Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Jane Doe asserted 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.

The court had previously granted in part Uber’s motion to stay the case while awaiting a decision from the California Court of Appeals in a related case involving similar legal and factual claims. The court had denied a stay of expert discovery but had continued the deadlines for dispositive motions and trial. The California appeals court later affirmed the superior court’s decision sustaining Uber’s demurrer without leave to amend. A demurrer is a state-court procedure challenging whether a complaint adequately states a claim.

Doe’s Requests

After the California appeals court issued its decision, Doe asked the federal court to stay the proceedings or grant a continuance. She wanted to wait to see whether a petition for review would be filed or accepted by the California Supreme Court, or whether the appeals court’s decision would be depublished. She also argued that she needed time to adapt to what she viewed as a significant change in California law.

Uber opposed further delay. The case was approaching key deadlines: expert discovery was scheduled to close on June 30, 2022; Uber’s summary-judgment motion was due July 14, 2022; Uber’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was set for hearing July 28; and trial was set for November 7.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the discretionary standard for a stay under Landis. It considered the possible harm to the parties and whether a stay would promote the orderly and efficient resolution of the case.

The court concluded that Doe had not shown a likely harm from proceeding. The possibility that the related case’s parties would seek review or depublication, and that either request would succeed, was too speculative. The court also rejected Doe’s characterization of the California appeals court’s decision as a major change in the law, explaining that the decision relied on principles from the California Supreme Court’s decision in Weirum v. RKO General, Inc.

The court found that Uber could be prejudiced by an indefinite delay because the case was in its final stages and delay could cause witnesses’ memories to fade and evidence to become stale. The court also concluded that the California appeals court’s published decision supplied guidance on the state-law issues, so another stay would not promote the orderly course of justice.

For the requested continuance, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)’s “good cause” standard. That standard focuses primarily on the diligence of the party seeking additional time. The court found that Doe had not identified which deadlines she could not meet despite being diligent.

Disposition

The court denied Doe’s motion for a stay or continuance. It dismissed Uber’s motion for judgment on the pleadings without prejudice to renewal in the context of Uber’s forthcoming summary-judgment motion. The court directed Uber to file its summary-judgment motion by July 14, 2022, and stated that Doe would have three weeks to respond.