Lyft Opposes MDL for Driver Sexual Assault Lawsuits in Federal Court

Rideshare service notes that nearly 2,000 Lyft driver sexual assault lawsuits have already been consolidated in California state court, questioning the need for separate federal MDL proceedings.

Lyft is asking a panel of federal judges to reject a call to consolidate all sexual assault lawsuits brought against the rideshare company in the federal court system, indicating there is already a similar consolidation established in California state court, which includes claims brought by former passengers nationwide who indicate they were attacked by Lyft drivers.

Each of the Lyft sexual assault lawsuits raise similar allegations, indicating that the rideshare company failed to take steps that could have prevented drivers from sexually assaulting passengers, who are mostly women now coming forward to indicate they were harassed, groped, and even abducted or raped. Similar allegations have also been raised in lawsuits against Uber, indicating that each of the rideshare services failed to implement basic safety features that could have protected passengers..

More than 2,500 Uber passenger sexual assault lawsuits have already been consolidated in the federal court system, as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California. In comparison, there have only been 17 Lyft sexual assault lawsuits filed across 10 different District Courts nationwide.

However, since plaintiffs’ attorneys expect that Lyft will continue to face a growing number of federal lawsuits in the coming months and years, a request was recently filed to establish similar consolidation of the federal claims as part of a separate Lyft MDL.

In early October, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict litigation (JPML) received a motion to transfer all Lyft sexual assault lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide before one judge in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs say the consolidation would serve the convenience of the court, parties and witnesses, preventing duplicate discovery and contradictory rulings by different judges.

Lyft filed its own response (PDF) on November 11, asking the JPML to reject the motion for consolidation, primarily due to the fact that a mass tort of Lyft lawsuits already exists in California state court. That mass tort has existed for six years, defendants claim, with the “vast majority of common discovery completed.”

The rideshare service’s lawyers indicate there are already 1,971 cases as part of the Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings (JCCP), with 1,569 brought over incidents that allegedly occurred outside of California. Much of the discovery is complete, and a trial was slated to begin in October. However, the case was resolved before the trial could begin.

Defendants allege that the motion to create a federal MDL is the result of certain plaintiffs’ firms having a dispute over the common benefits fund, which is designed to reimburse attorneys for costs and fees incurred from work that benefits all plaintiffs. The newer Lyft sexual assault lawsuits were filed in federal courts as a result of that dispute, the company complains.

The JPML is expected to schedule oral arguments on the motion during an upcoming hearing session set for January 29, 2026, in San Diego, California.

If the panel still chooses to heed the motion, regardless of Lyft’s objection, all federal Lyft lawsuits would be consolidated before one U.S. District Court judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. However, each claim would remain an individual lawsuit where plaintiffs must establish that their damages were the direct result of Lyft’s negligence.

A judge assigned to oversee the cases is likely to call for Lyft sexual assault lawsuit bellwether trials, where the parties could see how juries would respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated throughout the litigation.

However, if no Lyft MDL lawsuit settlement or other resolution is reached after those pretrial proceedings and trials, each case would be transferred back to its originating court for an individual trial date.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.