Linzy v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Shaarille Linzy sued Uber Technologies, Inc. after she was hit by a car driven by Jose Alemar on December 5, 2019. Linzy asserted claims for Uber’s responsibility for Alemar’s conduct and for negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision.

Uber previously moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a case without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about an important fact. On November 6, 2023, the Court denied that motion. The Court relied primarily on a New York appellate decision holding that evidence showing an Uber driver was logged off the app was not, by itself, enough to eliminate factual questions about whether the driver was acting within the scope of employment.

Uber’s records indicated that Alemar was offline when the collision occurred and did not become available in the Driver App until several hours later. But Alemar testified that, around the time of the collision, he was going to start working for Uber and had been on the Uber app for about 10 to 15 minutes. Linzy argued that this testimony created a factual dispute about whether Alemar was acting within the scope of his employment.

Uber’s Motions

Uber moved for reconsideration of the earlier summary-judgment ruling. It argued that the Court had overlooked Linzy’s failure to produce evidence showing that Uber controlled Alemar and that Alemar owed duties to Uber. Uber also argued that the Court had misunderstood the New York appellate decision on which it relied.

In the alternative, Uber sought certification for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Such certification can permit an appeal before a final judgment when the order presents a controlling legal question, there is substantial disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal could materially advance the litigation.

Court’s Analysis

The Court explained that reconsideration is available only in limited circumstances, such as an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. The Court rejected Uber’s proposed bright-line rule that a driver cannot be acting within the scope of employment whenever the driver is not marked “online” in the Driver App.

The Court distinguished between having the app open and being online and available to receive ride requests. It nevertheless concluded that the evidence that Alemar was offline did not eliminate the factual question. A reasonable jury could potentially find that a driver who had opened the app and was about to begin working for Uber was engaged in Uber’s business or in an act necessary or incidental to that work.

The Court also rejected Uber’s argument that the cited New York appellate decision did not apply because the collision occurred in an area associated with a different New York appellate department. The Court stated that, where the relevant issue has not been addressed by the local appellate department, a federal court should consider New York law generally and apply precedent from another department unless contrary authority is established.

As to interlocutory appeal, the Court found no substantial ground for disagreement about the New York appellate decision’s holding or its application here. The Court also concluded that the case did not present the exceptional circumstances required for an early appeal. It emphasized that the ruling did not broadly expand Uber’s potential liability; it applied the principle that proof of a driver’s offline status, without more, is insufficient to warrant summary judgment on the scope-of-employment issue.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Uber’s motion for reconsideration and denied Uber’s alternative motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal. The Court directed the parties to appear for a telephone status conference and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions.