Uber Lawsuit

Case 1:21-cv-00784-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 1, PageID.
1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MATT MELLEN,
Plaintiff, Case No.
v. Hon.
JASON B. DALTON; RASIER, LLC; and

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendants.
Matthew R. Cooper (P43072) Thomas W. Cranmer (P25252)

COOPER LAW, PLC Matthew P. Allen (P57914)
134 South Phelps St. James L. Woolard (P77493)
P.O. Box 64 MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND
Decatur, MI 49045 STONE, P.L.C.
(269) 436-8316 840 W. Long Lake Rd., Ste. 150
[email protected] Troy, Michigan 48098
(248) 879-2000
Frank B. Melchiore (P41238) [email protected]
LAWFM [email protected]
535 Central Ave., Ste. 306 [email protected]
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(727) 822-5900 Attorneys for Defendants Uber Technologies,
[email protected] Inc. and Rasier, LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Case 1:21-cv-00784-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 09/10/21 Page 2 of 8
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”)
and Rasier, LLC (“Rasier”) notice the removal of this civil action from the Circuit Court for the
County of Kalamazoo, State of Michigan (Case No. 21-0066-NO) to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division. Uber and Rasier state as follows
in support of their Notice of Removal:
1. On February 18, 2021, Plaintiff Matt Mellen filed an action in the Kalamazoo
County, Michigan Circuit Court against Uber, Rasier, and Jason B. Dalton for violation of the
Michigan Consumer Protection Act, M.C.L. § 445.901 et seq. (“MCPA”), fraud, and silent fraud.
See Ex. 1 ¶¶ 22-49. The action was assigned to Judge Alexander C. Lipsey as Case No. 21-0066-
NO. See id.
2. This action is removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), which provides in relevant part
that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have
original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of
the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
3. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)
as the action is between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum
or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest or costs.
4. Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that he resides in Kalamazoo County, Michigan.
Ex. 1 ¶ 1. Plaintiff is therefore a citizen of the state of Michigan.
5. Defendant Uber is incorporated in the State of Delaware and its principal place of
business is located in the State of California. Uber is accordingly a citizen of the states of Delaware
and California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
2
6. Defendant Rasier is a limited liability company of which Uber is the sole member.
Rasier is accordingly a citizen of the states of Delaware and California. See Delay v. Rosenthal
Collins Grp., LLC, 585 F.3d 1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009).
7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jason B. Dalton is a resident of Michigan. Ex. 1 ¶
6. However, Plaintiff alleges no claims in his Complaint against Dalton: the three counts in the
Complaint are expressly brought only against “Defendants Uber,” defined in the Complaint as
Uber and Rasier. Id. ¶¶ 4-5, 19-20, 23-29, 32-36, 41-46. Plaintiff also fails to allege any elements
of his substantive claims for violation of the MCPA, fraud, or silent fraud as to Dalton. See id. ¶¶
22-49. In particular, Plaintiff fails to allege that Dalton made any of the alleged representations
giving rise to Plaintiff’s MCPA, fraud, and silent fraud claims. See id. ¶¶ 5, 19, 25-26, 28-29, 32-
36, 41-42, 44-46.
8. Plaintiff’s allegations would otherwise fail to support a viable claim against Dalton
because the limitations period for any such claim expired long ago. Plaintiff alleges that on
February 20, 2016, Dalton “kidnap[ped], falsely imprison[ed], and batter[ed]” Plaintiff and drove
in a manner that “severely traumatiz[ed]” Plaintiff. Ex. 1 ¶¶ 8-9. The limitations period for false
imprisonment and for battery is two years, which ran on February 20, 2018.1 MCL § 600.5805(3).
The limitations period for intentional infliction of emotional distress is three years, which ran on
February 20, 2019. MCL § 600.5805(2); Doe v. Roman Cath. Archbishop of Archdiocese of
Detroit, 264 Mich. App. 632, 639; 692 N.W.2d 398 (2004).
9. Plaintiff has thus failed to plead any claims, and could not plead any viable claims
based on the allegations in his Complaint, against Dalton. Consequently, under the doctrine of
fraudulent joinder Dalton’s citizenship is not considered for purposes of determining the existence
1
Michigan does not recognize a “kidnapping” tort separate from the tort of false imprisonment.
3
of complete diversity. Coyne v. Am. Tobacco Co., 183 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 1999) (stating that
“this Court has recognized that fraudulent joinder of non-diverse defendants will not defeat
removal on diversity grounds” and affirming denial of motion to remand “because Plaintiffs failed
to plead viable state law causes of action against the local Defendants”).
10. Because Plaintiff is a citizen of Michigan and Uber and Rasier are citizens of
Delaware and California, there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties.
11. Plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount in excess of $25,000, the
jurisdictional minimum for a civil action filed in a Michigan circuit court. Ex. 1 pp. 2, 14, 19, 21,
23; see M.C.L. §§ 600.605, 600.8301.
12. A “notice of removal may assert the amount in controversy if the initial pleading
seeks . . . a money judgment, but the State practice . . . permits recovery of damages in excess of
the amount demanded” and the district court finds that the amount in controversy is more likely
than not above $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(c)(2)(A)(ii), (B); see Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
230 F.3d 868, 871 (6th Cir. 2000) (noting that state court rules “might enable a plaintiff to claim
in her complaint an amount lower than the federal amount in controversy but nevertheless seek
and recover damages exceeding the amount prayed for” and that “[i]n such situations, the removing
defendant must show that it is more likely than not that the plaintiff’s claims meet the amount in
controversy requirement.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). The Michigan Court
