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

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 A.H.M., Case No. 23-cv-03482-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 10 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 24 Defendants. [12] 13 Plaintiff brings this action against Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC (collectively 14 “Uber”) arising out of an assault she suffered from her Uber driver. This is just one of hundreds of 15 similar cases filed in federal court around the country. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 16 Litigation (“JPML”) is presently considering whether to consolidate these federal cases before one 17 district court for pretrial purposes. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to stay 18 proceedings until the JPML issues its decision. (Dkt. Nos. 24; 17.) 1 After carefully considering 19 the briefing, the Court concludes oral argument is not required, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), 20 VACATES the October 5, 2023 hearing, and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to stay. All case 21 deadlines are vacated, including deadlines in connection with Defendants’ motions to dismiss and 22 transfer venue, pending further order of the Court. Plaintiff has met her burden to establish a stay 23 is warranted and Defendants will not be prejudiced by a brief stay. 24 COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 25 Uber is an app-based transportation company. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 2.) Plaintiff alleges that 26 during a ride procured using the Uber app, the Uber driver raped her, causing emotional, mental, [27] 1 and physical trauma. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 61-74.) Plaintiff claims Defendants “failed to take reasonable 2 steps to confront the problem of multiple rapes and sexual assaults on Uber Passengers by Uber 3 drivers[.]” (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 75.) Plaintiff also contends Defendants intentionally misled the public 4 by falsely claiming to take steps to address the sexual assault problem on its platform. (Dkt. No. 1 5 at 20.) 6 Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants under theories of respondeat superior, agency, 7 ostensible agency, partnership, alter-ego, other forms of vicarious liability, negligence, intentional 8 misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and strict 9 liability. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1, 5.) 10 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 11 After filing this action, Plaintiff, along with other plaintiffs making similar claims, brought 12 a motion for consolidation to the JPML. (Dkt. No. 14.) “[A]t least 47 federal actions filed against 13 Defendants seeking relief for individual passengers who were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers,” 14 pending in at least 14 different judicial districts. (Dkt. No. 24-1 at ¶ 5.) The JPML decision may 15 centralize this matter into a federal Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated or consolidated 16 proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 . The JPML is scheduled to hear argument regarding 17 consolidation on September 28, 2023. (MDL, 23-3482, Dkt. No. 10.) 18 After Plaintiff filed the JPML consolidation motion, Defendants moved to dismiss and to 19 change venue to the Northern District of New York. (Dkt. Nos. 17; 20.) They refuse to agree to 20 stay proceedings here pending the JPML’s consolidation decision; hence, Plaintiff had to file this 21 motion to stay. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A district court’s power to stay its proceedings is “incidental to the power inherent in every 24 court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and for itself, for 25 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The party 26 seeking a stay bears the burden of establishing a stay is appropriate. See Ohio Envtl. Council v. 27 U.S. Dist. Court, 565 F.2d 393 , 396 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255 ). Here, 1 When considering whether to grant a stay, district courts should weigh “competing 2 interests.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. 248 at 3 254-255). “Among these competing interests are the possible damage which may result from the 4 granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go 5 forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of 6 issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. 7 Some courts evaluate competing interests, specifically where a JPML decision is pending, 8 by applying the Rivers test which considers the following factors: “(1) potential prejudice to the 9 non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) 10 the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact 11 consolidated.” Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997); see e.g. 12 Couture v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., No. 12-cv-2657-PJH, WL 3042994, *2 (N.D.Cal. 2012) 13 (applying the Rivers test); see also City of Corona v. 3M Company, 2021 WL 3829700 , *2 14 (C.D.Cal. 2021) (noting the Rivers test is one of two tests used by courts in the Central District of 15 California). The Rivers test is not binding on this Court, but it adequately addresses the competing 16 interests in this case and both parties use the test as a framework for their arguments. (Dkt. No. 24 17 at 6-7; Dkt. No. 27 at 3.) Applying the Rivers test here, all three factors support a stay. 18 First, there is a low risk of prejudice to Uber. The stay is short and will likely delay the 19 case only a few weeks, at most. The JPML is set to hear the arguments on September 28, 2023. 20 (Dkt. No. 24-1 at 13.) Indeed, given Uber set argument on their motions for January 11, 2024, 21 there is a good chance the stay will not delay these proceedings at all even if consolidation is 22 denied. 23 Second, denying the stay creates a substantial risk of hardship and inequity to Plaintiff 24 because requiring her to file oppositions to Uber’s motions while the JPML considers coordination 25 could be a needless use of time and resources. If the JPML decides to consolidate, the motion to 26 transfer venue becomes moot. 27 Third, judicial economy strongly favors a stay. Although a stay is not automatic when a 1 economy. See Rivers, 980 F.Supp. at 1362 (noting most courts find a stay is appropriate while 2 awaiting a JPML decision to consolidate). A stay could conserve judicial resources because a 3 JPML decision might consolidate and transfer this matter elsewhere in which case this Court will 4 || have needlessly spent scarce judicial resources resolving (or at least preparing to resolve) Uber’s 5 || motions. Indeed, Uber’s unwillingness to stipulate to a brief stay of Plaintiff's oppositions to its 6 || motions pending the JPML decision—even though Uber did not schedule the motions to be heard 7 until January 2024—has already wasted scarce judicial resources. The Court will not allow Uber 8 || to waste even more. 9 In sum, all the relevant facts strongly favor a stay of proceedings pending the JPML 10 || decision. 11 CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff motion to stay is GRANTED. All current deadlines 5 13 are vacated. 14 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 24 and 25. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: September 22, 2023 , Std 8 CQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States District Judge