Federal judges send national Uber lawsuit to Lexington for a hearing. Here’s why.
More than 20 victims across nine states are suing Uber Technologies in a multidistrict federal lawsuit, alleging they were sexually assaulted when they used the rideshare service. Despite none of the victims having ties to Kentucky, federal judges have ordered that a hearing take place in Lexington to determine if all the lawsuits should be consolidated into one.
Fourteen attorneys representing the alleged victims have petitioned the federal courts to bring all the cases together so they can streamline proceedings. Attorneys claim this will avoid inconsistent rulings, duplicate discovery, preserve resources and aid in efficient resolution.
The sexual assault claims “widely range” from sexual comments to violent, criminal acts of sexual assault, according to court documents filed by Uber’s defense team. In addition to sexual assault, some victims’ complaints also allege negligence, vicarious liability, products liability, misrepresentation and fraud.
Uber did say in a legal reply that “this conduct, where it occurs, represents the worst of humanity and has no place on Uber’s platform.” But the company is trying to prevent the cases from being consolidated together.
The hearing will take place in Lexington as part of a rotating and randomized schedule for the U.S. Judicial Panel to convene. Federal judges will hear time-limited arguments from both sides and make a decision on whether the case should be consolidated, according to Bret Stanley of Houston-based personal injury law firm, Kherkher Garcia, LLP, who represents one of the victims.
There are no reported victims of assault in Lexington or Kentucky included in the lawsuits, and no previous hearings have taken place in Kentucky for this lawsuit.
If the panel agrees for the case to be consolidated, another judge in a different federal district will do the pretrial work on the case to acquire discovery against Uber. Once that is finished, the cases will be sent back to the respective jurisdictions in which they were filed.
Stanley described multidistrict litigation petitions as the “cousin” to class action lawsuits, which is when a group of people collectively brings a lawsuit against a defendant or defendants.
“Multidistrict litigation is similar, but people file their own cases in federal court,” Stanley explained.
Attorney: One assault is ‘one too many.’
Stanley said he and the other plaintiffs’ attorneys are pushing for the case against Uber because the company has failed to protect riders in an interest of serving more riders for a profit.
“The sexual assault cases against Uber – and we expect to see many, many more – are premised on the fact that Uber has failed, and continues to fail, in properly vetting its drivers,” Stanley said in a news release. “Additionally, Uber has failed to take safety precautions once aware that a subset of drivers were sexual predators who were assaulting passengers on a widespread basis.”
According to Uber’s website, prospective drivers must undergo a multi-step safety screen that checks before their first trip for issues, including but not limited to “impaired driving and violent offenses.”
The website also claims drivers undergo ongoing checks if a notification is received of criminal activity, and an annual check to continue accessing the app.
Despite the checks, Stanley argues “Uber blatantly avoids taking even the most basic and necessary measures to pre-screen its drivers, because doing so would greatly reduce the pool of applicants and directly reflect the number of cars available to service customers.
“They failed from our perspective,” Stanley told the Herald-Leader. “One assault is one too many.”
According to public safety reports produced by Uber, there have been 9,805 sexual assaults against riders in the last four years. Stanley believes the true number of assaults is greater, as they often go under-reported.
Stanley said Uber has previously attempted to stop consolidation of cases in previous, separate lawsuits brought against them in California state court. He said if the judges deny a consolidated effort, it could shield exposure to the litigation and there will be fewer claims made.
“The more women that see this, there is an opportunity for them to raise their hand and be heard,” Stanley said. “There is no doubt that if this is not performed, there will be less participation, which is a good thing for a defendant. It limits exposure.”
Uber: Cases share ‘little in common’
Uber Technologies filed a 450-page response to deny the request for centralization that largely focuses on their terms of use agreement in the Uber app which contractually prohibits riders from pursuing combined legal claims, and coordination of the claims “will not promote convenience or efficiency,” according to court documents.
Uber also claims the core issues are individualized and different state laws require different factual inquiries, court documents say. The defense says the cases “share little in common.”
In a response to the lawsuits, Uber’s defense wrote there are “countless driver-specific” questions: their personal motivations, prior incidents, and driver affiliation with other parties.
Plaintiffs allege background checks were inadequate, but Uber’s defense said the allegation is only relevant if the inadequate of a particular third-party background check “caused an individual plaintiff’s injury,” according to a response filed by the defense.
“Individualized factual questions will overwhelm the common issues, and there will be no overlapping discovery regarding the ‘particulars of the abuse alleged by each plaintiff,’ which include a wide range of conduct from threatened assault to non-consensual kissing to sexual assault.” defense attorney Robert Atkins wrote.
“There also will not be overlapping discovery as to ‘highly plaintiff-specific questions of damages’ — each alleged incident and each survivor’s experience and injuries are unique, subjective and highly personal.”
Atkins was not immediately available for comment Thursday morning.
A U.S. Judicial Panel will convene in Lexington Sept. 28 to determine if the cases should be consolidated.
This story was originally published September 7, 2023 at 9:52 AM.
