Trouble follows Uber around these days. Following suit to the standard MO, Uber sneaks in and steals business all over the world while operating illegally. After gaining market share, only then annoncing presence. Now, An engineer formerly employed by Google is accusd of sharing Google trade secrets thus creating the Uber application. What is done in the dark, eventually sees the light of day.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/the-evidence-against-uber-keeps-looking-worse
If we all got together and pitched in, we need to go after Mike Rawlings and the City of Dallas for Loss of Income.
The city of Dallas is responsible for our loss of income because of their wide open policy on number of drivers and number of providers. Uber Suv and black car drivers are sitting around in long lines everywhere, while people chose the cheapest means available, Uber X.
Not only has Uber,The City of Dallas, and Mike Rawlings have destroyed the transportation industry in Dallas, but also the barage of Large Busses have taken over the business of transporting large groups of convention goers to and from the venues and to the airports.
It is not competition when a single competitor is destroying the business and income of every other competitor in the same business. It is called being in violation of a Federal law called AntiTrust Competition Law.
To top this off, Yellow cab has put taxi meters and computers into the SUV’s that they lease at same price of a taxi and calls are routed to drivers in SUV’s first. So, not only has the city of Dallas and Mike Rawlings assaulted the income of thousands of drivers in the DFW Metroplex, Yellow Cab has done its part to hurt our business as well.
It cost money to sue for Antitrust, unless all drivers come together and we sue as a class action. From 2012 through 2015, I encouraged drivers to come together but Noone was interested. For the most part, it is too late but, Not for a class Action lawsuit.
We would need fo prove a loss of incone and that it was a direct result of laws made or not enforced and also that our business has been destroyed by our “so called” competion, Uber.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/02/24/uber-lyft-newark-aiport-ban/
I hope that this actually gets enforced. It is really simple if police would do their jobs and the responsible parties issuing driver permits would do their job.
At DFW, this not the case. Drivers for Uber and Lyft are required to have Vehicle decal that identifies them as a TFH driver.
If decal is in place, the drivers can easily be recognized. When drivers are not where they are supposed to be, such as hanging out at the terminal waiting for a ping verses being dispatched from the area designated for them, police should ticket them and/or arrest them and have their vehicle impounded.
There is not one good legal reason to give special treatment to these drivers whom just cannot seem to follow the laws.
It is not rocket science and by enforcing the laws enacted by the city councils, would free up so much waisted time officers are now just waiving people through, directing traffic and ignoring what is going on right under there nose.
The drivers who continue to break the law should be deactivated by Uber and Lyft and this should be monitored by the airports.
Dismissing the blatant activity of ignorant drivers is causing chaos and creating unnecessary traffic congestion and forcing the police to instead of maintaining a secure airport, now just directing traffic
Otherwise, anyone would only conclude that there are sinister reasons why airports would be allowing anything but law and order at any airport.
eadHow citedSearch
JOE SANFELIPPO CABS INC. v. City of Milwaukee, Dist. Court, ED Wisconsin 2015
JOE SANFELIPPO CABS INC., GCC INC., ROY WMS INC., FRENCHY CAB CO INC., and 2 SWEETS INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF MILWAUKEE, Defendant.
Case No. 14-CV-1036.
United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.
April 15, 2015.
DECISION AND ORDER
LYNN ADELMAN, District Judge.
In July 2014, the City of Milwaukee adopted ordinances which changed the way it regulated taxicabs. The City established a regulatory scheme for “network companies,” commonly known as rideshare companies, and it removed the cap on the number of taxicab vehicle permits it would issue. Plaintiffs, taxicab companies, objected to the changes and sued the City. Their amended complaint alleges that the new ordinances violate their rights under the Fifth Amendment, asserts various state law claims, and seeks money damages. Before me now is a motion by several cab drivers, Jatinder Cheema and Saad Malik, to intervene as defendants. Movants previously sued the City in state court, and in April 2013, persuaded a circuit court judge that the permit cap violated their rights under the state Constitution. This decision was one of the reasons that the City removed the cap. Plaintiffs oppose the motion to intervene.
Intervention may be as of right or permissive. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), with Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Under Rule 24(a), movants may intervene if: (1) their motion is timely; (2) they possess an interest related to the subject matter of the action; (3) the disposition of the action threatens to impair or impede their interest; and (4) an existing party, i.e. the City, inadequately represents their interest. Wis. Educ. Ass’n Council v. Walker, 705 F.3d 640, 657-58 (7th Cir. 2013).
