Judge Dismisses Some Uber Driver Sexual Assault Lawsuit Claims Under Texas and California Law, Allowing Plaintiffs to File Amended Complaints

Court will hold a status conference later this month to discuss the timeline for filing amended complaints with more individualized allegations of Uber driver sexual assaults, and renewed motions challenging these amended pleadings.

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all Uber driver sexual assault lawsuits has dismissed a number of claims brought under Texas and California state law, but is providing plaintiffs the opportunity to file amended complaints containing more individualized allegations necessary for the litigation to move forward.

Uber currently faces more than 400 lawsuits brought throughout the U.S. court system, each involving similar allegations that Uber drivers sexually assaulted passengers, since the rideshare company failed to take appropriate safety precautions to prevent sexual predators from targeting passengers on a regular basis.

Given common questions of fact and law raised in the complaints, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation established an Uber driver sexual assault lawsuit MDL in October 2023, centralizing all claims before U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer in the Northern District of California, for coordinated discovery and a series of early “bellwether” trials to gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony that may be repeated throughout the litigation.

Earlier this year, Uber filed a motion to dismiss claims brought under the laws of a few select states, arguing that plaintiffs failed to present viable theories to hold the rideshare company liable under theories of fraud and misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, failure to provide safe transportation, failure to warn and design defects.

Dismissed Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits Can Be Refiled

In a pretrial order (PDF) issued on August 15, Judge Breyer addressed motions filed under the laws of California and Texas, agreeing to dismiss all of the Texas state law claims and most of those brought under California state law. However, he gave plaintiffs affected by the decision permission to refile amended complaints with more individualized allegations to address problems with how Uber lawsuits were filed.

Early in the litigation, plaintiffs filed a master complaint outlining all of the allegations and claims presented against Uber, which then allowed each individual claimant to file a short-form complaint adopting certain allegations relevant to their claims. However, Uber argued that the filings were deficient and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The master complaint outlined Uber’s failure to take steps that could have prevented the large numbers of sexual assaults committed by drivers, alleging that the company long marketed itself in a misleading way, particularly when it came to passenger safety. However, the company actually was incentivized to avoid imposing safety measures that would deter drivers and increase wait times for passengers seeking rides. Therefore, plaintiffs indicate that Uber uses only cursory background checks, and failed to handle complaints involving sexual assault in a manner that could have protected riders.

However, Judge Breyer points out that the master complaint and various short form complaints fail to contain individualized facts, causing the lawsuits to fail due to the absence of allegations to make the individual causation allegations plausible.

“As Uber points out, whether a given design defect is proximate or even but-for cause of any plaintiff’s injury will depend on the circumstances of the alleged assault or harassment,” Judge Breyer wrote in a potion of the 55 page order. “For example, if a plaintiff was assaulted by someone of the same gender – or would not have selected a driver of the same gender if able to do so – then Uber’s failure to design that feature in the app did not cause their injury. If a plaintiff was assaulted on a ride without any route deviations or unexpected driving, then designing the app to flag such conduct could not be said to have caused a given assault. And if the alleged assailant was a registered driver, such that any biometric screening would not have prevented him from using the app, then failing to add that feature did not cause the assault. Here, neither the [Master Complaint] nor the short-form complaints contain any descriptions of the alleged incidents, nor do they otherwise explain how the absence of a given feature caused any particular assault.”

While the claims brought under Texas and California state law were dismissed, Judge Breyer gave plaintiffs leave to amend the pleadings, and scheduled a case management conference for August 29, 2024, to discuss the timeline for such filings, as well as any challenges that will be filed on the amended pleadings. The parties have been directed to file a joint status report in advance of the meeting.