Plaintiffs Lawyers Pressure Lyft to Pay Millions in Arbitration Fees
“As a result of Lyft's failure to pay the filing fees as required by its contract, petitioners are prevented from accessing the sole forum in which they are able to raise their claims,” according to the plaintiffs' petition in San Francisco federal district court.
December 14, 2018 at 11:45 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Lyft Inc. is facing increased pressure from plaintiffs attorneys who want the ride-hailing company to pay millions of dollars in arbitration fees that would allow thousands of drivers to bring individual claims that the company misclassified drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.
The plaintiffs firm Keller Lenkner, representing 3,420 Lyft drivers, on Thursday asked a San Francisco federal judge to compel the company to start the arbitration process by paying the fees, as required by drivers' employment contracts. The cost for initial fees would be $1,900 per case, a total of nearly $6.5 million.
The plaintiffs' new push to fight for arbitration—rather than against it—is part of an evolving strategy that comes a week after a similar action brought by Uber drivers. Gig economy companies have successfully convinced courts to enforce arbitration agreements, and now plaintiffs lawyers are testing just how willing companies will be to keep collective actions out of court.
➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
Lyft has yet to pay the fees for the first 1,123 demands for arbitration filed with the American Arbitration Association, or AAA, according to the motion to compel filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The association reportedly said it will not invoice the filing fees for the remaining arbitration claims until Lyft pays its initial bill. In addition to the filing fee of $1,900 for each demand, there is a $750 case management fee per case and the arbitrator's compensation.
“As a result of Lyft's failure to pay the filing fees as required by its contract, petitioners are prevented from accessing the sole forum in which they are able to raise their claims,” wrote Los Angeles attorney Keith Custis of Custis Law, who is working with the Keller Lenkner team. He later continued, “Lyft has repeatedly enforced this broad arbitration agreement to preclude drivers from filing claims against it in court.”
Travis Lenkner, managing partner at Keller Lenkner, declined to comment.
A representative for Lyft declined to comment. James Slaughter, a partner at Keker, Van Nest & Peters who has represented Lyft in high-profile cases, did not respond to a request for comment.
The Lyft drivers began filing demands for arbitration in October, and after negotiations fell through, AAA sent an invoice to Lyft to pay the filing fees necessary to begin the process for the first 1,123 claims.
Keller Lenkner is also representing 101 drivers in a lawsuit filed against Lyft, filed Wednesday in the San Francisco federal district court. Those drivers are disputing their employment status as independent contractors, who do not share some of the same benefits—overtime, minimum wage and health care—as employees. The worker classification distinction has emerged as a key dispute in the gig economy, whose leaders contend that the workforce enjoys greater flexibility than traditional employees.
Lyft has sued Keller Lenkner in a case that seeks to stop the firm from representing the drivers in these arbitration disputes. The company claims one of the firm's new partners, Warren Postman, a former U.S. Chamber lawyer who has worked with Uber and Lyft, has a conflict of interest.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius attorneys, who represent Uber in a separate worker-classification dispute, are also moving to disqualify Keller Lenkner from representing Uber drivers. In that suit, the drivers contend Uber is saving hundreds of millions of dollars by classifying its drivers as contractors.
Read more:
'Calling Uber on Their Bluff,' Plaintiffs Lawyers Strike Back to Compel Arbitration
In DQ Fight With Uber Over Former Chamber Lawyer, Plaintiffs Firm Points to 'New Evidence'
Uber Takes Aim at Former Chamber Lawyer in Worker Misclassification Suit
Employers Face Open Questions After Landmark 'Dynamex' Labor Ruling
Uber May Be Saving $500M a Year in California by Misclassifying Drivers, Suit Says
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readClass Action Settlements Totaled $40B+ Three Years in a Row: 'We’re in a New Era'
5 minute readMiami Judge Approves Shaq's $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
3 minute readCrypto Exchange’s ‘Meteoric Rise’ Leads to Nationwide Class Action Trend
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Acting Attorney General James McHenry III Installs New Assistant U.S. Attorneys in Manhattan, Brooklyn
- 2From Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
- 3Prosecutors Ask Judge to Question Charlie Javice Lawyer Over Alleged Conflict
- 4Judge Awards Over $350K in Attorney Fees in Data Breach Class Action Settlement
- 5Ad Agency Legal Chief Scores $12M Golden Parachute in $13B Sale to Rival
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250