Scott Crawford v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

The opinion displays two case captions: Scott Crawford v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 17-cv-02664-RS, and Stephan Namisnak, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-06124-RS. The plaintiffs are three people who use motorized wheelchairs. They alleged that Uber Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiary Rasier, Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by declining to provide wheelchair-accessible vehicle service, called UberWAV, in New Orleans, Louisiana, and Jackson, Mississippi.

After discovery, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on several claims under 42 U.S.C. § 12184. They asserted that Uber’s treatment of wheelchair-accessible vehicle drivers supported a claim under subsection (b)(1), that Uber had acquired an inaccessible van without providing equivalent service under subsection (b)(5), and that Uber failed to make reasonable modifications under subsection (b)(2). Uber also moved for summary judgment.

In an earlier order, the court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ summary-judgment motions. It ruled that subsection (b)(1) could not support relief because the plaintiffs had not pleaded it in their operative complaints. It ruled that the plaintiffs could not recover under subsection (b)(5) because their interpretation of that provision was not viable. The court concluded that the subsection (b)(2) reasonable-modifications claim presented factual issues for a factfinder and denied the cross-motions for summary judgment on that claim.

Motion to Amend

The plaintiffs then sought leave to amend their complaints to expressly add the subsection (b)(1) claim. A motion for leave to amend asks the court for permission to change a pleading. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), such permission generally should be freely given when justice requires. Courts consider bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, whether amendment would be futile, and whether the party previously amended the complaint. Prejudice to the opposing party receives the greatest weight.

Uber argued that the court had already ruled on the merits of the subsection (b)(1) claim and that the plaintiffs therefore needed to seek reconsideration of the summary-judgment order. The court rejected that argument, explaining that it had not decided the merits of the subsection (b)(1) claim; it had only determined that the claim was not properly pleaded in the operative complaints.

The court also rejected Uber’s arguments concerning bad faith and undue delay. Uber did not explain why the plaintiffs would have intentionally omitted the statutory subsection, and the plaintiffs sought amendment promptly after the summary-judgment ruling identified the pleading defect. Although the request came late and the plaintiffs had previously amended their complaints, the court found those considerations outweighed by the fact that the proposed claim was closely related to the properly pleaded subsection (b)(2) claim.

The court found that Uber had notice of the theory and facts underlying the proposed claim. The plaintiffs had alleged that wheelchair-accessible vehicle drivers were told they could not participate in UberWAV in the relevant cities, pursued that theory in discovery, and planned to use the evidence at trial on the subsection (b)(2) claim. The court stated that any remaining prejudice could also be addressed through limited additional discovery.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The order did not decide the merits of the proposed subsection (b)(1) claim. The court also denied Uber’s request that the plaintiffs pay attorney’s fees associated with post-amendment discovery and motion practice. Chief Judge Richard Seeborg signed the order.