Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Jane Doe brought a negligence claim against Uber Technologies, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Rasier, LLC and Rasier CA, LLC. The claim arose from an assault by a former Uber driver who posed as a current Uber driver.

Uber renewed its request to stay, or temporarily pause, the case while the California Court of Appeal decided a related appeal, No. B310131. The related plaintiffs alleged that men posing as Uber drivers raped them and asserted negligence and strict-products-liability claims. A California superior court had sustained Uber’s demurrer without leave to amend, concluding in relevant part that the plaintiffs had alleged a failure to warn rather than affirmative misconduct.

The court had previously denied Uber’s request for a stay without prejudice because it was uncertain when the appeal would be heard. Uber renewed the request after the appellate court set a hearing for May 17, 2022. Uber argued that a stay would promote efficiency and prevent prejudice from litigating similar issues in two courts. Jane Doe argued that the facts and legal theories in the two cases were materially different and that the litigation was already at a late stage.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the factors from Landis v. North American Co. for deciding whether to pause a case: possible harm from the pause, hardship or unfairness from requiring the case to continue, and whether a pause would promote the orderly and efficient handling of the case.

The court found little risk of harm to Jane Doe from a brief stay because fact discovery had closed, the parties had disclosed their experts, and only expert depositions and dispositive motions remained. Jane Doe had said that any delay would harm her but had not explained how.

The court was not persuaded that the two cases involved identical issues. It nevertheless found some overlap in the parties’ theories that Uber had changed the transportation industry in a way that placed riders, particularly women, in a worse position. The court had previously denied Uber’s motion to dismiss based on that theory. The appellate decision could address the viability of the theory and narrow the issues for summary judgment and trial. The court therefore found that the first two factors favored a brief stay.

The court also found that a stay could promote the orderly handling of the case. Although the appellate decision might not resolve this case, it could narrow Jane Doe’s claim and affect what evidence would be admissible at summary judgment and trial.

Ruling

The court granted in part Uber’s renewed motion to stay. The stay applies only to dispositive motions and trial. It does not apply to expert discovery or to Uber’s efforts to depose the three witnesses Jane Doe identified after fact discovery closed.

The court vacated the existing trial and dispositive-motion schedule, reset trial to begin on November 7, 2022, and set the pretrial conference for October 20, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. The court extended the close of expert discovery to June 30, 2022. Uber must file its summary-judgment motion within two weeks after the appellate decision or by July 14, 2022, whichever is later. The order disposed of Docket No. 206.