Movants’ motion is timely. As to their interest in the matter, movants must show a “direct, significant, and legally protectable interest in the question at issue in the lawsuit.” Id. at 658 (quotations and citation omitted). This “is a highly fact-specific determination, making comparison to other cases of limited value.” Id. Here, movants show a sufficient interest in the question at issue, the constitutionality of removing the permit cap. Movants’ state court judgment declaring the cap unconstitutional gives them a significant legal right, and they have an interest in the enforceability of that judgment. That plaintiffs seek only monetary and not injunctive relief slightly weakens movants’ interest in this action but does not eliminate it.
One way for movants to show that their interest may be impaired or impeded by the disposition of this case is to establish that a legal determination would foreclose their rights in a subsequent proceeding. Shea v. Angulo, 19 F.3d 343, 347 (7th Cir. 1994). Movants make this showing. If plaintiffs prevail on their claim that lifting the cap violated their Fifth Amendment rights, the decision would conflict with movants’ state court judgment that the cap itself was unconstitutional. Moreover, a potential settlement might well affect movants’ rights if the City agreed to reinstate a cap as part of the agreement. See City of Chi. v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 660 F.3d 980, 986 (7th Cir. 2011) (finding a party has a right to intervene where a party may have a “conflict of interest with the [movants] when it comes to settlement possibilities”).
Finally, movants show that the City may not adequately represent their interest. Walker, 705 F.3d at 659 (“[I]intervention requires only a `minimal’ showing of inadequate representation.”); Conservation Law Found. of New England v. Mosbacher, 966 F.2d 39, 44 (1st Cir. 1992) (“An intervenor need only show that representation may be inadequate, not that it is inadequate.”). Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the City’s goal is not identical to movants’. The City’s goal is to avoid paying damages while movants want to ensure that the City does not reinstate a permit cap. Moreover, the City, a governmental entity, must consider an array of political and budgetary pressures in formulating its legal strategy, which may lead it to place other interests above movants’ interests. Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Serv., 157 F.3d 964, 973-74 (3d Cir. 1998) (“[T]he government represents numerous complex and conflicting interests. . . . [The] interests asserted by intervenors here may become lost in the thicket of sometimes inconsistent governmental policies.”). Finally, movants litigated the permit cap for several years in state court, and their adversarial relationship with the City might make the City less likely to pay careful attention to their interest.
Thus, I conclude that movants have a right to intervene in this litigation under Rule 24(a). Even if I reached a contrary conclusion, I would permit movants to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Movants’ motion is timely, their claim or defense shares a common question of law or fact with the main action, and intervention would not unduly delay or prejudice plaintiffs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). The inquiry into whether a common claim or defense exists is a broad one. Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1070 (7th Cir. 2009). Movants contend that removing the cap was constitutional, and plaintiffs claim it was not. Thus, both plaintiffs and movants raise the same question. My finding that the City may not adequately represent movants’ interest as well as movants’ state court judgment also support permissive intervention. Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 955 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating that a court may consider other factors, such as the nature and extent of the intervenors’ interest and whether the intervenors’ interests are adequately represented by the other parties, when considering permissive intervention). Further, intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice plaintiffs.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that movants’ amended motion to intervene (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall file movants’ proposed motion to dismiss and memorandum in support (ECF Nos. 25-1
What else is new about them breaking the law? Read for yourself! Unless they make changes, Uber will be subject to civil violations in California.
http://time.com/3431299/san-francisco-los-angeles-threaten-shut-down-uber-lyft/
YOU ACCEPT A RIDE AND USE THEIR SERVICES?
This is not something to brush off. If you are in an accident in a Uber vehicle, you cannot sue even if you are killed?
Well, Especially, if you are killed.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
UBER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, LOST DATA, PERSONAL INJURY, OR PROPERTY DAMAGE RELATED TO, IN CONNECTION WITH, OR OTHERWISE RESULTING FROM ANY USE OF THE SERVICES, EVEN IF UBER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. UBER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, LIABILITY OR LOSSES ARISING OUT OF: (i) YOUR USE OF OR RELIANCE ON THE SERVICES OR YOUR INABILITY TO ACCESS OR USE THE SERVICES; OR (ii) ANY TRANSACTION OR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOU AND ANY THIRD PARTY PROVIDER, EVEN IF UBER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. UBER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR DELAY OR FAILURE IN PERFORMANCE RESULTING FROM CAUSES BEYOND UBER’S REASONABLE CONTROL. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIRD PARTY TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REQUESTED THROUGH SOME REQUEST BRANDS MAY OFFER RIDESHARING OR PEER-TO-PEER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND MAY NOT BE PROFESSIONALLY LICENSED OR PERMITTED. IN NO EVENT SHALL UBER’S TOTAL LIABILITY TO YOU IN CONNECTION WITH THE SERVICES FOR ALL DAMAGES, LOSSES AND CAUSES OF ACTION EXCEED FIVE HUNDRED U.S. DOLLARS (US $500).