Rules permit recovery in excess of the amount demanded in Plaintiff’s pleadings. M.C.R. 2.601(A)
(providing that except for a default judgment, “every final judgment may grant the relief to which
the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relief in
his or her pleadings”).
4
13. The amount in controversy here more likely than not exceeds $75,000, as evidenced
by the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint and by Plaintiff’s March 13, 2020 demand letter.
a. Plaintiff alleges that “[a]s a result of the Defendants’ violations of
Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act (MCL 445.901, et seq.) and the Defendants’
fraud, Plaintiff is severely traumatized, suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,
severe ‘survivor’s guilt’ and additional afflictions all resulting in substantial actual
damages and losses to Plaintiff” and that he “finds himself an inpatient for treatment of
[these] conditions.” Ex. 1 ¶¶ 20a-21. In addition to actual damages, Plaintiff seeks
exemplary damages, attorney fees, and costs. Id. at p.14. See Williamson v. Aetna Life
Insurance Co., 481 F.3d 369, 377 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that statutorily authorized
attorneys’ fees are considered in determining amount in controversy); M.C.L. §
445.911(2) (providing for recovery of attorneys’ fees under MCPA). Plaintiff’s
allegations thus reflect that the matter in controversy more likely than not exceeds
$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B) (providing that preponderance of the evidence
standard applies to determining the amount in controversy based on the notice of
removal); see also Bass v. Ikea U.S. East, LLC, No. 16-10694, 2016 WL 2342321, at
*2 (E.D. Mich. May 4, 2016) (finding amount in controversy met where complaint
alleged the plaintiff had suffered physical injuries, “pain and suffering, mental anguish,
and further injuries” and “has been required to incur substantial sums of money” for
treatment) (cited approvingly by Halsey v. AGCO Corp., 755 Fed. App’x 524, 529 (6th
Cir. 2018) as a case “where a fair reading of the unspecified and unliquidated damages
sought by Plaintiffs provided that more than $75,000 was in controversy”).
5
b. By letter dated March 13, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel, who presumably is in
the best position to know the extent of his client’s alleged damages, presented Uber and
Rasier with Plaintiff’s most recent demand of $1,247,500 for his alleged injuries. Ex.
2. Plaintiff’s demand thus establishes that the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.
See Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Haight, 697 F.3d 582, 585 (7th Cir. 2012) (courts
can consider settlement offers to determine whether amount in controversy is met);
Carroll v. Stryker Corp., 658 F.3d 675, 681 n.2 (7th Cir. 2011) (settlement offers “are
admissible to show that the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes has been
met”); Santos-Tiller v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp., No. 16-10342, 2016 WL
4445429, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2016) (“Here, Plaintiff's $117,500 settlement
demand is a clear indication that she values her claim above $75,000.”) Johnson v.
Meijer, Inc., No. 12-78, 2013 WL 1344453, at *1 n.1 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 2, 2013)
(finding amount in controversy satisfied based on the plaintiff’s pre-suit demand of
$150,000).
14. Removal of the action to this Court is proper because this district and division
embraces Kalamazoo County, Michigan, the county in which the action was filed. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 102, 1441(a).
15. The procedural requirements for removal have been met here:
a. Copies of all “process, pleadings, and orders served on” Uber and Rasier
thus far in the action are attached to this Notice of Removal in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 1446(a). See Exs. 1, 3, 4, 5.
b. This Notice of Removal is timely because it has been filed with the Court
within 30 days after service of the summons and complaint on Uber and Rasier. See 28
6
U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1); Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347-
48 (1999) (holding that under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) “a named defendant's time
to remove is triggered by simultaneous service of the summons and complaint, or
receipt of the complaint, ‘through service or otherwise,’ after and apart from service of
the summons, but not by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal
service”); Campbell v. Johnson, 201 F.3d 440, at *2 (6th Cir. 1999) (Table) (citing
Murphy and noting that “[t]he 30-day period for removal runs from the service of the
summons on each defendant”). The summons and complaint were served on Uber and
Rasier on August 13, 2021. Ex. 3. Thirty days from August 13, 2021 is Sunday,
September 12, 2021, which is extended by operation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C) to
Monday, September 13, 2021. Froelich v. CACH, LLC, 289 F.R.D. 454, 455-56 (S.D.
Ohio 2013) (citing cases).
c. Promptly after filing this Notice of Removal, a true and correct copy of this
Notice will be filed with the clerk of the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court and will be
concurrently served on all adverse parties as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). See Ex.
6.
16. The stipulated order entered by the state court on August 27, 2021 (Ex. 5) extended
Uber and Rasier’s time to respond to the Complaint to December 2, 2021, in order to allow the
parties to continue their good-faith efforts to resolve this dispute privately, including through
mediation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1450. At that time, and absent a resolution, Uber and Rasier will move
to compel arbitration of this dispute pursuant to an arbitration agreement with Plaintiff.
7
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew P. Allen

Thomas W. Cranmer (P25252)
Matthew P. Allen (P57914)
James L. Woolard (P77493)
MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C.
840 W. Long Lake Rd., Ste. 150
Troy, Michigan 48098
(248) 879-2000
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and

Rasier, LLC
Dated: September 10, 2021
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 10, 2021, I served a copy of the foregoing document,
upon:
Matthew R. Cooper, Esq. Frank B. Melchiore, Esq.

