Lyft Fights Attempt to Coordinate All Sex Assault Cases in California
Lyft, represented by Beth Stewart, a partner at Williams & Connolly, called the proposed move an "improvident and unprecedented invitation" to make "San Francisco Superior Court a national clearinghouse for claims against San Francisco-based companies."
January 09, 2020 at 06:58 PM
4 minute read
Ride-hailing firm Lyft Inc. is opposing a move by plaintiffs attorneys to coordinate more than 20 lawsuits that allege its drivers sexually assaulted passengers.
In a Los Angeles courtroom Wednesday, lawyers argued over whether to coordinate the suits as part of California's Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings. Lyft, represented by Beth Stewart, a partner at Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C., called the proposed move an "improvident and unprecedented invitation" to make "San Francisco Superior Court a national clearinghouse for claims against San Francisco-based companies," according to court documents.
"The cases do not concern a mass tort: plaintiffs do not allege that they were injured in the same catastrophic accident or by the same environmental contamination," she wrote in a Nov. 6 filing. "Nor, like many instances of coordinated litigation, do they allege they used the same defective drug or medical device. The sole common thread in the cases is that plaintiffs used the Lyft app to match with a driver."
She noted that the 38 alleged incidences in the cases occurred in 19 states, including California, Florida, New Jersey and New York.
Plaintiffs attorneys William Levin of San Francisco's Levin Simes Abrams and Brooks Cutter of Cutter Law in Oakland argued for coordination, according to attorney Mike Bomberger of San Diego's Estey & Bomberger, who was present at Wednesday's hearing. Bomberger's firm has filed five lawsuits on behalf of nearly 40 women.
"All these cases begin and end when Lyft created this app that put two strangers together in legalized hitchhiking," he said. "Their product created that platform, and they created the environment where predators can assault women. Also, they had knowledge for a long period of time of the number of assaults that happen in their vehicles."
Neither Stewart nor Lyft's local attorney, Warren Metlitzky of San Francisco's Conrad & Metlitzky, responded to requests for comment. Lyft spokeswoman Ashley Adams declined to comment.
The lawsuits, most filed in the past few months, alleged that Lyft failed to respond to incidences of sexual assault by its drivers against passengers, either by changing its screening practices or through its monitoring and surveillance procedures.
On Sept. 4, plaintiffs firm Levin Simes Abrams filed a petition to coordinate the lawsuits. Firm attorney Meghan McCormick said Lyft's headquarters in San Francisco and its "corporate conduct and decision making" are common factors in all the cases, which seek changes not unlike what Uber announced in its U.S. Safety Report last month.
"In our mind, it's an indication of what at a minimum Lyft could do more to be more responsible as a company in terms of ensuring the safety of its passengers," said McCormick, whose firm has 100 sexual assault clients who have sued Lyft, or plan to do so. "More than anything, we'd like there to be mandatory cameras in the car and a mechanism for a passenger to confirm a change in route or destination."
Bomberger, who filed the first sexual assault case in 2018, said a coordinated proceeding would have another benefit: helping plaintiffs attorneys combat what he called Lyft's refusal to provide discovery materials.
"I've been practicing for 24 years now, and I have never been part of a litigation where the defendant has stalled and slowed down discovery and litigation to the extent Lyft has," he said. "That's one of the reasons it's so important we have this consolidation—so we have one judge who can see how Lyft has conducted itself in discovery."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFilm Company Alleges Elon Musk, Tesla Used AI to Mimic 'Blade Runner' Scene
6 minute readNewsom Signs Lemon Law Changes Into Law, Averting Threatened Tort War
3 minute readFederal Judge Sides With Lyft Driver in Contractual Dispute Over $1M Uninsured Motorist Coverage
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250