Plaintiff Young Chon has filed an appeal against Uber USA, LLC following the Superior Court of Los Angeles County's decision to grant Uber's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The complaint was initially filed by Chon in December 2020, and the appeal was heard on May 30, 2024.
Chon, representing himself, originally lodged a complaint for damages alleging that his work as an Uber driver led to medical conditions including arrhythmia and eventually a stroke. He claimed that these health issues were exacerbated by Uber’s repeated underpayment and refusal to correct payment errors. However, the trial court dismissed his complaint without leave to amend, citing an inadequate record provided by Chon and his failure to oppose the motion at the lower court level.
The procedural history reveals that Uber filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on March 10, 2023. Despite being present at a hearing on April 7, 2023, Chon did not file an opposition nor did he request necessary transcripts or documents such as his original complaint or Uber’s motion. The trial court found that Chon's complaint contained factual assertions but lacked identifiable causes of action or cognizable claims. Specifically, it could not determine whether Chon was asserting negligence or contract claims or seeking lost wages based on contract or statute.
Judge Michael E. Whitaker concluded that even if Chon had alleged negligence, he failed to establish necessary elements such as duty of care and causation. Moreover, since Chon did not oppose the motion formally, he did not meet his burden to demonstrate how amending the complaint could cure its defects. Consequently, judgment was entered in favor of Uber on May 19, 2023.
On appeal, Chon argued that his complaint clearly implicated a breach of contract claim and contended that he could amend it to address unpaid wages or personal injury claims adequately. However, due to his failure to provide an adequate record for review and support his factual assertions with citations from the record—violating appellate rules—his arguments were deemed forfeited.
Uber's legal team argued successfully that Chon's failure to raise these issues at trial and lack of evidence presented in the appellate record meant he could not establish error. Furthermore, despite acknowledging that he orally opposed during the hearing without filing written opposition or providing a transcript of those proceedings weakened his position significantly.
The appellate court upheld Judge Whitaker’s decision emphasizing that self-represented litigants are held to the same procedural standards as attorneys. Thus, without sufficient records or evidence demonstrating how amendments could rectify his initial complaints' deficiencies, there was no basis for overturning the lower court's ruling.
The case was presided over by Judges Collins J., Currey P.J., and Mori J., with legal representation from Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP for Uber USA LLC while Young Chon represented himself pro se.