Cooper Law, PL LAWFM
134 South Phelps St. 535 Central Ave., Ste. 306
P.O. Box 64 Ste. Petersburg, FL 33701
Decatur, MI 49045
by placing same in a sealed envelope with first class postage fully prepaid, addressed to the
individuals and entities listed above to be served, and depositing the envelope and its contents in
the United States mail.
I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and
belief.
/s/Michelle M. Lingenfelter
MICHELLE M. LINGENFELTER
37477458.6/155289.00011
8
Case 1:21-cv-00784-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 1-1, PageID.9 Filed 09/10/21 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MATT MELLEN,
Plaintiff, Case No.
v. Hon.

Defendants.

(269) 436-8316 840 W. Long Lake Rd., Ste. 150
(248) 879-2000
INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Exhibit Description
1 Complaint, filed Feb. 18, 2021 and served Aug. 13, 2021
2 Demand letter, dated March 13, 2020
3 Summonses, served Aug. 13, 2021
4 Order extending summonses, entered May 14, 2021
5 Order extending Uber and Rasier’s time to respond to Complaint, entered
Aug. 27, 2021
6 Notice of filing removal (to be filed in Kalamazoo County Circuit Court)
38057165.1/155289.00011
Exhibit 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE 9th CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF KALAMAZOO
150 Crosstown Center, Kalamazoo, MI 49001
(269) 383-8837
MATT MELLEN,
Plaintiffs, File No.: 21-_____________NO

0066
Honorable: ___________________
Alexander C. Lipsey
V
JASON B. DALTON,
RASIER, LLC, and UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendants.
Matthew R. Cooper (P43072)

Cooper Law, PLC
Counsel for Plaintiff
134 South Phelps Street
P.O. Box 64
Decatur, MI 49045
(269) 436-8316
[email protected]
Frank B. Melchiore (P41238)

