undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjoosters12y ago0 comments

TFA: "If Uber employees intentionally diverted Gett drivers from legitimate business by making phony calls, that is an unfair business practice, illegal under California law," he said. "It is also an intentional interference with Gett's business which makes them liable for money damages."

0 comments

67726e12y ago

Except the incident occurred in New York state and they consulted someone about California state law? I'd guess most states have similar laws so it is a bit of a moot point.

tvon12y ago

Uber is based in San Francisco, which may be why they asked a San Francisco-based attorney.

yapcguy12y ago

I am not a lawyer but if anyone out there is...

If the criminal/fraudulent activity which occurred in New York was directed from management based in California, wouldn't the crime become a federal one? What if the e-mail trail reveals similar activity in multiple states directed by managers in San Francisco?

at-fates-hands12y ago

Not necessarily.

Charges can brought in multiple states at the same time, for the same crime which doesn't violate fifth amendment protection of double jeopardy. It's known as the dual sovereignty doctrine.

The FBI only gets involved in the most serious of cases such as organized crime, drugs, gangs, terrorism, cyber crime, etc.

What the FBI investigates: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/what_we_investigate

Info on the dual sovereignty doctrine: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/charged-twice-in...

dragonwriter12y ago

> If the criminal/fraudulent activity which occurred in New York was directed from management based in California, wouldn't the crime become a federal one?

No, though that may make it so that a federal crime (e.g., wire fraud) was committed in addition to any state crime that was committed.

Pxtl12y ago

Well, I assume they only had a California lawyer handy and he could only speak to California's laws for reference.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse