The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D 'is a car service that provides drivers to customers on demand through a cell phone application, or 'app,' in cities around the world.' D markets itself to consumers as 'your private driver in more than 50 countries.' D dictates the fares charged in each jurisdiction in which it operates, collects the appropriate payment from each passenger, and then passes on to its drivers 75-80% of the fares collected while keeping the remaining portion for itself. D drivers receive payment for their work . . . via weekly direct deposit. Drivers are not permitted to set their own fares, accept cash payments from consumers, or retroactively adjust a fare up or down. D demands that its drivers 'utilize an app on a phone provided by D'; maintain their vehicles in 'great' mechanical shape and 'acceptably clean' condition; 'adhere to D's rules regarding tipping,' which include refusing tips once and accepting them only on the second offer; sustain an acceptable ride-request-acceptance rate; respond to ride requests within an acceptable timeframe; 'display the D logo on their vehicles'; and refrain from excessively calling passengers who have requested a ride. P and three of his friends required transportation. P used the D app on his phone to request a pick-up at that location. D driver Yohannes Deresse accepted P's request and arrived shortly thereafter. Immediately following the group's entry into the car, Deresse 'began to act erratically.' P and his companions exited the vehicle and began walking away. Deresse followed them out of the car and began to verbally harass them. P told the driver 'to leave them alone,' and that 'they did not feel safe riding in a car with him.' Deresse pulled out a knife and stabbed P at least six times in his chest and left arm. P sustained severe injuries during the course of the brutal attack. P filed suit alleging a variety of state-law tort claims and one violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, codified at D.C. Code § 28-3905(k). D removed the suit to federal court on diversity grounds and now moves to dismiss five of the eight counts in the Amended Complaint.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.