LAWFM
535 Central Avenue, Suite 306
(727) 822-5900
[email protected]
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
1
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
There is no other civil action between these parties arising out of the
same transaction or occurrence as alleged in this complaint pending in this
court, nor has any such action been previously filed and dismissed or
transferred after having been assigned to a judge. I do not know of any
other civil action, not between these parties, arising out of the same
transaction or occurrence as alleged in this complaint that is either pending
or was previously filed and dismissed, transferred, or otherwise disposed of
after having been assigned to a judge in this court.
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, MATT MELLEN, by and through his above-stated
counsel, and for his Complaint against the Defendants, JASON B. DALTON, RASIER,
LLC and UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., states that the amount in amount in controversy
herein exceeds the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), and further states
as follows:
JURISDICTION AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiff MATT MELLEN was and is an individual residing in the County of
Kalamazoo, State of Michigan at times pertinent hereto.
2. Defendant, Uber Technologies, Inc., is a Delaware corporation,
headquartered in San Francisco, California, which is registered in the State
of Michigan, and is authorized to and is conducting business in the County
of Kalamazoo, State of Michigan.
3. Defendant, Rasier, LLC is a Delaware Corporation, headquartered in San
Francisco, California, which is registered in the State of Michigan, and is
authorized to and is conducting business in the County of Kalamazoo, State
of Michigan.
2
4. Defendants, Uber Technologies, Inc., and Rasier, LLC (collectively
“Defendants Uber”), are in the business of transportation services / a mobile
phone application that allows individuals / consumers to enter into
transactions for money, communicate with, and obtain transportation
services from Uber drivers as part of Defendants Uber “trade or commerce”
of providing goods, property, or service primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes.
5. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants Uber asserted, represented
material facts, such as facts that are important to the transactions for
money, or ones which the Defendants Uber knew or should have known
would influence the Plaintiff in entering into the transactions for money, the
following on its website and/or on its “App”, including but not limited to:
a. All potential drivers in the US must complete a screening before
becoming an Uber driver-partner, and current drivers continue to be
vetted for criminal offenses;
b. Through our joint efforts with cities and safety experts and by working
together, we’re helping to create safe journeys for everyone;
c. Before anyone can drive with Uber, they must undergo a multi-point
review of driving history and criminal history. Screening check for
moving violations, drinking and drug-related offenses, violent crimes,
3
and felonies. If a potential driver qualifies, they still have to remain
in good standing with the law to stay in the Uber Community;
d. Criminal and motor vehicle checks are proactively run each year,
regardless of whether there’s a legal obligation in the city to do so;
e. If a driver is charged with a new offense, we have technology that
can notify us of that so we can remove access to the App and
DEACTIVATE the driver. This helps to ensure that all drivers
continue to meet our screening standards, safety standards.
f. All Uber rides are tracked by GPS from start to finish so there’s a
record of your trip if something happens.
g. Legal / UBER COMMUNITY GUIDELINES, including -
h. Uber uses technology to keep drivers and riders safe, for instance by
GPS-tracking every ride and allowing riders to share their journeys
in real time with families or friends. This is all backed up by a robust
system of pre-screenings of drivers.
i. UBER has a dedicated incident response team on call 24/7 to
investigate safety incidents.
j. Actions that threaten the safety of drivers and riders will be
investigated and, if confirmed, lead to permanent deactivation of
your account. For example: Physical contact with riders. Breaking
the local law while using Uber. For example, texting while driving;
4
speeding or otherwise breaking local traffic laws; and using Uber to
commit a crime, including drug and human trafficking or the sexual
exploitation of children.
k. Safe Driving. Uber expects drivers using the app to drive safely at all
times.
l. What leads to you losing access to your account? If we are made
aware of this type of problematic behavior, we may contact you so
we can investigate them. Depending on the nature of the concern,
we may put a hold on your account during our investigation. If the
issues raised are serious or a repeat offense, or you refuse to
cooperate, you may lose access to Uber.
m. Any behavior involving violence, sexual misconduct, harassment,
discrimination, or illegal activity while using Uber can result in the
immediate loss of your account. Uber will also deactivate the
account of any driver who receives several or serious
complaints of poor, unsafe, or distracted driving while using the
Uber app. Additionally, when law enforcement is involved, we will
cooperate with their investigation in accordance with our Law
Enforcement Guidelines.
5
n. Compliance with the Law: We expect drivers using the Uber app to
act in compliance with all relevant state, federal and local laws and
the rules of the road at all times.
o. What leads to you losing access to your account? Uber may
permanently deactivate your account for activities such as: engaging
in serious illegal activity while using the Uber app; not maintaining
valid vehicle registration or driver’s license; and receiving serious
traffic citations, or several traffic citations that indicate unsafe driving,
while using the Uber app.
p. Defendants Uber charge customers for, and take customer’s money
for “Safe Rides Fee,” including for the ride that Plaintiff booked with
Uber on February 20, 2016.
6. Defendant JASON B. DALTON (“Defendant Dalton”) is a resident of the
County of Kalamazoo, State of Michigan and at all times pertinent hereto,
was a driver, employed by Defendants Uber and was providing
transportation services for individuals / consumers using transportation
services / mobile phone application directed and controlled by Defendants
Uber, including Plaintiff MATT MELLEN.
7. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Dalton was considered an
employee/agent of Defendants Uber as Defendants Uber:
6
a. Directed and controlled the course and scope of Defendant Dalton’s
employment through demanding use of Defendants Uber’s specific
and exclusive mobile application;
b. Directed and controlled the fares charged by Defendant Dalton in the
course of his employment with Defendants Uber;
c. Directed and controlled the collection of payments from each
individual / consumer / rider who utilizes Defendant Dalton’s services
through Defendants Uber technology / service / app;
d. Required its drivers to adhere to Uber’s policy concerning tipping
from individuals / consumers / riders;
e. Provided Defendant Dalton with a weekly direct deposit representing
payment for services performed, which represented only a certain
percentage of the fees charged;
f. Directed and controlled the vehicle’s mechanical shape, cleanliness
of the vehicle and use through mandatory display of Uber logo on
said vehicle;
f. Directed and set time standards by which its drivers must respond to
requests;
g. Prohibit drivers from calling passengers who have requested a ride
at a rate and frequency that Uber deems “excessive”; and
7
h. Does not allow Uber drivers to negotiate, adjust or accept other forms
of payment should the Uber application malfunction.
8. On or about February 20, 2016, Defendant Dalton was activated on
Defendants UBER’s “app,” on the clock, and in the course of performing
transportation duties for Defendants Uber.
9. With paying Uber passenger, Plaintiff MATT MELLEN, inside Dalton’s
UBER car, Defendant Dalton began driving in a deadly, dangerous manner
certain to cause injury, death, damage - running red lights, crashing into
other vehicles, committing crimes - including kidnaping, falsely imprisoning
and battering of Plaintiff MELLEN, severely traumatizing Plaintiff Matt
Mellen, and creating an unsafe, predictable hazard to himself, Uber
passengers, and the public at large. Bumping hard against shoulders with
the UBER driver Matt Mellen had hailed off UBER’s ride-sharing App… as
the two barreled down crowded Kalamazoo city roads at break-neck
speeds. Matt Mellen yelled for the UBER driver to stop, to pull over….pull
over!…to let Matt out. Then a dead-bang impact. The UBER driver smashed
into a totally innocent person/people in a car that was in the wrong
place….then the UBER driver kept going…unfazed as if nothing had just
