Mohammed v. Juno Inc.

Rideshare Drivers That Promised Equity Sufficiently Alleged Claim for Unjust Enrichment

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 153, 154, 155 were read on this motion to/for Dismiss.The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 009) 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 156, 157, 158 were read on this motion to/for Dismiss.DECISION AND ORDER Presently before the Court are Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) pursuant to CPLR §§3211(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(5), and (a)(7). For the reasons stated herein, the motions to dismiss are granted in part. Specifically, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a claim for unjust enrichment which will allow this action to proceed.BackgroundPlaintiffs in this putative class action are drivers for the rideshare company named “Juno.” Defendant Talmon Marco (“Marco”), a technology entrepreneur, allegedly devised a plan for a rideshare company that would compete with Uber and Lyft by enlisting the top-rated Uber and Lyft drivers to work for Juno. Marco’s inducement to draw high-rated Uber and Lyft drivers to Juno was a purported promise of equity in the rideshare startup. Juno’s website allegedly represented “50 percent of [its] founding shares are reserved for [] drivers.” (SAC 24). The Juno mobile app purportedly represented:Every three months, we allocate 25,000,000 Juno Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) to drivers. Each RSU may become one Juno common stock if certain conditions are met in the future. These include meeting minimum service requirements and the occurrence of an IPO or acquisition of Juno within 7 years of the draft date. The more you drive the more RSUs you earn. (SAC 25).The Second Amended Complaint details various statements by Defendants Juno, Inc., Juno USA, LP, and Vulcan Cars LLC (collectively, with Marco, the “Juno Defendants”)¹ made through the media regarding the company’s focus on providing drivers with equity. (SAC

Mohammed v. Juno Inc.

Rideshare Drivers That Promised Equity Sufficiently Alleged Claim for Unjust Enrichment

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal