffs ("plaintiffs" or "plaintiff corporations") are 34 corporations in the business of leasing City of Boston taxicabs (and medallions that authorize their use) to independent drivers. All 34 corporations are owned and operated by the Tutunjian family which collectively controls 362 medallions.² The plaintiffs' taxicabs are branded under the name "Boston Cab."

2. The plaintiff corporations do not have employees themselves but, pursuant to individual and identical management agreements with EJT Management, Inc. ("EJT"), EJT conducts most of their day-to-day business. EJT is also owned by the Tutunjian family.

3. Under the individual management agreements, EJT serves as an agent for the plaintiff corporations with respect to the collection of leasing revenue and the maintenance of leased taxicab vehicles for which it charges management fees. It also pays taxes and bills for plaintiffs. EJT does not, however, own any of the medallions at issue.

4. Boston Cab Dispatch, Inc. ("Dispatch"), also owned by the Tutunjian family, is a radio association that provides taxi dispatch services to its "membership." The 34 corporate plaintiffs are all members and pay membership fees to "Dispatch."

5. Ed Tutunjian ("Mr. Tutunjian") was the controlling shareholder of all 34 plaintiff corporations for most of the period of alleged unlawful conduct, i.e., June 4, 2013, through August 4, 2016 ("the conduct period"). He transferred his ownership interest in all the Tutunjian entities (34 plaintiff corporations, EJT and Dispatch) to his wife, Nancy Tutunjian, for no consideration in 2016.

6. Mary Tarpy ("Ms. Tarpy"), the daughter of Ed and Nancy Tutunjian, is the president, secretary and treasurer of all 34 plaintiff corporations and is the president of EJT and Dispatch. She has managed the day-to-day operations of the plaintiff corporations and EJT since mid-2013. As the corporate secretary, Ms. Tarpy is also responsible for the corporate books and records of all plaintiff corporations and EJT.

7. John Weeden ("Mr. Weeden") serves as the accountant for the plaintiff corporations. While Mr. Weeden maintained separate trial balances for each of the plaintiff corporations, EJT would compile the daily leasing transactions and corporate expenses (mostly transactions with EJT) within a general ledger.

8. In 2013, Dispatch and EJT sued Uber for unfair competition. That lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice in July, 2016.

9. Uber is a Delaware corporation with its principal offices in San Francisco, California. It is a technology company that uses a mobile software application ("app") to match up potential riders with drivers seeking customers for prearranged transportation.

10. Uber began providing transportation services in Massachusetts in 2011, well before the launch of its disputed ridesharing or peer-to-peer ("P2P") service, UberX P2P.

11. In October, 2011, Uber began a service called UberBLACK in Boston which allowed consumers to use an app on their phone to prearrange a ride in a livery vehicle with a livery licensed driver. In Fall 2012, Uber began providing UberTAXI in Boston which allowed riders to arrange traditional taxi rides from medallion-licensed taxicabs through the Uber app. In February, 2013, Uber offered UberX Livery which allowed riders to request rides from drivers with livery plates via the Uber app. UberX Livery fare rates were lower than UberBLACK which Uber considered a premium product.

12. Rasier, LLC ("Rasier") is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber that operates as a transportation network company ("TNC") in Massachusetts. References to "Uber" operating as a TNC apply equally to Rasier.

II. Chapter 93A Liability

A. Regulatory Framework

13. Historically, the City of Boston has regulated taxis under a set of municipal rules, ordinances and regulations ("Taxi Rules") and the Boston Police Commissioner ("the Commissioner") has the authority to regulate hackney carriages and stands. The Commissioner may delegate his authority to the Inspector of Carriages, who is the Commander of the Hackney Carriage Unit ("HCU" or "Hackney Unit"). The Hackney Unit has approximately 12 assigned police officers but typically only two of those officers serve on the street during any one shift.

14. In 2008, the Commissioner issued the Hackney Carriage Rules and Flat Rate Handbook ("Rule 403"), which regulates hackney carriage fares, medallions and hackney licenses, among other things.

15. Rule 403 defines a "hackney carriage" as

a vehicle used or designed to be used for the conveyance of persons for hire from place to place within the city of Boston.... Also known as a taxicab or taxi.

16. Rule 403 sets forth leasing and shift rates and taximeter rates. It establishes various vehicle and driver requirements for hackney carriages, including that each vehicle have a taxi medallion, be driven by a licensed hackney carriage driver and bare evidence of membership in a radio dispatch association.

17. Rule 403 also recognizes Boston's Vehicle for Hire Ordinance ("the Boston Ordinance") which provides, in relevant part:

no person, firm, or corporation driving or having charge of a taxicab or other private vehicle shall offer the vehicle for hire for the purposes 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.

18. From 2007 to 2008, Captain Robert Ciccolo ("Captain Ciccolo") served as the Commander of the Hackney Unit. Captain Ciccolo credibly testified that under his command, the Hackney Unit issued tickets to unlicensed vehicles engaged in street hails (in violation of the Boston Ordinance), but not to vehicles conducting prearranged rides, regardless of whether the vehicles had livery plates.

19. At some point, after Captain Ciccolo stepped down as Commander of the Hackney Unit and at the beginning of the conduct period, he informed the Commissioner (Ed Davis) and the Civilian Director of Hackney Licensing (Mark Cohen) of the Hackney Unit's policy of not enforcing Rule 403 with respect to prearranged livery rides.

20. In November, 2013, William Evans became Police Commissioner of the City of Boston. He served as Commissioner until the end of the conduct period in August, 2016.

21. Captain Steven McLaughlin ("Captain McLaughlin") served as Commander of the Hackney Unit from January, 2013, to May, 2014, under both Commissioners Davis and Evans. When he was Commander of the Hackney Unit, he instructed his officers not to ticket ridesharing vehicles unless they were involved in street hails.

B. Nelson Nygaard Report

22. In 2013, the Boston Globe ran a series of articles on the Boston taxi industry. Following that publication, Mayor Thomas Menino ("Mayor Menino") commissioned the Nelson/Nygaard Boston Taxi Consultant Report ("the Report").

23. Although Uber declined to participate in the preparation of the Report, Captain McLaughlin, while Commander of the Hackney Unit, asked the drafters of the Report to address how the Hackney Unit should regulate ridesharing services such as those provided by TNCs.

24. The Report, which was published in October, 2013 (four months after Uber launched UberX P2P), concludes that TNCs and livery vehicles are not regulated and do not have a regulatory body providing oversight. It further recommended that the Mayor establish an independent Taxi Advisory Committee ("TAC").

25. Senior management at Uber read the Report when it was issued in October, 2013, and concluded that it affirmed Uber's understanding that the Taxi Rules did not apply to ridesharing.

C. Ridesharing Competitors and UberX P2P

26. In March, 2013, Sidecar, a competitor to Uber, began the first P2P ridesharing program in Boston. When that happened, Michael Pao ("Mr. Pao"), the General Manager of Uber in Boston at the time, informed Uber executives that the Boston Ordinance prohibits "for

...