happened. Matt Mellen knew he had to do something. The surreal became
reality. Should he punch this UBER driver in the head? Should he pull the
wheel, and get this UBER car to go into a ditch…crash it into a
8
building…stop this madness? The million split second decisions that Matt
Mellen plays over, and over, and over in his mind to this day. It won’t stop.
Somehow, Matt escaped the kidnapping, the physical confinement of the
UBER driver’s crimes… rolling out of the UBER car….ejecting….scraping
hard across the hard pavement….alive.
10. Based on the representations about their services upon which Plaintiff
relied, Uber paying passenger and Plaintiff herein, Matt Mellen, dialed 911,
tried to call, connect, and reach Uber directly to report Defendant Dalton’s
deadly dangerous, criminal, illegal and unsafe driving to place Uber
Defendants on notice, that Dalton was / had become a danger to Matt
Mellen, society, and that Uber’s driver, Dalton, needed to be
DEACTIVATED --- immediately per the Uber app, and immediately taken
off the road so that he would stop causing injury, damages, loss to Plaintiff,
Matt Mellen, and so that there would be no more customers and/or citizens
exposed to Uber’s criminal driver, Dalton.
11. Immediately, and for more than an hour after escaping Uber driver Dalton’s
death ride, Plaintiff and his girlfriend tried desperately to connect with Uber
and Uber’s 24/7 on call response team to inform Uber and seek to confirm
the Uber representation that its driver would be DEACTIVATED following
his episodes of criminal and dangerous/deadly driving; and yet, Defendant
Dalton continued in his capacity as an Uber Driver and responded to a
9
request for transportation, which took him to the Meadows apartment
complex on the eastern edge of Kalamazoo County, where Tiana
Carruthers was shot four times by UBER driver, Dalton.
12. Defendant Dalton engaged a woman there in verbal conversation in his
capacity as an Uber driver, asking her for directions and / or the location of
a certain person.
13. Defendant Dalton then intentionally and recklessly fired bullets, live rounds
of ammunition in that woman’s direction, violently striking her with at least
four bullets and endangering the lives of all other witnesses in the area,
including children.
14. Critically wounded and incapacitated, the woman Dalton shot laid on the
ground in desperate need of medical attention; having witnessed / feeling
the effects of her own personal assault and the assault on her minor
daughter; her minor daughter having been present for and witnessed the
attack on her mother; Defendant Dalton continued in his capacity as an
Uber driver and continued to perform transportation duties for Defendant
Uber. Hours later and 15 miles away, a father and his 17-year-old son were
fatally shot by Dalton working for UBER, while that father and son were
looking at cars at a car dealership. Within an hour of these killings, five
people were gunned down in the parking lot of a Cracker Barrel restaurant.
10
Four of them died. A 14-year-old girl survived with a head wound and was
hospitalized in critical condition.
15. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Dalton knew / had knowledge that
something was wrong with his mental status as the Uber Application used
during the course of his employment with Uber did not appear normal;
Dalton refused to contact Uber Defendants, remedy the situation or
disengage his employment with Uber, or his active status with Uber’s “App.”
16. Throughout the day of February 20, 2016 and during the course of his
employment with Defendants Uber, Defendant Dalton continued to commit
heinous crimes and acts of violence in between picking up and dropping off
individuals / consumers / passengers until the time he was arrested. At no
time before Dalton’s arrest did Defendants Uber DEACTIVATE Dalton,
despite their clear representations that they would do so, and the notice by
Plaintiff and/or others to Defendants Uber of Dalton’s criminal behavior.
17. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Dalton and Defendants Uber were
compensated and / or profited from the Uber transportation services being
provided by Defendant Dalton on the evening of February 20, 2016 prior to
and after Defendant Dalton’s heinous crimes and acts of violence, including
those that severely traumatized Plaintiff, Matt Mellen.
18. Defendant Dalton’s heinous crimes and acts of violence all occurred in or
around the locations where Defendant Dalton was picking up and / or
11
dropping off individuals / consumers / passengers that were clients of
Defendants Uber; as such, the actions present clear and concise evidence
that Defendant Dalton’s crimes arose from and occurred as a result of
Defendant Dalton’s active status with Defendants Uber’s “App,” the same
App that Plaintiff relied on, that Plaintiff prioritized in choosing to do
business with Defendants Uber.
19. Defendants Uber engaged in trade or commerce; committed one or more
of the prohibited methods, acts, or practices as stated in Section 3 of
Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act (MCL 445.901, et. seq.) - as alleged
by Plaintiff; and Plaintiff was severely traumatized/suffered a loss, which is
continuing as a result of Defendant’s violation of the Act, such as under
MCL 445.903, Section 3: (a) Causing a probability of confusion or
misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification
of goods or services; (c) Representing that goods or services have
sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or
quantities that they do not have or that a person has sponsorship, approval,
status, affiliation, or connection that he or she does not have;
(e) Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality,
or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of
another; (n) Causing a probability of confusion or of misunderstanding as to
the legal rights, obligations, or remedies of a party to a transaction; (q)
12
Representing or implying that the subject of a consumer transaction will be
provided promptly, or at a specified time, or within a reasonable time, if the
merchant knows or has reason to know it will not be so provided; (s) Failing
to reveal a material fact, the omission of which tends to mislead or deceive
the consumer, and which fact could not reasonably be known by the
consumer; (bb) Making a representation of fact or statement of fact material
to the transaction such that a person reasonably believes the represented
or suggested state of affairs to be other than it actually is; and/or (cc) Failing
to reveal facts that are material to the transaction in light of representations
of fact made in a positive manner.
20. Rather than following the clear community standards / code of conduct set
forth on their own website and as a prerequisite to even using their “App,”
(such as DEACTIVATING Dalton for his criminal and dangerous acts
though Defendant Uber’s “dedicated incident response team on call 24/7 to
investigate safety incidents,”) in violation of Michigan’s Consumer
Protection Act (MCL 445.901, et. seq.), Defendants Uber did absolutely
nothing. Still active on UBER’s APP, Dalton continued his UBER rides,
killing six, wounding many, deeply damaging Matt Mellen, for life.
20a. The guilt kicks in for Matt Mellen; the re-living of the events of that day and
night in excruciating, painful detail; the feeling of total helplessness, the
sense of being thoroughly defrauded over there being no way to connect
13
with UBER and stop the UBER driving, the Uber driver’s crimes, the
shootings, the killings. And when the guilt kicks in, and when Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder meltdowns come, Matt Mellen finds himself an
inpatient for treatment; treatment of conditions he never knew before
February 2016; reliving the trauma, the horrific news: by phone, over the
T.V. Local news, national news: Gunman shoots and kills six; wounding at
least two more, critical condition; and how many more? The gunman who
was UBER’s driver; Matt Mellen’s “Safe Ride”, for whom Matt Mellen paid
a “Safe Rides Fee” to the Defendants.
21. As a result of the Defendants’ violations of Michigan’s Consumer Protection
Act (MCL 445.901, et. seq.) and the Defendants’ fraud, Plaintiff is severely
traumatized, suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, severe “survivor’s
guilt” and additional afflictions all resulting in substantial actual damages
and losses to Plaintiff and entitling him to full recovery of actual damages,
attorney fees, costs, and additional relief as provided through the statutory
and common law of the state of Michigan.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a judgment against the Defendants, Uber,
Raiser, LLC & JASON B. Dalton, in an amount over and above Twenty-Five Thousand
($25,000.00) Dollars, which Plaintiff is found to be entitled, plus costs, Interest attorney
fees, exemplary damages, and whatever additional compensation to which he is entitled.
14
COUNT I - VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,

