10.  Uber is a San Francisco-based car service that provides transportation service in  cities throughout the country, including in California, via an on-demand dispatch system.     11.  Uber offers customers the ability to hail a car service driver on a mobile phone  application.   12.  Uber’s website has advertised that “Uber is your on-demand private driver.”   13.  Although classified as independent contractors, Uber drivers are employees under  California law.     14.  Drivers perform a service in the usual course of Uber’s business, since Uber is a  car service that provides transportation to its customers, and drivers such as Plaintiff Angela  McRay perform that transportation service.  Uber holds itself out as a transportation service, and  it generates its revenue primarily from customers paying for the very rides that its drivers  perform.  Without drivers to provide rides for Uber’s customers, Uber would not exist.    15.  Uber also requires its drivers to abide by a litany of policies and rules designed  to control the drivers’ work performance.  Uber retains the right to terminate drivers at any time  in its discretion. Uber may terminate a driver if the driver behaves in a way that Uber believes  in inappropriate or has violated one of Uber’s rules or standards. Drivers are also subject to  termination based on Uber’s system of using customer rating feedback; drivers can be  terminated in Uber’s discretion if Uber deems their customer ratings to be inadequate.   33.  The class representative, Angela McRay, has brought this action as a class action  pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of Uber drivers who have  worked for Uber in California.     34.  The class representative and other class members have uniformly been  misclassified as independent contractors.     35.  The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all class members is  impracticable.   36.  Common questions of law and fact regarding Uber’s conduct exist as to all  members of the class and predominate over any questions affecting solely any individual  members of the class.  Among the questions of law and fact common to the class are:  a. Whether the work performed by class members—providing transportation service  to customers—is within Uber’s usual course of business, and whether such  service is fully integrated into Uber’s business;   b. Whether class members have been required to work under Uber’s direction and  control;  c. Whether class members are engaged in an independently established business or  occupation while they are transporting Uber customers;   d. Whether class members have been required to bear the expenses of their  employment, such as expenses for their vehicles, gas, and other expenses;  e. Whether class members have suffered other violations of the California Labor  Code and Wage Orders, as described herein.    42.  An actual controversy of sufficient immediacy exists between the Parties as to  whether Uber has failed to comply with its obligations under the California Labor Code, as  described above.   47.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding  paragraphs as if fully alleged herein.  Uber’s conduct, as set forth above, in misclassifying its  drivers as independent contractors, and failing to reimburse them for expenses they paid that  should have been borne by their employer, including but not limited to gas, insurance, car  maintenance, and phone data charges, constitutes a violation of California Labor Code Section  2802 and Wage Order 9-2001.   48.  This claim is brought on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals who  have worked as drivers for Uber in the state of California.  49.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding  paragraphs as if fully alleged herein.  Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, in continuing to  classify drivers as independent contractors notwithstanding the California Supreme Court’s  decision in Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903, 416 P.3d 1 (2018),  reh'g denied (June 20, 2018), and notwithstanding the California Legislature’s passage of  Assembly Bill 5, both of which make clear that Uber drivers are employees under California  law, violates Cal. Lab. Code §226.8 and constitutes willful misclassification.     51.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding  paragraphs as if fully alleged herein.  Uber’s conduct, as set forth above, in failing to ensure its  drivers rececive minimum wage for all hours worked as required by California law, violates Cal.  Lab. Code §§ 1197, 1194, 1182.12, 1194.2, 1197.1, 1199 and Wage Order 9-2001 (as well as  the higher minimum wage rates established by the San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance,  the Los Angeles Citywide Minimum Wage Ordinance, and the Los Angeles County Minimum  Wage Ordinance, for those drivers who worked in those jurisdictions).     52.  This claim is brought on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals who  have worked as drivers for Uber in the state of California.  53.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding  paragraphs as if fully alleged herein.  Defendant’s conduct, as set forth above, in failing to pay  its employees the appropriate overtime premium for overtime hours worked as required by  California Law, violates Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1198, 510 and 554 and Wage Order 9-2001.     55.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in the preceding  paragraphs as if fully alleged herein.  Uber’s conduct, as set forth above, in failing to provide  proper itemized wage statements, as required by California state law, violates Cal. Lab. Code  §226(a) and Wage Order 9-2001.    56.  This claim is brought on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals who  have worked as drivers for Uber in the state of California.  Declaratory Judgment  Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2201   Expense Reimbursement  Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 2802, Wage Order 9-2001   Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Pay Statements  Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a), 226.3; Wage Order 9-2001   Minimum Wage  Violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1197, 1194, 1182.12, 1194.2, 1197.1, 1199;   Wage Order 9-2001; San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance;  Los Angeles Citywide Minimum Wage Ordinance;   Los Angeles County Minimum Wage Ordinance   Overtime  Violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1198, 510 and 554; Wage Order 9-2001   Unfair Business Practices  Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.   Willful Misclassification   Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 226.8  