UBER’S SERVICES MAY BE USED BY YOU TO REQUEST AND SCHEDULE TRANSPORTATION, GOODS, OR LOGISTICS SERVICES WITH THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS, BUT YOU AGREE THAT UBER HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY OR LIABILITY TO YOU RELATED TO ANY TRANSPORTATION, GOODS OR LOGISTICS SERVICES PROVIDED TO YOU BY THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS OTHER THAN AS EXPRESSLY SET FORTH IN THESE TERMS.
THE LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMER IN THIS SECTION 5 DO NOT PURPORT TO LIMIT LIABILITY OR ALTER YOUR RIGHTS AS A CONSUMER THAT CANNOT BE EXCLUDED UNDER APPLICABLE LAW.
INDEMNITY.
You agree to indemnify and hold Uber and its officers, directors, employees, and agents harmless from any and all claims, demands, losses, liabilities, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees), arising out of or in connection with: (i) your use of the Services or services or goods obtained through your use of the Services; (ii) your breach or violation of any of these Terms; (iii) Uber’s use of your User Content; or (iv) your violation of the rights of any third party, including Third Party Providers.
BTW UBER STRONGLY DENIES THEY ARE A TRANSPORTATION CARRIER, YET, THEY ADVERTISE AS A TAXI COMPANY…IMAGINE THAT
LOOK AT VIDEO SECOND ONE DOWN ON THE LEFT
Every time you ride with Uber X you are taking a big risk. Is it really worth saving a buck or two?
Why not leave the driving to the professionals. We are fully licensed and insured, which covers you.
This is huge,,, huge.
You either fit the mold for an employer, paying sick time, vacation,workman’s comp, taxes, the whole 9 yards, deactivating at will, controlling employees daily work or, you fall into independent contractor status.. Taxi drivers are the best fit and truly represent an independent contractor. ….
You cannot have your cake and ear it too Uber.
AWESOME, this is a great victory for Uber drivers. It is about time . More States will follow . Uber is not above the law and these benefits for drivers ought to be retroactive.
Check here for summary
Get this! It seems to have become the norm now at Dallas Love Field airport that taxi cabs are being forced out every night.
I have it on video and as soon as I can get it into a format to upload, I will upload it here. Dallas Police working at Dallas Love Field circle around the airport. While approaching the taxi line up, the officer turns on his emergency lights and starts honking horn forcing taxi cabs to move out of the line.
Of course, there is a marker for the end of line and taxi cabs are extended well beyond this line. The reason is because the line is not moving and taxi drivers have no where else to go for business.
Taxi drivers are being run out of the airport while UberX has overrun the picking up of passengers at the drop off upstairs at Dallas Love Field. Even the allowed limo line did not seem to be moving as normal.
UberX is not even supposed to be able to pick up at Dallas Love Field. I stopped by and asked the officer that ran me out of the line a couple of times why he was running us out while allowing UberX to pick up passengers. His response “Ma’am, I am only one person.” This seems to indicate, that the officer is aware of the problem but there is not enough manpower to keep the situation under control. What is ironic is that taxi cabs are easily identifiable and legally permitted and licensed to work at Dallas Love Field, while UberX is doing what Uber is best at doing, sneaking in like a damn snake and launching a full assault on taxi business.
Love Field did not used to be overrun with taxi cabs. Now, drivers are desperately trying to find ways to make up for the loss of business during the day and Dallas Love Field used to be a safe haven. Many drivers have long held out hope that if our business outside of Dallas Love Field dried up, that at least we would still have the airport. It appears that the Dallas Police Department can not handle or does not know how to control the siege of Dallas Love Field by UberX.
I will add pictures of uberX line up as soon as I can get it over of video camera.
Since they advertise on Yelp as a taxi company, you will see by the evidence above that if you search on Yelp just the word, Taxis, Uber comes up as number 2. Then if you look on their listing, they categorize themselves as a taxi company. That being said, they need to fall under the same regulations here in Dallas as Taxi drivers. 24 Hour insurance coverage, purchase decals every month, pay for 2 background checks, mark there vehicles so that they can be identified, pay the City for permits and the whole 9 yards.
dfwtaxigirl's Blog 