1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1 5

16

17

18

19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

Nick Miletak - In Pro Per 14745 Conway Avenue San Jose, California 95124 Tel: 408-369-9696

rl

:-_, :

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT SANTA CLARA COUNTY DOWNTOWN BRANCH

NICK MILET AK ) Case No.: l 6CV29 2 9 8 7 ) Plaintiff: ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

) vs. ) 1. CA Civil Code § 1786.16

) TASK.RABBIT, INC., )

2. CA Civil Code § 1785.20.5

) ~'NJ ) t~ 1t z..D1 DOO Defendant. )

) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL )

Plaintiff, Nick Miletak submits this claim for damages and respectfully alleges as

follows:

1. NATURE OF ACTION

1. This is an individual consumer complaint against Defendant TaskRabbit, Inc., for

violations of the California Fair Credit Reporting Act, CA Civil Code § 1786.16 & § 1785.20.5 et

seq. ("CA-FCRA").

2. Plaintiff, Nick Miletak, alleges that the Defendant procured report ID: 83741127

from Sterling Infosystems, Inc. around December 7, 2015 without complying with the CA­

FCRA § 1786.16 which clearly establishes that the consent disclosure shall contain a check box

option for California consumers to request a copy of the background report if a background

report is procured.

(1) Provide the consumer a means by which the consumer may indicate on a written form, by means o£ a box to check, that the consumer wishes to receive a copy o£ any report that is prepared. I£ the consumer wishes to receive a copy of the report, the recipient o£ the report shall send a

TASKRABBIT, INC. COMPLAINT f'OR DAMAGES CASE NO.:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

copy o£ the report to the consumer within three business days o£ the d.a te that the report is provided to the recipient, who may contract with any other entity to send a copy to the consumer . The notice to request tile report may be contained on either the disclosure form , as required by subdivision (a), or a separate consent form. The copy of the report shall contain Lhe name, address , and telephone number of the person who issued the report and how to contact them .

3. Plaintiff, Nick Miletak, alleges that the Defendant also charged the Plaintiff $5.00

on March 1 , 2016 to his Bank of America account for procuring the background report m l1~6 . w. s-

violation of CA-FCRA §·1-9-89.19. which clearly establishes that:

1785 . 20 . 5. (a) Prior to requesting a consumer credit report for employment purposes , the user of the report shall provide written notice to the person involved . The noLice shall inform the person that a report will be used, and shall identify the specific basis under subdivision (a) of Section 1024. 5 of the Labor Code for use of the report. The notice shall also infonn the person of the source oF the report , and shall contain a box that the person may check off to receive R r.npy of the credit report . If the consumer indicates that he or she wishes to receive a copy of the report, the user shall request that a copy be provided to the person when the user requests its copy from the credit reporting agency . The report to the user and to the subject person sh~ll be provided contemporaneously and at no charge to the subject person .

The violation of this section occurs because users of TaskRabbit' s app are precluded from

registering and then accepting job assigrunents without first authorizing illegal charges for 17'8C -Zo- $

obtaining a background report on the user. As §~clearly states "The report to the user

and to the subject person shall be provided contemporaneously and at no charge to the subject

person." There can be no defense to the violation allegation.

II. PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, Nick Miletak is an adult residing in San Jose, California County of Santa

2

TASKRABBIT, INC. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO.:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

/. 3

24

25

Clara.

5. Defendant TaskRabbit, Inc., is a corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware

on May 18, 2010 under file number C2398521 with the California Secretary of State or on

September 12, 2008 under file number 4599240 with the Delaware Secretary of State and has a

principal place of business located at 425 2"d Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94107.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Constitution

Article VI, § 1 0, which grants the Superior Court "original jurisdiction in all causes except those

given by statute to other courts." The statutes under which this action is brought do not specify

any other basis for jurisdiction.

6. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendant because, based on information and

belief, each party is either a citizen of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in California,

or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the California market so as to render the exercise of

jurisdiction over it by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and

substantial justice.

7. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and beliet: one or more

of the named Defendants reside, transact business, or have offices in this county and the acts and

omissions alleged herein took place in this county.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. TaskRabbit, Inc is classifies itself as a technology company connecting taskers

with individuals who need household errands and skilled tasks or jobs performed. The About Us

page at http://www.taskrabbit.com/about states "TaskRabbit allows you to live smarter by

connecting you with safe and reliable help in your neighborhood. Outsource your household

errands and skilled tasks to trusted people in your community.