331 of 1976, MCL 445.901, et seq.
(DEFENDANTS UBER)
22. Plaintiff herein repeats, re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and
every paragraph above as if fully restated herein, and further states as
follows:
23. This Count is brought under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act 331 of
1976, MCL 445.901, et seq.
24. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants Uber were in the process of
conducting trade or commerce in the County of Kalamazoo, State of
Michigan.
25. Relying on representations made by Defendants Uber, Plaintiff chose to
accept the exchange of his money to engage the trade or commerce in
which Defendants Uber offered by way of its products and/or services,
including that Uber plainly and clearly represented that it had a dedicated
incident response team on call 24/7 to investigate safety incidents/actions
that threaten the safety of riders would be investigated and, if confirmed,
lead to permanent deactivation of the Uber driver. In addition, Plaintiff relied
upon further representations by Defendants Uber such as specified in
paragraph 5, above.
26. In so doing, Plaintiff relied on the representations of Defendants Uber.
15
27. In violation of Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act (MCL 445.901, et. seq.),
Defendants Uber did not have a functioning 24/7 team on call to act on, to
DEACTIVATE dangerous Uber drivers, amongst many other violations of
that Act, including under MCL 445.903, Section 3:
(a) Causing a probability of confusion or misunderstanding as to the source,
sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services;
(b) Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval,
characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not
have or that a person has sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or
connection that he or she does not have;
(c) Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality,
or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of
another;
(d) Causing a probability of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the legal
rights, obligations, or remedies of a party to a transaction;
(e) Representing or implying that the subject of a consumer transaction will
be provided promptly, or at a specified time, or within a reasonable time, if
the merchant knows or has reason to know it will not be so provided;
(f) Failing to reveal a material fact, the omission of which tends to mislead
or deceive the consumer, and which fact could not reasonably be known by
the consumer;
16
(g) Making a representation of fact or statement of fact material to the
transaction such that a person reasonably believes the represented or
suggested state of affairs to be other than it actually is; and/or
(h) Failing to reveal facts that are material to the transaction in light of
representations of fact made in a positive manner.
28. Defendant Uber’s representations about DEACTIVATING dangerous
drivers through some 24/7 on call team was totally false, and even worse,
Uber paying customers, like Plaintiff Matt Mellen, could not even reach
Defendants Uber to report and insure that dangerous, deadly, criminal
drivers and driving were DEACTIVATED, timely, immediately; but instead,
Defendant Uber continued to provide Dalton access to Defendants Uber
App and responded to requests for transportation, which led him to further
past/present/future traumatization of Plaintiff, Matt Mellen, all in violation of
Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act (MCL 445.901, et. seq.).
29. More specifically, Defendants Uber violated the Michigan Consumer
protection Act when Defendants Uber:
a. Led members of the public at large / consumers / riders such as
Plaintiff Matt Mellen to believe that Uber properly screens, evaluates,
monitors and conducts regular motor vehicle inspections, motor vehicle
driving records and conducts extensive criminal background investigations
when they do not;
17
b. Led members of the public at large / consumers / riders such as
Plaintiff Matt Mellen to believe that the services provided by Uber are safe
and secure when they are not;
c. Led consumers / riders such as Plaintiff Matt Mellen to believe that
policies and procedures are in place such as GPS tracking, enhanced
safety features, and a trained support team to respond to urgent safety
issues, when they do not; and
d. Led consumers / riders such as Plaintiff Matt Mellen to believe that
Uber sets a standard by which drivers are trained, constantly evaluated in
real-time identification, and their technology notifies them of problem drivers
and revokes access to their App/DEACTIVATION.
e. Marketed, sold, and up-charged consumers / riders such as Plaintiff
Matt Mellen a “Safe Rides Fee” that was false, unsupported, not applied,
mis-applied, wasted, converted, taken, and/or deceptive without benefit,
protection, quality, grade, or standard.
f. Violated the offers, representations, statements referenced in
paragraph 5, above.
g. Additional violations to be disclosed during the course of discovery.
30. As a result of the Defendants’ violations of Michigan’s Consumer Protection
Act (MCL 445.901, et. seq.), Plaintiff was severely traumatized, suffering
18
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, severe “survivor’s guilt” and additional
afflictions all resulting in substantial actual damages and losses to Plaintiff
and entitling him to full recovery of actual damages, attorney fees, costs,
and additional relief as provided through the statutory and common law of
the state of Michigan.
COUNT II - FRAUD BASED ON FALSE REPRESENTATION

