Explore the latest updates on the consolidated Uber sexual assault MDL, including key rulings, discovery disputes, and upcoming bellwether trials. Ensure your mass tort law firm is equipped to handle the complexities of this litigation.
Maximize efficiency and optimize your case management with Verus. Contact us today for specialized litigation support in mass tort and class action cases.
Uber Sexual Assault Case Update: MDL Consolidation & Ongoing Litigation
MDL Consolidation and Case Transfer
On October 4, 2023, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated the federal sexual assault cases pending against Uber, transferring them to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This established MDL No. 3084, In Re: Uber Technologies, Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, which now includes approximately 1,600 cases as of January 2025.
Parallel State Court Proceedings
Additionally, 513 cases are proceeding in the California Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) before Judge Ethan P. Schulman. Coordination was granted in December 2001, with trial dates set for the summer of 2025.
Key Allegations and Master Complaint
A master complaint, filed in February 2024, alleges that Uber was aware for decades of driver assaults and failed to implement crucial safety measures like biometric checks, in-car cameras, and enhanced background screenings, prioritizing profit over safety.
Significant Court Orders and Rulings
- March 2024: The MDL judge ordered the management of plaintiff and defendant fact sheets, setting a document submission deadline
- May 2024: Judge Breyer denied Uber’s motion to dismiss based on its Terms of Use (TOU) non-consolidation clause, ruling it unenforceable.
- October 2024: Uber petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus to challenge the MDL’s creation and the TOU ruling.
- December 2024 and beyond: The parties are currently engaged in discovery disputes, including Uber’s attempt to claw back privileged documents revealing its knowledge of safety risks. Pretrial Order #21 mandates each side select 10 plaintiffs by February 14, 2025, for a 20-case bellwether discovery pool, with a tentative list due June 1, 2025.
Original JPML Hearing: Initial Arguments for Uber Sexual Assault MDL Consolidation
JPML Hearing Overview and Plaintiff’s Petition
Oral arguments on the petition for consolidating Uber sexual assault cases into MDL No. 3084, In Re: Uber Technologies, Inc. Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, were held on September 28, 2023, in Lexington, KY. Plaintiffs sought consolidation based on common factual issues across at least 22 lawsuits in 11 jurisdictions. According to the Notice of Hearing Session and Memo in Support of the Petition to Transfer, there were at least 22 lawsuits pending in 11 different jurisdictions against the rideshare company. The memo stated:
“Plaintiffs are rape and sexual assault survivors who were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers who were supposed to safely transport Plaintiffs to their destinations as passengers. Plaintiffs are aware of many such cases yet to be filed.
The cases against Uber are premised on the fact that Uber failed to adequately vet its drivers and failed to take appropriate safety precautions once it had notice that a subset of Uber drivers were sexual predators and were sexually assaulting Uber passengers on a widespread basis. The cases allege that Uber was aware of the problem but nevertheless failed to conduct appropriate background checks, failed to adequately train and supervise its drivers, failed to adequately respond to complaints about predator drivers, failed to adopt safety design changes in the Uber App, and failed to adopt standard safety measures such as video and audio surveillance.”
Uber’s Safety Report and Assault Statistics
In an 84-page Safety Report issued in December 2019, Uber disclosed that it had received nearly 6,000 reports of sexual assaults, including 464 rape allegations, during its rides in 2017, 2018, and through October 2019.
Plaintiff’s Core Allegations Against Uber
Plaintiffs requested the panel to transfer the actions to the Northern District of California. Uber opposed the Motion to Consolidate, arguing:
“Plaintiffs’ motion for centralization should be denied for two independent reasons. First, the plaintiffs contractually agreed in the Uber App Terms of Use agreement to proceed “on an individual basis only,” and to not pursue any “coordinated [or] consolidated” action…. Second, these cases are ill-suited for centralization because they have little in common. Each involves different types of sexual misconduct allegedly committed by different drivers (none employed by Uber) against different plaintiffs, in different time periods and places, with different witnesses and under different circumstances. Plaintiffs’ own counsel has stated that “the details and severity of the cases widely vary. The core factual questions are thus unique to each case.”
Prior State Court Coordination and Dismissals
The opposition memo further outlined the procedural history, noting an earlier attempt to coordinate cases in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, involving nearly 1,500 cases of sexual assault allegations. Although these were coordinated, approximately 1,000 non-California cases were dismissed following Uber’s Motion for Forum Non Conveniens in the JCCP in October 2022, requiring litigation in the state where the injury occurred. That forum non conveniens issue remains under appeal.
Key Factual Issues for MDL Consolidation
In response to the forum issue, the memo before the JPML identified several common questions of fact warranting consolidation:
- Uber’s knowledge of driver sexual harassment, assault, and rape.
- Uber’s failure to improve safety procedures and policies.
- Uber’s failure to require driver sexual harassment or assault training.
- Uber’s failure to conduct adequate driver background checks.
- Uber’s failure to implement app safety features.
- Uber’s failure to address passenger reports of sexual assault.
- Uber’s failure to terminate assaulting or unfit drivers.
- Uber’s marketing tactics and failure to warn passengers of risks.
- Uber’s status as a common carrier.
- Uber’s false statements regarding safe rides.
Early Complaint and Alleged Prior Knowledge
An early complaint filed by Slater, Slater Schulman LLP in July 2022 alleged Uber was aware of driver sexual assaults as early as 2014, but its response was “slow and inadequate.”
Key Implications and Future Outlook of the Uber Sexual Assault MDL
These bellwether trials are crucial as they will provide insight into how juries may respond to the evidence and arguments, potentially influencing settlement negotiations. If Uber’s clawback efforts are successful, it could significantly impact the plaintiffs’ ability to demonstrate Uber’s awareness of safety risks and potential liability.
The coming months will be critical as both sides prepare for the bellwether trials. The outcomes of these trials will likely shape the future of this MDL and any potential settlement negotiations.
Stay informed on the latest developments in mass tort litigation.
Enhance your mass tort litigation strategy. Contact Verus today to discover how our specialized case management services can support your firm in complex MDLs like the Uber sexual assault cases.
Disclaimer: This article provides information for general knowledge and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with qualified legal counsel for advice tailored to their specific circumstances.
