Uber Stay Request Denied in Federal Sexual Harassment Cases

Uber Technologies Inc. failed to convince a judge to stay hundreds of federal lawsuits accusing rideshare drivers of sexually assaulting passengers while an appeals court considers the order centralizing the cases in San Francisco.

Judge Charles R. Breyer of the US District Court for the Northern District of California rejected Uber’s request Friday. A US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit order reversing the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s centralization order would be unprecedented. Uber argues the JPML abused its discretion.

A total of 220 actions are pending in the MDL, 25 of which were transferred from other districts. The remainder were directly filed in the Northern District of California, the court said.

There’s at least a “fair possibility” the plaintiffs would be prejudiced by a stay, which, “as a practical matter,” would be indefinite with no guarantee when the appellate panel would rule. Further, evidence fades, and the federal plaintiffs’ case could fall far too behind the state lawsuits, which might require them to cede control over the course of discovery to other plaintiffs’ counsel, he said.

Uber had asked for a 60-day stay.

The initial briefing schedule the Ninth Circuit set indicated an intent to move the petition along quickly, “but Uber’s petition seeks relief that has rarely if ever been sought—and apparently has never been granted—so the issues are novel,” he said.

Breyer’s decision comes a week after Uber struggled to convince him.

Uber still must engage in discovery, whether on a centralized basis or in district courts around the country, the judge said. Uber’s motions to dismiss won’t be fully briefed until June, and if the appeals court granted the petition before then, the company could likely use the same briefing in individual actions upon remand.

“While Uber talks of the potential unnecessary expenditure of resources, much of the work the parties and the Court will do in the coming months could be used in individual actions—and in the collection of actions that will remain in this Court—even if Uber’s petition were granted. A stay is unwarranted,” Breyer said.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise LLP, and Chaffin Luhana LLP are co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. Paul Weiss Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP represents Uber.

The case is In re: Uber Techs., Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litig., N.D. Cal., No. 3:23-md-03084, order 2/9/24.