9. To carry out its business activities and objectives, Task Rabbit, Inc. , markets to

T ASKRABBIT, INC. COMPLAiNT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO.:

-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

J I

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

matvtduals seekmg tlextble employment schedules to become TaskRabbit "Taskers" to complete

tasks Gobs) utilizing their works skills, their own private vehicle and or tools. Taskers are also

frequently required to pay for job supplies in advance of completing the job and wait to be

reimbursed by TaskRabbit for expenses incurred.

10. The onboarding or sign-up process with TaskRabbit includes a required electronic

disclosure to the applicant pertaining to the background checks. The disclosure provided to

applicants is a mandatory document and requires the applicant to consent to being charged for

TaskRabbit to procure a background report on the applicant. The application process and

registration will not be successful unless the applicant agrees to the charges.

11. After successful registration with TaskRabbit the applicant is then scheduled for a

1 - 1 12 hour orientation meeting. After completion of the orientation meeting the applicant can

immediately start completing tasks/jobs.

12. A criminal record can be the most significant component of a background check

and can often negatively impact a consumer's application for employment or a consumer' s

employment. As a result, both the FCRA and the CA-FCRA contain specific provisions that

impose duties of special care that CRAs and users of CRA must take when reporting public

records in connection with employment or requesting background reports to be procured 15

U.S.C. § 168l(a); CA Civil Code §1785.20.5, §1786.10-1786.40.

The Facts Pertaining to Plaintiff Nick Miletak

13 . On November 28, 2015 or thereabouts the Plain tift' Nick Miletak applied for

employment with TaskRabbit, Inc. to become a Tasker with the Defendant.

14. On November 28, 2015 or thereabouts the Plaintiff electronically signed a

background report consent disclosure provided by the Defendant. The consent disclosure is

completely deficient and does not comply with California Civil Code Section 1786.16 (CA­

FCRA) which clearly requires a check box option to be provided on the consent disclosure

allowing applicants in California to request a copy of the background report if it should be

TASKRABBTT, TNC. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE No.:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1 :!

13

14

1 5

16

17

18

1 9

20

21

22

2 3

24

2 5

procured.

15. On December 7, 2015 the Defendant ordered and procured report ID: 83741127

from Sterling Infosystems, Inc., with the Plaintiff as the subject of that report.

16. On February 27, 2016 the! Plaintiff attende!d the uril!ntation session with the

Defendant at 425 2nd Street, Floor 1, San Francisco, CA 94107. After completion of the

orientation session the Plaintiff.c;_; account with the Defendant was set to active status.

17. On March 1, 2016 the Defendant charged the Plaintiffs Bank of America

checking account $5.00 (Five) dollars tor procuring the background report from Sterling in clear

violation ofCA Civil Code §1785.20.5.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I CA-FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT,§ 1786.16

18. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations.

19. TaskRabbit, Inc., is a user ofCRA's and MUST comply with all provisions ofthe

CA-FCRA to include section§ 1786.16.

20. At all times pertinent hereto, the Plaintiff was a "consumer" as that term is

defmed by both 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c) and the CA-FCRA.

21 . At all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned background reports were a

"consumer report" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d) and the CA-FCRA.

22. TaskRabbit, Inc., violated the CA-FCRA § 1786.16 by failing to provide a

compliant consent disclosure to the Plaintiff prior to procuring a background report ..

23 . As a result of TaskRabbit, lnc., violation of § 1786.16 of the CA-FCRA,

Defendant is liable to Plaintiff Miletak in a statutory amount of $10,000 or actual damages

whichever is greater found in § 1786.50 which addresses penalties for violations of the CA-

FCRA.

24. The violation by TaskRabbit, Inc., is willful and they continue to ignore the

deficiency contained in their consent disclosure despite Plaintiffs repeated efforts at alerting the

5 TASKRABBIT, lNC. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE No.:

• i ~ - - - -- · t --

' I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Defendant of the deficiency ..

25 . PlaintifTis entitled to recover $10,000 or actual damages, statutory damages, costs

and attorneys' fees from TaskRabbit in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to

§ 1786.50. COUNT I

CA-FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT,§ 1785.20.5

26. Plaintiff alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations.

27. TaskRabbit, Inc., is a user of CRA's and MUST comply with all provisions of the

CA-FCRA to include section § 1785.20.5.

28. At all times pertinent hereto, the Plaintiff was a "consumer" as that term is

defined by both 15 U.S.C. § 168la(c) and the CA-FCRA.