(DEFENDANTS UBER)
follows:

19
paragraph 5, above. Defendants Uber represented these material facts
about their trade or commerce, including that Defendants had a functioning
dedicated incident response team on call 24/7 to investigate safety
incidents/actions that threaten the safety of riders would be investigated
and, if confirmed, lead to permanent deactivation of the Uber driver:
Defendants Uber charged a “Safe Rides Fee” which since on or about
November 1, 2015, was expressly on Defendants’ Uber webpage / App to
read, “The Safe Rides Fee supports the operation of the Uber platform,
including a background check process, development of safety features in
the app, incident response, and other operational costs.” [Emphasis
added.]
33. Defendants Uber made these representations of material facts as part of
their trade or commerce.
34. These representations were false when made.
35. Defendants Uber knew these representations were false when made, or
Defendants Uber made these representations recklessly, that is, without
knowing whether true.
36. Defendants Uber made these representations with the intent that Plaintiff,
and consumers similarly situated would rely on such representations.
37. Plaintiff, Matt Mellen, relied on these representations, attempted to act upon
them, and acting upon them.
20
38. Plaintiff was damaged as a result of his reliance.
39. As a result of the Defendants’ Fraud Based on False Representation,
Plaintiff was severely traumatized, suffering Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, severe “survivor’s guilt” and additional afflictions all resulting in
substantial actual damages and losses to Plaintiff and entitling him to full
recovery of actual damages, attorney fees, costs, and additional relief as
provided through the statutory and common law of the state of Michigan.
COUNT III - FRAUD BASED ON FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FACTS (Silent Fraud)

(DEFENDANTS UBER)
follows:

21
paragraph 5, above.
42. Defendants Uber failed to disclose material facts about their trade or
commerce, including that Defendants did not have a functioning dedicated
lead to permanent deactivation of the Uber driver. This despite that
Defendants Uber charged a “Safe Rides Fee” which since on or about
November 1, 2015, was expressly on Defendants’ Uber webpage to read,
“The Safe Rides Fee supports the operation of the Uber platform, including
a background check process, development of safety features in the app,
incident response, and other operational costs.” [Emphasis added.]
43. Defendants Uber had actual knowledge of these facts.
44. Defendants’ Uber failure to disclose these material facts caused Plaintiff to
have a false impression.
45. When Defendants Uber failed to disclose these material facts, Defendants
Uber knew the failure would create a false impression.
46. When Defendants Uber failed to disclose material facts, Defendants Uber
intended that Plaintiff, and consumers similarly situated would rely on the
resulting false impression.
22
47. Plaintiff, Matt Mellen, relied on the false impression.
48. Plaintiff was damaged as a result of his reliance.
49. As a result of the Defendants’ Fraud Based on Failure to Disclose Facts,
Plaintiff was severely traumatized, suffering Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder, severe “survivor’s guilt” and additional afflictions all resulting in
substantial actual damages and losses to Plaintiff and entitling him to full
recovery of actual damages, attorney fees, costs, and additional relief as
provided through the statutory and common law of the state of Michigan.
Plaintiff was severely traumatized, suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
and additional afflictions all resulting in losses to Plaintiff and entitling him
to full recovery of actual damages, attorney fees, costs, and additional relief
as provided through the statutory and common law of the state of Michigan.
23
Dated: February 18, 2021

Matthew R. Cooper e./s.
Matthew R. Cooper (P43072)
Cooper Law, PLC
134 South Phelps Street
P.O. Box 64
Decatur, MI 49045
(269) 436-8316
[email protected]
Frank B. Melchiore e./s.

