A.H.M. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

A.H.M. sued Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC, which the opinion collectively calls “Uber.” She alleges that an Uber driver raped her during a ride arranged through the Uber application, causing emotional, mental, and physical trauma. She further alleges that Uber failed to take reasonable steps to address multiple reported rapes and sexual assaults by Uber drivers and misled the public about its response.

The complaint asserts claims based on respondeat superior, agency, ostensible agency, partnership, alter ego, other forms of vicarious liability, negligence, intentional misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and strict liability.

Request to Stay the Case

A.H.M., along with other plaintiffs making similar allegations, asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate related federal cases for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The opinion states that at least 47 federal actions involving passengers allegedly sexually assaulted by Uber drivers were pending in at least 14 judicial districts. The panel was scheduled to hear arguments about consolidation on September 28, 2023.

Uber had moved to dismiss the case and to transfer it to the Northern District of New York. Uber did not agree to pause the case while the panel considered consolidation, so A.H.M. filed the motion to stay.

Court’s Analysis

A stay is a temporary pause in a court proceeding. The court explained that district courts may stay proceedings to manage their dockets efficiently, and that the party requesting a stay must show that it is appropriate.

The court applied a three-factor framework addressing: (1) possible prejudice to the party opposing the stay, (2) hardship or unfairness to the party seeking the stay, and (3) judicial resources that could be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation. The court found that all three factors supported a stay.

First, the court found little risk of prejudice to Uber because the stay was expected to last only a few weeks at most. Second, the court found that denying a stay could substantially burden A.H.M. by requiring her to respond to Uber’s motions while the panel considered coordination. If the cases were consolidated, Uber’s transfer motion could become moot. Third, the court found that a stay would conserve judicial resources by avoiding work on Uber’s motions if the panel transferred the case elsewhere.

Disposition

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted A.H.M.’s motion to stay proceedings. The court vacated all current deadlines, including deadlines connected to Uber’s motions to dismiss and transfer venue, pending further order. The order states that it disposes of Docket Nos. 24 and 25.