29. At all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned background reports were a

"consumer report" as that term is defmed by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d) and the CA-FCRA.

30. TaskRabbit, Tnc., violated the CA-FCRA § 1785.20.5 by charging the Plaintiff for

a background report used in connection with employment.

31. As a result of TaskRabbit Inc., violation of ~ 1785.20.5 of the CA-FCRA,

Defendant is liable to Plaintiff Miletak in a statutory amount of $10,000 or actual damages

whichever is greater tound in § 1786.50 which addresses penalties for violations uf the CA-

FCRA.

32. The violation by TaskRabbit, Tnc., is willful and they continue to charge

applicants for procuring a background report in connection with employment despite Plaintiffs

repeated efforts at alerting the Defendant of the non-compliance issue.

33. PlaintitT is entitled to recover $10,000 or actual damages, statutory damages, costs

and attorneys' fees from TaskRabbit, Inc., in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant

to § 1786.50.

2 4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgement in Plaintiffs favor and damages against

25 Defendant TaskRabbit, Inc., for the following requested relief:

A. Actual damages;

6 TASKRABBIT, INC. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO.:

-------- --

5 Date: March 10,2016

6 Nick Miletak -In Pro Per

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7 TASK RABBIT, INC. COMPLAfNT FOR DAMAGES CASE No.:

----------------~,.-------..., ----- --- -

TELEPHONE NO · 408-533-5689 FAX NO : ;::;· ' -. ATTORNEY FOR (Name). -· -· • -

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Santa Clara sTREET ADDREss: 191 North First Street 2016 "' ' ... ') I · · MAILING ADDREss: 191 North First Street I' .'\il t.. A II : 4 b

ciTYANDZIPcooE. San Jose, 95113 L~~·· th BRANcH NAME: Downtown Branch CASE NAME:

r"'' '::.) L ~ • ._ . -Miletak vs. TaskRabbit -. -~ -

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation ,SbUMC''V Z9? 9 8 D Unlimited [Z] Limited D Counter D Joinder

1 (Amount (Amount demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant JUDGE:

exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT:

-Items 1 6 below must be completed (see mstructtons on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:

Auto Tort Contract D Auto (22) D Breach of contracVwarranty (06)

D Uninsured motorist (46) D Rule 3.740 collections (09)

Other PIIPDIWD (Personal Injury/Property D Other collections (09)

Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort D Insurance coverage (1B) D Asbestos (04) D D Product liability (24) Other contract (37)

D Real Property

Medical malpractice (45) D Eminent domain/Inverse D Other PIIPDIWD (23) condemnation (14)

Non-PIIPD/WD (Other) Tort D Wrongful eviction (33)

D Business tort/unfair business practice (07) D Other real property (26)

D Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer

D Defamation (13) D Commercial (31)

D Fraud (16) D Residential (32)

D Intellectual property (19) D Drugs (38)

D Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review

D Other non-PIIPDIWD tort (35) D Asset forfeiture (05) ~loyment D Petition re: arbitration award (11)

U Wrongful termination (36) D Writ of mandate (02)

D Other employment (15) D Other judicial review (39)

Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.40G-3.403)

D AntitrusVTrade regulation (03)

D Construction defect (10)

D Mass tort (40)

D Securities litigation (28) D Environmental/Toxic tort (30)

D Insurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provisionally complex case types (41)

Enforcement of Judgment

0 Enforcement of judgment (20)

Miscellaneous Civil Complaint

D RIC0(27)

[Z] Other complaint (not specified above) (42)

Miscellaneous Civil Petition

D Partnership and corporate governance (21)

0 Other petition (not specified above) (43)

2. This case U is [£] is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court_ If the case Is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management:

Large number of separately represented parties d. D Large number of witnesses a.D b.D Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. D Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts

issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court

c. D Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. D Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision

3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.[Z] monetary b. D nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. (Z]punitive

4 . Number of causes of action (specify) : 1. CA Civil Code 1786.16 violation & 1785.20.5 5. This case D is 0 is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.)

Date: March 9, 2016 Nick Miletak

(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) NOTICE

• Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions.

• File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. • If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all

other parties to the action or proceeding. • Unless this is a collections case under rule 3 .740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onlv.

!fage1 of2

Fonn Adopted for Mandatory Use . ludlrJ~I r.nunt:.i l nf CAiifnrniA CM.{)1 0 [Rev. July 1, 2007]

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3. 740; Cal. Standordo of Judicial Adminiatnltion, std. 3.10

www.courtinfo.ca.gov