Frank B. Melchiore (P41238)
LAWFM
535 Central Avenue, Suite 306
(727) 822-5900
[email protected]
24
Exhibit 2
LAW OFFICES OF FRANK B. MELCHIORE
March 13, 2020 MRE/FRE 408 Communication
Matthew P. Allen, Esq.

Miller Canfield
840 West Long Lake Road, Suite 150
Troy, MI 48098
Re: MATTHEW MELLEN vs. UBER, et. al

Dear Mr. Allen:
On behalf of Matthew Mellen, my office along with Attorney Matthew Cooper of

Cooper Law, are responding to your March 10th e-mail, and in follow-up to our
March 3rd call with Mr. Mellen’s Counter-Demand of $1,247,500.00 U.S. dollars.
We look toward hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Frank B. Melchiore / e.s.
Frank B. Melchiore
FBM/dns
Attmnt./Encl.
cc. UNARC/grv
535 CENTRAL AVE., SUITE 306 * SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33701

PHONE: 727/822-5900 * FAX: 727/502-0277
email: [email protected]
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF KALAMAZOO
MATT MELLEN,
Plaintiff, Case No. 21-0066-NO
v. Hon. Alexander C. Lipsey

Defendants.

(269) 436-8316 840 W. Long Lake Rd., Ste. 150
(248) 879-2000
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING REMOVAL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Rasier, LLC and Uber Technologies, Inc. have
removed this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan,
Southern Division. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Removal filed with the District Court
is attached as Exhibit 1.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew P. Allen

Thomas W. Cranmer (P25252)
Dated: September 10, 2021 Matthew P. Allen (P57914)
James L. Woolard (P77493)
MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C.
840 W. Long Lake Rd., Ste. 150

Troy, Michigan 48098
(248) 879-2000
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and

Rasier, LLC
37475930.1/155289.00011

Uber Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uber Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uber Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:21-cv-00784-HYJ-RSK ECF No. 1, PageID.

1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, Case No.

JASON B. DALTON; RASIER, LLC; and

Matthew R. Cooper (P43072) Thomas W. Cranmer (P25252)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

in support of their Notice of Removal:

NO. See id.

or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest or costs.

4. Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that he resides in Kalamazoo County, Michigan.

Ex. 1 ¶ 1. Plaintiff is therefore a citizen of the state of Michigan.

and California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).

7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Jason B. Dalton is a resident of Michigan. Ex. 1 ¶

36, 41-42, 44-46.

11. Plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount in excess of $25,000, the

23; see M.C.L. §§ 600.605, 600.8301.

his or her pleadings”).

a. Plaintiff alleges that “[a]s a result of the Defendants’ violations of

fraud, Plaintiff is severely traumatized, suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,

[these] conditions.” Ex. 1 ¶¶ 20a-21. In addition to actual damages, Plaintiff seeks

attorneys’ fees are considered in determining amount in controversy); M.C.L. §

445.911(2) (providing for recovery of attorneys’ fees under MCPA). Plaintiff’s

$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2)(B) (providing that preponderance of the evidence

standard applies to determining the amount in controversy based on the notice of

sought by Plaintiffs provided that more than $75,000 was in controversy”).

b. By letter dated March 13, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel, who presumably is in

can consider settlement offers to determine whether amount in controversy is met);

met”); Santos-Tiller v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp., No. 16-10342, 2016 WL

(finding amount in controversy satisfied based on the plaintiff’s pre-suit demand of

U.S.C. § 1446(a). See Exs. 1, 3, 4, 5.

48 (1999) (holding that under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) “a named defendant's time

to remove is triggered by simultaneous service of the summons and complaint, or

September 12, 2021, which is extended by operation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C) to

Ohio 2013) (citing cases).

to compel arbitration of this dispute pursuant to an arbitration agreement with Plaintiff.

/s/ Matthew P. Allen

Attorneys for Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and

Dated: September 10, 2021

Matthew R. Cooper, Esq. Frank B. Melchiore, Esq.

the United States mail.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, Case No.

JASON B. DALTON; RASIER, LLC; and

Matthew R. Cooper (P43072) Thomas W. Cranmer (P25252)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Plaintiffs, File No.: 21-_____________NO

Matthew R. Cooper (P43072)

Frank B. Melchiore (P41238)

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

JURISDICTION AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff MATT MELLEN was and is an individual residing in the County of

Kalamazoo, State of Michigan at times pertinent hereto.

2. Defendant, Uber Technologies, Inc., is a Delaware corporation,

headquartered in San Francisco, California, which is registered in the State

of Michigan, and is authorized to and is conducting business in the County

of Kalamazoo, State of Michigan.