This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Government
Contracts

Bay Area Motivate LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and Does 1-50

Published: Apr. 2, 2021 | Result Date: Jan. 5, 2021 | Filing Date: Jun. 7, 2019 |

Case number: CGC-19-576554 Settlement –  $330,000

Judge

Garrett L. Wong

Court

San Francisco County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Dianne Sweeney
(Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw & Pittman LLP)

Ryan P. Selness
(Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw & Pittman LLP)

Glenn Sweatt
(Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw & Pittman LLP)

Nathan M. Spatz
(Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw & Pittman LLP)


Defendant

Molly J. Alarcon
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

Owen J. Clements
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)


Facts

Plaintiff Bay Area Motivate, LLC, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Lyft, Inc., filed suit against Defendants the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency for breach of contract based on Defendants' alleged failure to comply with Plaintiff Bay Area Motivate, LLC's contractual exclusivity to operate a bike share program in San Francisco.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that bike share agreements entered into between Plaintiff and Defendants in 2015 gave Plaintiff the exclusive right to operate a bike share program in the public rights-of-way in San Francisco. Plaintiff contended Defendants breached those agreements when the City opened a public permit application process and advised Plaintiff that other bike share operators would be considered for permits. Plaintiff brought suit to prohibit Defendants from issuing bike share permits, entering into contracts or agreements, or taking any other measures that would disregard, dilute or otherwise prejudice Plaintiff's exclusive rights.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied Plaintiff's contentions and any other alleged wrongdoing.

Result

The court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from soliciting others (including by issuing permits) to operate a bike share program in violation of Plaintiff's exclusivity rights. The parties subsequently agreed to settle the matter, with Defendants agreeing to pay Plaintiff $280,000 in attorneys' fees, waive $50,000 in other fees, and recognize Plaintiff's contractual exclusivity.


#136880

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390